Posted on 05/03/2010 8:20:16 PM PDT by Chet 99
I'm as opposed as anybody to BSL, because I KNOW that if pits are banned, that won't be enough. They'll then come for the Rotts, the Dobies, the Sheps, etc.
It's such a predictable model that the left uses...just as with firearms, SUV's etc. they use a complicit media to create a crisis, cede power to government to legislate and regulate, and *pooof!* another right has vanished...whether it's incremental or sudden, they take all they can get and don't let up.
Any so-called conservative or libertarian that doesn't have a problem with banning a breed is completely blind to how the enemy operates. Tyrants, thieves and bandits are afraid of dogs...that's why muslims don't like them, and jackbooted thugs single them out for execution. Banning *scary* dogs is just one step further towards disarming citizens and making them defenseless.
Very well said!
Follow up articles are taboo?
Slow news day?
Do a rehash.
You said prove it.
I did.
No, sorry, you didn’t prove anything. All you did was provide evidence that Chet posted a follow up article on a previous attack story. That is hardly the same as posting the exact same article using a different heading. But, thanks for playing.
And by the way - This thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2488810/posts?q=1&;page=1#1
Was originally posted on April 7th. It ran continuously until 10:36PM on April 11th, with a total of 234 posts. There was plenty of room for “updates.”
This thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2489417/posts
Was posted with a more sensationalized title on April 8th.
I don’t care what ~you~ say. That’s milking the same cow twice.
So, two different articles about the same incident from two different sources. And your point is . . . . . . . (crickets - waiting, waiting, waiting). Ah, that’s right you have no point. That is a part of your charm. If Chet wishes to post two different articles regarding one incident he has every right to do so. If you have a problem with the fact that Chet has a propensity for posting threads about the dangers of this particular breed of dog, then don’t visit the thread. It is not likely that Pit Bulls are going to be banned as a breed, so you’re perfectly safe in your perseveration of Pits. I personally appreciate that Chet is willing to take your abuse in order to inform others of the danger that exists with this breed so that people may make an informed decision regarding ownership instead of being surprised when their loving family pet viciously removes the testicles of their six month old baby boy during an unprovoked attack.
Just a tiny bit of revisionist history there, wouldn’t you say?
Lighten up, Francis.
Yep, keep pushing that rock up the slope. Perhaps one day you’ll make progress.
well muleskinner
you need a big plate and some sharp knives for the crow hoss
“I personally appreciate that Chet is willing to take your abuse”
Shirley, you jest.
Chet *thrives* on the abuse.
The only way we could make him ‘happier’ would involve whips, ball gags, latex and chains.
[you really haven’t figured out his “problem” yet, have you? such a pity...almost everyone else has which is why, if *we* don’t come in and “feed his Frankenstein”, his threads die premature deaths of a dozen replies or less.]
LMAO.....in *stereo*....;-D
Yep.
Thick as a brick.
I’m sorry for you. Must be difficult going through life that way.
.....;]
You have it backwards. The problem isn’t Chet’s. Who do you think is getting the laughs from you and your pro-pit friends? Let me know if you need help with the answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.