Do You Think it's OK to Ban Whole Breeds of Dogs?

[RightOfCenter]

Man that would be great.

Assault rifles and Income are property too.

They certainly are and shouldn't be restricted. I'd recommend checking out Goobieman's "Can you recognize an assault weapon" thread if want to learn more about that.

 

[RightOfCenter]

So as long as I take responsibility for any damage done by my alligator I am free to keep one until it causes harm and cities shouldn't be able to pass laws restricting me from owning one.

They should be able to pass laws restricting your ownership when your alligator harms one, but until then go ahead and have your reptile.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Oh, I know your type well. the only area's that need regulation are the ones you personally agree with.

One could say the same thing to you.

 

[Kandahar]

I'm sure this has been said already (I didn't read the thread), but pit bulls aren't inherently vicious. They're simply raised to be vicious by drug-dealers in the inner-city. But if you raise a pit bull the way that you would raise a golden retriever, it would be a very tame dog.

So to answer the question, no, breeds of dogs should not be banned.

 

[ARealConservative]

They should be able to pass laws restricting your ownership when your alligator harms one, but until then go ahead and have your reptile.

Excellent. I'll keep him on a leash. I might even try to keep him out of sight when you are having an open house. I'm polite that way.

My boat parked in my yard doesn't actually harm anyone either, should we go ahead and remove the ordinance that prevents me from doing this as well?

How about running a commercial business out of my home?

Personally, I hate mowing the grass as well. Let's get those nuisance neighbor laws off the books while were at it.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Excellent. I'll keep him on a leash. I might even try to keep him out of sight when you are having an open house. I'm polite that way.

As long as he doesn't harm anyone do whatever the hell you want with your alligator.

My boat parked in my yard doesn't actually harm anyone either, should we go ahead and remove the ordinance that prevents me from doing this as well?

Yes.

How about running a commercial business out of my home?

It's your home, so yes.

Personally, I hate mowing the grass as well. Let's get those nuisance neighbor laws off the books while were at it.

Yes, I agree! Why do you have a problem with being able to do what you want with your property? For being "A Real Conservative" you seem to be very much in favor of government regulation.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yes, I agree! Why do you have a problem with being able to do what you want with your property? For being "A Real Conservative" you seem to be very much in favor of government regulation.

I would prefer no government regulation at all, I'm just trying to guage how comfortable people are with stripping communities of the powers they do have right now.

 

[Southern Belle]

Just for the record, I'm NOT for having a whole bunch of Rottweilers roaming all over town (the way cats do) I'm talking about letting them live in a back fence or in the house (Mine does both) but not left out in the cold on a chain.

If they stay on your property - and you are responsible and don't mistreat them - then they should be ok.

 

[Stinger]

Absolutely.

 

[jallman]

Absolutely.

Care to elaborate why?

 

[Stinger]

Care to elaborate why?

We as a society have a perfect right to ban any kind of animal from our habitats, we ban livestock in most communities too.

 

[jallman]

We as a society have a perfect right to ban any kind of animal from our habitats, we ban livestock in most communities too.

What gives "we as a society" that right when others of "us as a society" disagree. From what legislation do you draw your conclusion?

 

[Stinger]

What gives "we as a society" that right when others of "us as a society" disagree. From what legislation do you draw your conclusion?

Democracy.

 

[jallman]

Democracy.

In other words, you don't really have a reasoning, just an opinion. Gotcha.

 

[Stinger]

In other words, you don't really have a reasoning, just an opinion. Gotcha.

Opinion on what? It's OK to do it, we ban all sorts of things from the places we live. If a zoned community WANTS to have livestock in their back yard they can do it. If they believe a certain breed of dogs needs to be banned they can do it. You don't believe in democracy on the local level?

 

[jallman]

Opinion on what? It's OK to do it, we ban all sorts of things from the places we live. If a zoned community WANTS to have livestock in their back yard they can do it. If they believe a certain breed of dogs needs to be banned they can do it. You don't believe in democracy on the local level?

Of course I believe in democracy at the local level. I just don't believe in some hysterical community activists disseminating hysterical false information to rob responsible pet owners of their rights. We aren't talking about putting livestock in a suburb here...we are talking about banning breeds of domesticated canines citywide. I don't even know where your irrelevant assertion concerning livestock came from in the first place.

 

[Stinger]

Of course I believe in democracy at the local level. I just don't believe in some hysterical community activists disseminating hysterical false information to rob responsible pet owners of their rights.

Well there is no right to own a pitbull in a specific community and as I said communities, societies, do have the right to ban animals from their urban areas.

We aren't talking about putting livestock in a suburb here

We are talking about what kind of animal you can own while living in and incorporated area.

...we are talking about banning breeds of domesticated canines citywide.

If the majority of citizens believe there is a justification for it.

I don't even know where your irrelevant assertion concerning livestock came from in the first place.

