CALIFORNIA PEOPLE

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Brin, I believe she is against the ban of the pitbull. Not for it. But you are correct that this subject is parallel to that of the anti gun arguement.

spazz wrote:How ya gonna mate mans best friend.

Probably going to let them do it themselves...

Drem · Post by **Drem** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:51 pm

abortions don't kill people unaborted babies kill people

Minrott · Post by **Minrott** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:44 am

The only thing I have to say is, if other people decide my dog is bad, when that specific dog has neither roamed from my property or caused anyone any grievence whatsoever; if they think for one fucking second they'd make it through my door to take it away for euthanization without a SWAT team they're fucking insane.

Run on sentence for the win.

Kramer · Post by **Kramer** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:54 am

araby · Post by **araby** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:04 pm

"I'm sorry I was born"

leah · Post by **leah** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:40 pm

i know that one made me really sad too

Post by **Lyion** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:12 pm

Heavens forbid we have democracy or actually vote on these things. Anyone should be able to do anything they want, and have any pet they want, period.

dammuzis · Post by **dammuzis** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:49 pm

ban pitbulls and then rotties will be next, then german shepards, then the next mid size dogs

pit bulls are like any other dog, the reason there are so many mean ones is (gasp) because their owners train them that way

so since great danes were orriginally bred only for battle should we ban them too?

Post by **Martrae** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:59 pm

Tuggan wrote:
Martrae wrote:Sorry, I save my concern for things that matter. The outlawing of dogs is not even on my radar.

T.Jeff wrote:The price of liberty is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson

You dipshit.

Yes, because dogs were one of the things Jefferson had so high on his priority list it's the focal point of the Constitution.

/sarcasm off

Animals get banned. It happens.

Adivina · Post by **Adivina** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:03 pm

Yup, I bet my dog should be banned too, seeing as they were first used as Japanese fighting dogs then perfected as bear hunters.

A long while back the Akita was the Japanese version of a pitbull, with the exception that their dog fights are vastly different from ours. For one, it is legal in Japan. Also dogs are not forced to fight, if the two dogs are put in the ring and do not fight, then they move on. Also, fights are not to the death, but until a dog submits for the first time. Which is much unlike pitbull fighting, where the dogs are trained not to submitt and if the dog submitts it is usually killed by its owner for being a "cur".

Sorry I just went on a tangent, but almost every dog was used for something in history that is looked upon in a negative light today. Unfortunately, pits are still used for this today, and that is what has made them be percieved as a such a menace.

I agree 100% if someone tried to come in my house and euthanize my dog, who has not ever done anything wrong, they would need the fucking swat team.

Adivina · Post by **Adivina** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:05 pm

there's one big difference, of course.. dogs have minds and emotions and instincts, whereas an unheld gun is simply a paperweight.

Yeah, that is where I see a difference, this is a living breathing creature not a peice of metal. No body falls in love with their gun and cries when their gun breaks, they go get a new one or just say screw it. When a dog dies there is a large difference because it was a living thing that people bond with.

labbats · Post by **labbats** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:43 pm

So I heard that there will be a big drive in California on this, similar to those gun drives they have. Except you get a gerbil for every pit bull you turn in.

Tacks · Post by **Tacks** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:54 pm

Martrae wrote:
Tuggan wrote:
Martrae wrote:Sorry, I save my concern for things that matter. The outlawing of dogs is not even on my radar.

T.Jeff wrote:The price of liberty is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson

You dipshit.

Yes, because dogs were one of the things Jefferson had so high on his priority list it's the focal point of the Constitution.

/sarcasm off

Animals get banned. It happens.

Good thing your opinion means absolutely nothing and is extremely low on lawmakers (and our) priority list.

If anything, they should ban your stupid ass for thinking and reproducing and infecting our species with your, sure to be, narrow-minded parasites.

Tuggan · Post by **Tuggan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:03 pm

AdivinaDarkfyre wrote:Yeah, that is where I see a difference, this is a living breathing creature not a peice of metal. No body falls in love with their gun and cries when their gun breaks, they go get a new one or just say screw it. When a dog dies there is a large difference because it was a living thing that people bond with.

I love my guns, and would cry should they break. :cry:

Tacks · Post by **Tacks** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:10 pm

wiggaz

Adivina · Post by **Adivina** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:30 pm

Mart - So because the constitution says nothing about how many children a family can have, should the government be able to change that too? Just because it is a small issue does not mean it should be ignored. How would you feel if the government for some reason decided only one child could be had per household, if you had more they would take your child away from you even though you had the child prior to the law.

The issue may seem small, but when it comes to liberties that we enjoy, no issue should be too small for recognition.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:03 pm

AdivinaDarkfyre wrote:Mart - So because the constitution says nothing about how many children a family can have, should the government be able to change that too?

In all actuallity, I see this as a subject that is not too far in the future.

I personally see nothing wrong with a population cap. It would curb those damn Christains from gaining in numbers! I also think that a person or couple should have to attend a class and pass a test before having a child. If they don't take the class or fail the test, the child goes to a family that can pass a test to raise a child. You need a license to own a dog or to fish. Why not to have a child?

With the overwhelming number of unfit parents in this world, that would put a huge dent in the number of abused and unwanted children!

Drem · Post by **Drem** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:26 pm

where do you have to have a license to own a dog? haha that sucks

Ouchyfish · Post by **Ouchyfish** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:34 pm

Jesus fucking christ...see, it's when you fucking animal nuts go comparing animals to humans that it makes me happy when i think of how many dogs I run over on a weekly basis.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:53 pm

Drem wrote:where do you have to have a license to own a dog? haha that sucks

Sorry, a dog has to be licensed if it is an outside dog. I wrote that wrong.

Post by **Martrae** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:27 pm

Yes, I can totally see how regulating potentially dangerous animals relates to how many children you can have.

People who raise these animals always say the same thing. "If treated right an animal won't attack." I say bullshit, you can never train away that instinct and you haven't a clue what might set them off. Not very far from here a little girl was crying on her porch when the neighbors 'tame and family loving' pit bulls bust thru their door, knocked down their gate on their fence and mauled her. Another neighbor saw it and got the girl free but died from the bites.

Captain Insano · Post by **Captain Insano** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 pm

mofish wrote:Lemme add another cute pic to the thread :

lol he's going bald! rofl

leah · Post by **leah** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:16 pm

BAN DOGS!!! BAN THEM RIGHT IN THEIR ASSES!!

hehe jk

Diekan · Post by **Diekan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:30 pm

Let's be real about this. Pitbulls were designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Whether it's some homie with a status symbol or some old lady with one for a "family" pet - it's all the same. This breed of dog is DANGEROUS. It has a crushing bite more powerful than a leopard's for Christ's sake.

I can't find the site now, but I did see a study that showed the majority of death by dog bite incidents in the US were by pit's. Hi, ban them. They're too powerful and too destructive for human's to "own."

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:56 pm

My vet told me that there bite isnt really any diffrent diek. They got a lotta determination thats all but you can train any dog to fight and you can train any dog to be a family pet. Only dogs i have ever had any kind of problems with are the little yappy ankle biter kind.