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?
JayGalt wrote: “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”?”
Your statement could be easily rewritten: ‘Even though the right to bear arms is the second amendment to the Constitution, I have trouble understanding why not another type of rifle, one with less firepower? Why with all the rifles available are there so many folks that believe their desire to have an AR-15 type outweighs the risks to children and other people? Is it just “I want what I want”?’
It’s all the same argument, let the government decide what is too dangerous for you to own, all in the interest of the children, of course.
Stop and think for a minute. The arguments against pit bulls are the same as the arguments about AR-15s. The AR-15s certainly have the protection of the Constitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re willing to let the government decide what you can own based upon their interpretation of how it looks. Do you honestly think those professional animal shelter workers will make honest determinations or will they be like a democrat senator deciding what guns to ban based upon her feelings looks too scary for what someone should be allowed to own?