Posted on 09/22/2017 11:26:08 AM PDT by Boomer
Tucker Carlson reported that several jurisdictions may soon consider motions to create registries for animal abusers the same way sex offenders are documented.
Carlson said Tennessee is currently the only state that has such a registry.
But, he said legislation has been passed in Cook County, Ill., which is home to Chicago, and Massachusetts and Arizona are considering legislation to create such lists.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
I doubt they would increase it to what I think it should be but every step in that direction helps. Maybe one day we will figure out people who do this have no business living. Period.
How about baby murderers? Do they have to register? Nah. We’ll protect unborn dolphins but slaughter our unborn children.
Good!
Anyone that intentionally harms little kids, the mentally disabled or animals, and those teachers who seduce their students deserve the WORST to happen to them!
Sickos!
Also a good point!
A person that abuses animals can be expected to abuse humans.
They don’t have the empathy gene.
No, because the bar would be constantly being raised. Today, dogs and cats, in ten years chickens, pigs, cows.
Fast-forward to the near future when speaking against pedophilia will be considered hate speech.
I agree.
When I was raising my family I told them,when they were young children,to have NOTHING to do with any child who was mean to animals.
.
Oops. Meant to post here:
No Long-Term Harm? The New Scientific Silence on Child-Adult Sex and the Age of Consent
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3588081/posts
Abattoir workers most affected.
Who gets to define this? Perhaps PETA will say that killing cows, chickens, pigs, etc for food is "harming innocent animals on purpose." Applying "hate-type" penalties to harming animals intentionally slides us down a slope that a more progressive administration could use for their own benefit.
I don't like the idea of anyone intentionally harming my pets or others' pets or even abusing animals meant for slaughter, but I don't want to open the door that seems like a good idea now that might be used later to close down our rights.
Here's a seemingly outlandish example: PETA and others think that we aren't pet owners but are instead pet adopters. If we agreed with that and put a collar on our pets, is that abuse? You might not agree but the Powers-That-Be may just use it to charge you with intentional harm of an animal.
I don't know the future but I don't want to give the next progressive administration; federal, state, or local, an opening to make us feel like we have slipped into 1984.
I stepped on a spider today . . . on purpose . . . where do I register?
I understand people want to protect animals, and that abusing animals is a sign of something deeper being wrong with you... but I can only see this as more government, bigger government, more overreach, more authoritarian, etc.
I brushed my teeth this morning, killing millions of bacteria.
Am I guilty, or are you sizeist?
How long before animal activeists use this to go after the meat industry?
How long before animal activeists use this to go after the meat industry?
How long before animal activeists use this to go after the meat industry?
I back this 100%. Anyone who willfully abuses animals should damned well have a social stigma attached to them.
Good.
Anyone who can’t make a clear distinction between animals used for food (who *STILL* should not be subject to any more pain or stress than necessary) and others (be it a PETA member or someone whining about a slippery slope) is an idiot.
Personally, anyone inflicting pain on a dog or cat or parrot should be shot on the spot.
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.