Master, when are you going to offer a solution to the problem or some valuable information? That is all I am asking for. Instead, your panties are in a wad over my opinion and my solution to the problem. In order to counter someone elses opinion, you should provide your opinion AND something to back it up and give reason. Not just say "your opinion is stupid and you are a moron and you are a jackass". I am very familiar with that exact response because I used to do it when I was 2 years old. Childish.

txaggie02,

Do you believe in liberty and the right to private property?

Laurentum.... certainly not enough to be an expert, I'll admit as much. But then, I also didn't claim to be offering up an expert opinion on the matter... so I'm good. Heh...

For record, what is the correct number... just so I know?

35... I understand. But "inaction" is a lot bigger gray area than "action" when it comes to either one (guns or dogs) committing ill will. Action is pretty clearly defined, straightforward and unambiguous.

Inaction could range anywhere from simply not putting the dog on a leash, to all out neglect. Additionally, I know I've seen several accounts about people who took quite a bit of responsible actions as pet owners and still their dog made headlines as attacking someone. I think that's at the heart of the matter. No matter how well controlled pit bulls are, they seem to have a propensity for attacking moreso than any other breed.

Nevermind the issue already discussed with them being able to inflict more damage.

I just think they're overly dangerous animals. And if we were talking about wiping out an entire species that would be one thing.... but this is a single breed.

Though... I freely admit there's a slippery slope there.

Absolutely 35. Where are you going with this?

o-pin-ion   Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Familiarize yourself with this definition.

FWIW, I define action and inaction the same. Choosing to not secure an openly aggressive breed is an action.

I know others may not agree that action and inaction are the same, but I am just letting you know thats how I feel. It is a personal responsibility thing that I hold in high regards.


On another note, what if i did this:

quote:

---

Inaction could range anywhere from simply not securing the gun, to all out leaving the gun locked and loaded on your front lawn. Additionally, I know I've seen several accounts about people who took quite a bit of responsible actions as gun owners and still their handling of a firearm made headlines as injuring someone.

---

Dont get me wrong, I am not sticking up for pits. I am sticking up for private property rights. I would never own a pit bull and I would never let my children play around them. I would most likely think less of a pit owner (not sure on this one). BUT, I would never be able to tell someone that they cant own one.

That introduces a slippery slope... down the other side of the hill, if you will.

Using that line of thinking (to which I'm not saying I disagree)... there is full justification for the legalization of currently explicit drugs, abortion, ownership of RPGs, etc. I mean, I don't want to tell others what they can/can't do or can/can't own.... right?

Not trying to be overly dramatic. I guess I'm just saying we need to make reasonable concessions within the scope of not infringing upon our liberties as U.S. citizens. We can't simply fall back on saying we don't want to tell others what they can/can't own. I'm no commie lib that's for sure.... but by the same token, some things need to be controlled for the greater good.... It's why we have things like traffic laws or disallow citizens from owning cluster bombs.

While a pit bull ain't exactly a WMD, it is as mentioned before.... a ticking time bomb that most other breeds simply aren't.

JMO.

txaggie02. First off let me say that this is not meant as a insult. I just enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy (probably even more so (LD debate in HS)). When we are done here I will have the same amount of respect for you as I did going in.

quote:

---

Absolutely 35. Where are you going with this?

---

Then I have heartache with your thought that nobody should be allowed to own a pit and that the breed should be eliminated. If I have misinterpreted your stance, then please let me know.

quote:

---

BUT, I would never be able to tell someone that they cant own one.

---

I don't understand this statment. There are many towns that have regulations on what kind of pets you can own within their city limits. Why could an animal like the pitbull, which is much more dangerous than many animals listed on those list, not be included?

Master, you definitely are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I know what your opinion is since you have clearly stated that. Everybody else on this thread is making valid arguements for their side except one person, who happens to be you.

quote:

---

Then I have heartache with your thought that nobody should be allowed to own a pit

---

Like I said in my above post, this is not an intelligent statement. There are many animals that you cannot own inside city limits because of their threat to other citizens. Look at the stupid monkey that killed that lady up north a couple months ago. That damn monkey slept with the owner and bathed with the owner until one person came over to the house that the monkey was unfamiliar with. Then it ate the lady's face off. Its the same thing that happens with pitbulls every week. Just because a pit is a dog shouldn't make that any different than a bobcat, lion, alligator, or a majority of other animals listed on many city's banned animals list. Is there a difference to you?

[This message has been edited by txaggie02 (edited 5/26/2009 11:40a).]

Laurentum.... nope... no years of experience here. My opinions are based purely on what I've seen, heard about, read about and from having two friends/coworkers who owned them... one of which is a pit breeder.

