[Mojave]

Somebody who keeps a pitbull in a residential neighborhood, who keeps their dog under control on their property, and who never harms or threatens another person should not be subject to any penalty at all.

Just wait until the pit bull maims or kills a neighbor's child. So by your "reasoning" somebody who drives drunk in a residential neighborhood, who keeps their car in their lane, and who never runs over another person should not be subject to any penalty at all.

That sir, is the difference between you and me

Indeed. I respect the rule of law, you don't.

[Joe 6-pack]

You're going to throw your back out if keep up the contortions.

"So by your "reasoning" somebody who drives drunk in a residential neighborhood, who keeps their car in their lane, and who never runs over another person should not be subject to any penalty at all."

DUI is against the law, as is failing to maintain control of your dog. Both should be enforced with similar vigor. By your "reasoning" we should ban liquor and cars.

"I respect the rule of law, you don't."

No. If you did, you'd want people to be held accountable in front of existing law, not pass new "feel good" laws that have been abject failures where they've already been implemented...but don't let the facts and empirical data get in the way while you're embracing your inner-tyrant.

[solosmoke]

“Just wait until the pit bull maims or kills a neighbor’s child. “<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Therein lies the quandary. The percentage of pit bulls that DO harm people is less than 1%. You are basing your entire opinion on the idea that the other 99% are the same, which they obviously aren’t. If the 10 million living pit bulls all of a sudden BECAME the dogs you think they are, then we would have a serious problem, and you would see fatalities go up dramatically. Fortunately, that is not the case.