Posted on 02/28/2009 11:31:01 AM PST by BGHater
My connection keeps going down, it's the government's fault (no) it's something else, but I may not be able to respond at all here shortly because it seems to cut out late afternoon until 7:00 am when it's acting up which it has been for about 3 months now, can't get the issue resolved. I'm probably done for now, trying to get it back up, will try to get this post to take.
In your scenario, who would get the McMansions? Never mind.
Geeez folks, can't we make the distinction between government stepping on rights that only effect us and those rights that lead to serious or mortal damage to others? To use an overused analogy, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre because it may lead to harm for others, even if I would love to have my own pet tiger, in most places that is against the law for obvious reasons.
Whether I choose to have a 52" LCD TV or a Hummer effects my life and does not pose serious bodily harm to anyone else. If I choose to have a 357 magnum safely sequestered in my home does not pose a threat to anyone except a criminal who chooses to breach my property. If we are unable to make a distinction between these matters, we, as Conservatives, are not being serious thinkers and are only succumbing to muddled logic. Let's keep a common sense perspective - there are ALWAYS common sense limits on individual liberty - its just a matter of where you draw the line. Are you OK with just suing the owner whose pit bull mutilates or kills one of your loved ones? Is that really all the compensation YOU need?
My point is that the pit bull that goes awry, unlike the cocker spaniel, is more like the tiger or crazy Chimpanzee and should be analyzed as such. There are dogs and then there are wolves in dog's clothing! In a society of ABSOLUTE freedom, without ANY government restrictions for your safety and that of others, you should be able to have any wild animal we want in our backyard - are you OK with that?
I know there are those whose happiness depends on having a right to own a pit bull, but even the Declaration of Independence puts your right to PURSUE happiness below my right to LIFE and LIBERTY.
Yup. The Oregonian had a series on Red China becoming a “green” country, and they lavished accolades on a huge apartment complex, one of the biggest in the world, built to “green” standards.
The complex was built on land where hundreds of private “inefficient” houses had existed, housing thousands of people.
So Red China seized the land, destroyed the houses, and built this monstrous public housing project, and the Oregonian just raved about the concept...destroying inefficient, private houses where individual families lived and replacing it with a concrete gulag where many thousands will live under the same roof, under the control of the State.
And the writers just LOVED the concept.
Yuck.
Ed
Wasn’t this tried in the 60’s in inner cities? OOps, high rise ghettos
Yeah...there’s some horrific projects in Bed-Stuy, Bronx...and some in Gary, some in Youngstown, some in Detroit.
Horrible places to live...
Ed
This is wrong and it is not a good analogy, either. Yes you can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You might suffer some consequences for it, depending on the circumstances. For example, supposing there actually were a fire. Your ability to utter the word is still intact. You still have a "choice" whether to shout the word or not.
These pit-bull regulations go further because they take away your choice. Not all pit-bulls are criminals, but the law criminalizes all pit-bulls.
Woof
Those that support this are insane. They fail to see the long term here.
It won’t stop with pit bulls.
If I choose to have a pit bull safely sequestered in my home it does not pose a threat to anyone except a criminal who chooses to breach my property.
I’m curious how they decide what’s a pit bull? Will they use the one drop rule? This is complete and total silliness. Enforce leash laws, enforce dangerous dog laws (based on a dog’s behavior) and hold people criminally liable if their dog kills or seriously harms someone.
Even tho I have dogs I hate when people don’t pick up after their dogs. I generally take mine out back before I walk her so she can go in my yard, but take a bag just in case.
Not pitbull related but PETA and HSUS have successfully brought mandatory spay/neuter laws up all over the country. The dog fancy is working night and day to try to get these things defeated. It’s really a simple property rights issue, but in the current climate today, people see dogs as furry humans, not as property, and it’s a tough road to hoe.
When we were kids my little brother was attacked (unprovoked) by an Akita. When I worked for a vet I was attacked by a cocker spaniel (good thing I was faster than the cocker!) and we had a client with a pair of chows who mauled their own child. Do you want to also add those breeds to your list?
As long as my dogs are healthy, well fed and under control there is absolutely no rational basis from which to make demands they be mutilated. I will not neuter my boys and I will not spay my girls and NO ONE is going to force me to do it while I am alive and capable of preventing it.
My guys are more important to me than anyone outside the family and I will kill to protect them from any predators, two or four legged. I would hope any dog owner would be willing to take the same steps when confronted with an irrational demand to mutilate their pets to pacify some deranged individual with a delusional faith in their castration crusade.
So say you, but there are those who would disagree, and they seem to have the ear of the politician.
I just realize I wrote “tough ROAD to hoe” gosh, I’m losing my brain, I know it’s tough ROE to hoe. Sheesh. Sorry about that.
Actually it's "row to hoe." ;-)
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.