If that reduces my credibility on the subject in your eyes.... that's cool. From what I've seen on this thread, there isn't an expert on the subject matter here.... so if nothing else I have a entire thread of company here.

quote:

---

Everybody else on this thread is making valid arguements for their side except one person, who happens to be you

---

You haven't offered anything worth a s**t. Stop giving yourself so much credit. I'm avoiding offering anything valid because its pissing you off and I really do think you are a jackass.

quote:

---

and if I see one walking the streets, I will shoot it

---

Ooooo! Mister badass! Tell us more about how you will rid the world of evil.

quote:

---

That introduces a slippery slope... down the other side of the hill, if you will.

Using that line of thinking (to which I'm not saying I disagree)... there is full justification for the legalization of currently explicit drugs, abortion, ownership of RPGs, etc. I mean, I don't want to tell others what they can/can't do or can/can't own.... right?

---

I dont see that it does and I will tell you why. I try to bring all my stances on top of what is generally accepted as inalienable rights (including but not limited to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (LL&POS).

I also make a rather large assumption on what a 'reasonable person' is.

With this as my base, I feel that anything that a 'reasonable person' wants to do, they have the right to do so long as it doesnt trample other peoples liberties and that it doesnt infringe on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Currently explicit drugs
Drugs alter human behavior in such a way that a 'reasonable person' can no longer act in a reasonable manner. When in this non-reasonable manner, they are putting the liberties of those around them in danger. If you want to do that stuff, and you submit to being locked up so as to not harm those around you, by all means, go for it. But drug use in the public should be outlawed because the chemicals alter reasonable behavior to unpredictable behavior.

Abortion (a touchy subject i know, please bear with me)
Taking the life of an innocent being is wrong, and we already have laws for this. I purpose that rape victims have a 24 hour window (unless certain situations prevent it (locked in a car, etc) to come in and submit to a rape kit/preventative. My reasoning for allowing this is that their LL&POS have been compromised with a situation that has been thrust upon them. Morally I still think it is wrong, but morals change from individual to individual, so basing arguments on morals is only as good as those agreeing with your morals.

So if a woman has an abortion several weeks in, she is compromising the LL&POS of the child inside her, and that is wrong.
(yes we can debate when 'life' happens but somewhere else please)

ownership of RPGs, etc
If you can prove you are a 'reasonable person,' I have no problem with you owning an RPG, fully automatic, etc. As long as you dont trample other's LL&POS, I have no beef with it.



BUT, the very second you trample someone else's LL&POS with your irresponsibility, game over. You lost your right to LL&POS.

We have laws in place and punishments lined up for those that cant obey. We need no further laws that ban things that some people think are bad and dangerous.

quote:

---

I don't understand this statment. There are many towns that have regulations on what kind of pets you can own within their city limits. Why could an animal like the pitbull, which is much more dangerous than many animals listed on those list, not be included?

---

And those town's are allowed to do that under the law. Nobody is forcing you to be a citizen of that town. If the majority of people in that town want that legislation to make themselves feel more safe, then that is their right to vote that legislation active. It is their right to vote their liberties away, and that is just what they are doing when they pass legislation such as that.

I for one do not feel that legislation protects me or makes me any more safe then before. (see CHL on state property argument).

quote:

---

Just because a pit is a dog shouldn't make that any different than a bobcat, lion, alligator, or a majority of other animals listed on many city's banned animals list. Is there a difference to you?

---

There is no difference to me at all. I think if someone wants to own an alligator, by all means go for it. But if they fail to secure it, and it hurts someone, then I view it the same as if they had a gun and shot someone. They knew full well the potential of the object to harm/kill and should be punished accordingly.

Man, I just had a lot of fun voting against most of txaggie02's comments.

quote:

---

Like I said in my above post, this is not an intelligent statement.

---

It is an intelligent statement because I have told you exactly where I have built my foundation and what I have built it with. It is with that foundation that I can not in good conscience tell a reasonable person what they can and cant own.

An unintelligent statement is one based off emotion or one that is contrary to what has previously been passed off as a fundamental belief.

But its not what he thinks chili! That makes you wrong.

Chili,

I enjoy reading your arguments because you are extremely consistent.

There are also quite a few things that are illegal to possess by "reasonable" people because of the harm that they could potentially inflict on society.

It would be cool to own an RPG, but if they were legal to possess, they would be more readily available, and thus more likely to fall into the wrong hands.

At some point, individual rights have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.

Pretty compelling debate,35. I can certainly see your side to it.

Definitely a difficult topic, because it's a very emotional one for both sides. Tough to look at it completely objectively.... but you present a good case.

As for your RPG counterpoint... how does one "prove they are a reasonable person"? I assume then you'd accept the same for pit bull ownership?

Sounds suspiciously similar to "registration" of guns....

