Considering we’re discussing wholesale “breed bans”, your proclaimed credo “Your rights end when you give up your ability to protect them.” is ironic, at best.
Guns kill far more people than pit bulls, every day.
You *are* aware that gun bans and breed bans have a strong commonality, aren’t you?
It’s CONTROL of the freedom to own what you have a right to.
Just as the majority of guns never kill anyone, neither do the majority of pit bulls.
Care to reconcile that ideological conundrum?
You either fight nanny-statism in *every* form or you become complicit in it.
No, I am talking only about pit bulls.
Guns kill far more people than pit bulls, every day.
That logic has been proved here many times to be fallacious. Guns do not jump out of their holster all on their own and go maul somebody - or even shoot them. It is not a valid analogy and it is silly to suggest it.
You *are* aware that gun bans and breed bans have a strong commonality, aren’t you??
In the context of this discussion, there is no commonality whatsoever.
And what is with the * * thingys you are inserting into your post??? Are you typing in texting symbols? Actually will appreciate an answer on this.
You are also reaching when you try to say the State should not have any say in the control of wild beast in residential neighborhoods. To use a correct analogy, do you advocate allowing people to keep a tiger in their home?