If I have a "right" to have a pitbull then I would have a "right" to have a cow, or chickens, or pigs. But society retains the authority to say what animals we will have living among us for a variety of reasons. That is why such bans have been passed and have been upheld. I don't recall an case where a court overturned any such regulation a city decides to put in place do you?

So YES a city can do so and quite a few do. It's OK to do it if the city decides it wants to, I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

 

[jallman]

Well there is no right to own a pitbull in a specific community and as I said communities, societies, do have the right to ban animals from their urban areas.



We are talking about what kind of animal you can own while living in and incorporated area.



If the majority of citizens believe there is a justification for it.



If I have a "right" to have a pitbull then I would have a "right" to have a cow, or chickens, or pigs. But society retains the authority to say what animals we will have living among us for a variety of reasons. That is why such bans have been passed and have been upheld. I don't recall an case where a court overturned any such regulation a city decides to put in place do you?

So YES a city can do so and quite a few do. It's OK to do it if the city decides it wants to, I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

Two words: property rights.

 

[Kandahar]

Opinion on what? It's OK to do it, we ban all sorts of things from the places we live. If a zoned community WANTS to have livestock in their back yard they can do it. If they believe a certain breed of dogs needs to be banned they can do it. You don't believe in democracy on the local level?

The question is not whether government has the power to ban them, it's whether it's OK to do so. Do you not understand this distinction? Of course you don't, you're a big-government fascist.


Saying that "we ban all sorts of things" doesn't mean that it's OK to ban pit bulls too. That would be like saying that it's OK to invade the Netherlands because the US government does invade countries from time to time.

 

[Stinger]

Two words: property rights.

Your property comes under lots of regulation. But then your can STILL OWN a pitbull, you just can't keep it or store it in that community. I can't keep a tractor on my property because of covenents which are legally binding and the courts say so. I can't run a store out of my home, the city prevents that. I can't build on the front 30 feet of my property which is a public easement.

But again, your arguments have already been tired in the legal system, they fail.

Do you believe you have total free speech at 2:00 in the morning and can yell through a bull-horn out your window, assuming you live in an urban area.

 

[dragonslayer]

I think it is absurd to ban a breed of dogs.Laws however should make the owner a hundred percent responsible for anything his or her dog does.A lot of bad dog behavior usually seems to be the result of some knuckle head trying to make his dog tough or meaner such putting their hand on the dog's muzzle and shaking it around or anything else they can to make the dog more aggressive.

Usually most of these idiots who want certian breeds of dogs banned believe in the most absurd myths like the one about the pit bull
(American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Argentine Dogo, English Bull Terrier, the American Bulldog, and the Perro de Presa Canario ) having lockjaw,thus right there showing they know absolutely know nothing of the breeds.

We need to kill dogs that bite and maul especially kids. We don't need to ban breeds unless there is very aggressive breed toward humans.

I will loan you my 357 magnum revolver. (NOT REALLY)

I had a beautiful German Shepherd bitch, who was pure bred and AKC registered. One day little girl came into my yard, and my lovely dog bit her on the face. I loved that Dog. she was veteran of obediance school and obediance trials. I delivered her to the pound so she could be checked for rabies, which I knew she did not have because her shots were up to date. Then, I had her put down.

 

[jallman]

Your property comes under lots of regulation. But then your can STILL OWN a pitbull, you just can't keep it or store it in that community. I can't keep a tractor on my property because of covenents which are legally binding and the courts say so. I can't run a store out of my home, the city prevents that. I can't build on the front 30 feet of my property which is a public easement.

But again, your arguments have already been tired in the legal system, they fail.

Do you believe you have total free speech at 2:00 in the morning and can yell through a bull-horn out your window, assuming you live in an urban area.

That is a specious argument and completely irrelevant. Noise violation does not have any bearing on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech covers content, not public delivery method.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Opinion on what? It's OK to do it, we ban all sorts of things from the places we live. If a zoned community WANTS to have livestock in their back yard they can do it. If they believe a certain breed of dogs needs to be banned they can do it. You don't believe in democracy on the local level?

Not when it tramples on the rights of the minority, no.

 

[Stinger]

That is a specious argument and completely irrelevant. Noise violation does not have any bearing on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech covers content, not public delivery method.

I agree, and banning dogs has nothing to do with property rights. BOTH arguments have been struck down in courts. You can't claim freedom of speech and make as much speech as you want especailly late at night neither can you claim your property rights give you the right to have a cow next door to my house.

 

[Kandahar]

I agree, and banning dogs has nothing to do with property rights. BOTH arguments have been struck down in courts. You can't claim freedom of speech and make as much speech as you want especailly late at night neither can you claim your property rights give you the right to have a cow next door to my house.

In other words, you favor authoritarian mob rule at the local level. Can you not grasp the concept that the local government may have the POWER to do something, and it's still a stupid idea?