Posted on 08/04/2018 10:29:02 PM PDT by Norski
First time for a proposed pit bull ban to go before voters prior to taking effect
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri––Opens Question 1 on the August 7, 2018 primary election ballot for the City of Springfield, Missouri:
“Shall the City of Springfield establish a future ban upon the possession of new pit bull dogs within the City limits by prohibiting acceptance of any new pit bull registrations and only allowing renewals of existing current pit bull dog registrations?”
The language of the proposed Springfield pit bull ban was approved by the city council, voting 5-4, in November 2017. Backlash
“The backlash was immediate,” recalls Springfield News-Leader reporter Alissa Zhu. “Residents threatened to boycott businesses associated with the five council members who voted for the ordinance. Within a month, more than 7,800 people signed a petition, circulated by a local group called Citizens Against BSL, in an effort to stop the ban.”
Enough petition signatures were certified to put the proposed ordinance before the Springfield voters. The outcome appears likely to be decided by how effectively pit bull ban opponents and proponents mobilize during the next few days to get out the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at animals24-7.org ...
Wait, wait, wait! Are you a pit bull defender, Boomer? I was thinking otherwise, but maybe I was wrong. Tell me which, if you would, please.
I’m a dog defender since they can’t speak for themselves here against these hateful ugly people who know nothing about what they speak.
Remember; beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes clear to the bone.
WOW, a voice of reason here on the thread.
Incoming..........
Thank you.
I figured it was so far out there that people would see it for the hyperbole it was.
I guess I did not count on the irrational who can’t think straight when someone has a different opinion than them.
Read his posting history for an eye opener.
I am being very specific. I did NOT ask you about pointers, retrievers, spaniels, collies, or just mutts that are a crossbreed between them, not bred to be an attack dog.
I think you’re right, MM; that I got it wrong on Boomer
Statistics and breeding show that pit bulls, Rottweillers, and wolves are not trainable to be trustworthy in any human hands, and ought to be banned if I had the controoling decision.
Poor little baby is having a widdle temper tantrum. Poor widdle baby. Hey metmom; grab a baby bottle out of the fridge and warm one up for our little pooh bear.
Did you really think that yelling at me would elicit a favorable response? You can join the others here in your mentally damaged asylum. Where do you people slither in from. I didn’t know they opened the gates of hell and let you in. Or would that be ‘out’. It gets kinda confusing at this point.
It would be hateful to ignore the hazard these dogs present. Neither is it lawful to have a lion or tiger or bear as a pet.
Pit bulls are, literally, a killer waiting for the right snap stimulus.
All that proves is that there are lots of stupid people out there.
Trend analysis says that the likely hood of a maiming, mauling, or fatal attack increases with the frequency of interactions with a pit bull.
Now, it is You, not metmom, that needs directing over to the DUmp.
Boomer, you may enjoy the company of pit bulls. Fine. If you do, I sincerely hope you never have to live through what other owners and neighbors of owners have had to.
Mauling and killing of their children, their neighbors, and other family members, and others dogs.
BUT, if you do have to live through that, you might find yourself wondering why your little sweetums snapped.
In the meantime, understand that, those of us who can see that these animals can be a very unpredictable and unforgiving danger, are going to speak out about it, despite your feeling that they really just a bunch of loveable creampuffs.
Far less likely to bite? Debatable.
BUT, when they bite, oh the consequences.
RoadGumby wrote: “Far less likely to bite? Debatable. BUT, when they bite, oh the consequences.”
An AR-15 isn’t likely to be used in a crime but when it is “oh, the consequences.”
Do you really want a government bureaucrat telling you, in his professional opinion, of course, that a certain breed of dog or type of rifle, is far too dangerous for you to own because of how it looks? It’s the same argument.
Why? Because I pointed out the painful truth of the wickedness of these vile people who want to destroy the family members of others? I think not.
Another anti-Freeper shows his true colors. The one feature I really wish we had here was the ability to put individual members on ‘ignore’ so they don’t show up at all. These hate-threads have many who would be on that list. They are far more radicalized leftists than honorable conservatives IMHO. They have outed themselves for all to see.
Remember fear/hate mongers; when you go looking for vengeance first dig two graves. One for your target and one for yourself. Chances are very good only the one for self will be needed.
Some speak for the unborn who can’t speak for themselves. Others, like me and a few others here, speak for the dogs who also have no voice. By painting an entire breed with the same broad brush you ignore the majority of these beautiful, loyal, smart, and amazing fur kids who are just fine.
I’m the good guy here. You dog killer wannabe’s are the bad guys. It’s just that simple. Accept it. Just don’t for one second think you’re doing anything honorable or good because you are not when you advocate for the death of an entire breed of dogs. You are the bad guy. You are the villain.
I can’t agree with your analogy. The right to bear arms is the second amendment to the Constitution. It is specifically protection against tyranny. Misuse of guns may get a person jail time &/or banned from ownership as a felon. Guns can be used in many ways but we have the right to use them, the responsibility to use them safely and the State will enforce those responsibilities.
A pitbull is an animal that may be a pet or a defense. Unlike a gun it is not enshrined in the amendments to the constitution, it can act of it’s own volition and there are brain changes in the pitbull related breeds that result in unanticipated violent attacks where people are maimed or killed.
Just as with guns the owning of pitbulls is subject to State & Local authority guidelines. If the judgement in a locality is that there are too many incidents and owners are not able to adequately restrain the breed type to avoid violent incidents than the locality will ban them. This is not an infringement on Liberty; nor is it a denial of a Constitutionally protected right; it is a public health & saftey issue.
I think the governments while neither all knowing nor infallible have a public duty to make a best effort to safeguard public saftey. It’s part of the cost of living in civilization to give up some freedoms from needing to conform with building regulations, to immunizations for schools, rabies shots for dogs and even indoor cats(which may cause tumors & other ailments).
I have trouble understanding why not another breed, one with less of a tendency to violent attacks? Why with all the breeds available are there so many folks that believe their desire to have a pitbull type outweighs the risks to children and other people? Is it just “I want what I want”?
They’re no longer allowed to own guns?
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.