[This message has been edited by RogueAg (edited 5/26/2009 12:43p).]

quote:

---

At some point, individual rights have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole.

---

That is a frightening statement, but I can't say I completely disagree. I feel this way about plutonium, but not much else.

As for owning a pitbull...

I found a pitbull mix when I was about thirteen. He was about 8 weeks old, had been mauled by another dog, and was very sick as a pup. He grew up to be the best dog I have ever had. Naturally protective of my home and family. But he was (and still is) VERY aggressive towards other dogs. Bottom line: he was not allowed to interact with other dogs. I also do not trust him around small children.

He has never shown an ounce of aggression towards a child. My three year old child is allowed to play with him, but only under my supervision. It takes a responsible owner to have any dog, especially the protective and aggressive breeds. Honestly, I'm more worried about my ex-inlaws chihuahuas because they are spoiled.

I was wondering how long it would take until you guys made me define 'reasonable person'.

Because I really have no idea on how to easily do that.

quote:

---

As for your RPG counterpoint... how does one "prove they are a reasonable person"? I assume then you'd accept the same for pit bull ownership?

Sounds suspiciously similar to "registration" of guns....

---

As for RPG ownership: it could be the same as the current ownership of fully automatic weapons.

As for likening this to the registration of guns: Totally different because of one simple thing. The Second Amendment.

With those little words the government is acknowledging that firearm ownership of its citizens is not only essential to self-defense (an inalienable right), but that it is also necessary to prevent the government from overstepping its boundaries.

So to require registration of firearms would be to renege on the 'agreement' between our government and its people that it is their inalienable right to own firearms.

I'm kind of late to this turn on the thread, but I just wanted to point out a flaw in Chililights reasoning.

The bill of rights gives you the right to own firearms and that right "shall not be infringed. To the contrary, nothing is mentioned about your "right" to own a particular breed of dog or that the right "shall not be infringed". Huge difference.

[This message has been edited by powerbiscuit (edited 5/26/2009 1:10p).]

35, you are way out of line with the RPG comment. That's not even a close comparison and overall is a completely ridiculous idea. Although somone like MasterAggie will probably agree with you. And if not, then he will just tell you that you aren't worth his valuable time.

That isn't a flaw in his reasoning. I think you've missed something in his comments.

I think you missed something in his comments.

quote:

---

35chililights
posted 9:20a, 05/26/09

This thread seems to pop up every month or so. I dont think I have ever chimed in, but wanted to bring the following argument to the table. Just like the CHL on state property debate, I think that petty side arguments blur and distract from the main point. If both sides could just lay down some ground rules, the debate could easily end.

For instance, take the object itself out of the equation and just look at liberty and private property rights.

I hold owning a pit and owning an 'assault rifle' in the same regards.

---

quote:

---

I'm kind of late to this turn on the thread, but I just wanted to point out a flaw in Chililights reasoning.

The bill of rights gives you the right to own firearms and that right "shall not be infringed. To the contrary, nothing is mentions about your "right" to own a particular breed of dog or that the right "shall not be infringed". Huge difference.

---

Very true, the Second Amendment is just the government recognizing that bearing arms is an inalienable right.

Owning a breed of dog is not an inalienable right, but the choice to own a certain thing (in this case a particular breed) IS an inalienable right, because to prevent it, would be infringing on that individuals LL&POS. It is what that individual choses to do with that responsibly which dictates whether or not they have the capability to own said object.

I personally believe (and therefore cant really use this as a basis for argument) that the forefathers thought so much of the right to bear arms that they felt compelled to singularly address it. I am sure glad they did.

an RPG is no different then TNT. is no different then driving a gasoline tanker. is no different then operating a commercial airliner.

people use those things daily with no harm. do you think it would be impossible to use an RPG without causing harm to others?

quote:

---

Owning a breed of dog is not an inalienable right, but the choice to own a certain thing (in this case a particular breed) IS an inalienable right

---

these seems to be conflicting positions

[This message has been edited by powerbiscuit (edited 5/26/2009 1:18p).]

quote:

---

I hold owning a pit and owning an 'assault rifle' in the same regards

---

txaggie02... I brought up the RPGs initially... and it was intended to be a dramatic comparison.

35.... regarding the definition of a reasonable person: Unfortunately it seems the only process we have for doing so is registration or licensing... and I think we can all agree that's a poor way to do it. I don't think it would be sufficient for curbing the pit bull problem, just as I don't think it's sufficient for determining who should be allowed to drive a car.

But alas.... I don't know a better way either.

I know you brought it up Rogue. I am referring to this comment:

quote:

---

ownership of RPGs, etc
If you can prove you are a 'reasonable person,' I have no problem with you owning an RPG...

---