Replies

What? BAD analogy to start. Guns do not have instinct—they cannot get loose and run around maiming and killing. Pit Bulls can, and do. I’m a dog lover but NO ONE needs a Pit Bull — they are truly dangerous. Flame on... Hoss

Read carefully and you will see that while I am a fan of "war dogs" and have owned plenty, for lack of a better term, dogs that were specifically bred throughout history to guard / attack humans or hunt large dangerous animals, I am even more in favor of Draconian laws coming down hard on irresponsible owners.

Yes, certain dogs, if allowed to do so, can "hunt" and horribly maim or kill humans and many other animal species - of that there is no argument. It has happened before and it will happen again. Dogs are simply modified wolves. Predators. And boy do we love our dogs!

Until we get rid of Liberals - society will never have true freedom and the true personal responsibility that comes with true freedom.

Liberals use your specific argument about guns; "No one needs a gun! That's what police and the military are for!".

It is never the object - it is always the person using or owning the object. Lets keep the focus on personal responsibility. If someone can demonstrate they are able to contain a dangerous animal - why shouldn't they be able to own it as long as they sign a document that says if the animal gets loose and kills or maims someone then the owner agrees that he, or she, shall be equally killed or maimed by the same method?

This is true freedom. This is true justice. This is true personal responsibility and puts an end to excuses on all sides.

Then, wannabe's who own these breeds just for their ego would think twice or simply would not qualify to own one and only true professionals, and/or the wealthy would own them. Everyone wins.

Bottom line - poor people should not own large breeds that are known for attacks if they do not have the insurance money to back it up and also expensive fencing.

Laws could be enacted that require double or triple fencing specified by building code and inspected before approval, buried six feet deep with concrete aprons, 10 feet high with razor wire, triple locked gates with alarms that dial into the police station if left open, etc. Invisible fence shock collars that deliver a knock-out shock should the animal break through the final barrier (far more than what is sold commercially), GPS tracking, etc. In other words, basically Club Gitmo for Brutus.

The laws could be enhanced to where police or any citizen has the right to immediately execute your dog on the spot no questions asked, should they so choose, the second it crosses your property line off a leash - and then you get billed for the round expended and any cleanup/disposal costs involved.

Hey, got a million dollars to spend on containment? Great! Own all the killer dogs you want!

THAT is true personal responsibility. THAT is truly accepting the consequences of your actions - or failure to act.

Likewise those doing the shooting better know what they are doing. Should they "accidentally" shoot someone, then they are to be shot with exactly the same weapon in the same general location. If they die, tough. If the shooter accidentally kills someone shooting a dog that was not attacking someone - then the shooter should be put to death. Sorry, total freedom = tough love. In this way we slowly rid the gene pool of idiots - to the extent possible - over time.

In other words - there are ways to allow people who REALLY want to own dangerous animals - to own one. Dangerous could be specified by weight or bite force or another method but the bottom line shall always be the owner is responsible regardless of the weight or bite force. The only thing standing in the way of true freedom and true personal responsibility are mealy mouthed excuses "well that's too expensive". "That's not practical and it is inconvenient for me". "That is cruel". "that is too Draconian". "You are discriminating against poor people". So?

If someone breaks into a home or trespasses and has to climb several fences and pass by many warning signs to do so and is then torn asunder by attack dogs - in that case the owner should be held harmless and given a medal.

I will agree that guns are far safer than large dogs as guns are simply an inert assembly of metal, wood and or/plastic. But people should be allowed to have them as long as they are willing to accept TOTAL responsibility. And not just mouth the words like 99.99% of people do - but actually accept the financial responsibility to keep the animal contained and the consequences of an eye for an eye if it gets out and kills someone. No excuses, no "but it was just an accident" pleas.

Gun owners should not be held liable if someone steals their guns. On the other hand, the laws need to be changed to where anyone who steals guns from a private citizen should be put to death - no excuse. And that includes any government official who would seek to infringe upon a citizens right to keep and bear arms. I don't see a down side to that concept. That way, you are more free to store your guns as you see fit. Always about freedom.

Same thing should go for zoos. If zoos are not willing to accept personal responsibility and guarantee 100% that the animal won't get out and if it does and hurts people, then those responsible shall greatly suffer - then zoos should not be allowed to keep said animal. Either do it right, or don't do it at all. If we can land men on the moon we can build containment systems that will 100% guarantee animals won't escape by incorporating very expensive redundancy. Want to play? Then pay.

Problem is, most people and most institutions want to do things for minimal cost and do them half-assed.

Even if it means maintaining an expensive armed guard force 24/7, it can be done. Hey, never said it had to be practical or cheap to own one. Just said that it CAN be done safely, if there is sufficient will to do so. If you want to own one bad enough and got the money to do so - have at it! That's responsible freedom.

The real issue is money and convenience. People don't want to be inconvenienced or want to spend the money required to actually do 100% personal responsibility.

In other words, most people want total freedom to do whatever they want - without an ounce of personal responsibility. Most people want total freedom without any complications. Enforcing personal responsibility can be complicated, can be expensive, inconvenient, and excuses always abound.