He isn't "way out of line" with that comment he stated his opinion. It doesn't make a s*** what you think of it.

powerbiscuit:

you sure left out a large part of my sentence...

and i should clarify the first part of the sentence with this:

Owning a breed of dog is not an enumerated inalienable right...

What about smoker's rights then?

Since exposure to secondhand smoke has been show to increase the risk of cancer, it's OK to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Not everyone who is exposed to secondhand smoke gets cancer.

Not every pit bull attacks a person, but being in the vicinity of the dog does increase the likelihood of being attacked.

quote:

---

it's OK to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

---

I disagree. I think the very idea is ridiculous.

quote:

---

you sure left out a large part of my sentence...

---

because I couldn't get past that first part in a way that made sense to me

Smoking... like pit bull ownership.... isn't a right. It's a privilege.... and a highly taxed one at that.

quote:

---

It doesn't make a s*** what you think of it.

---

It obviously does because you have nothing better to do with your life than to come back on this thread and keep posting.

Smoking in bars/restaurants is not a right because it infringes on others. Again, doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but to some it is beyond their comprehension level.

Then drinking in restaurants shouldn't be a right either. It infringes on others too. You get louder. More obnoxious. You might stumble into my table and knock over some hot coffee into my lap and burn my genitals. You're also more dangerous behind the wheel in the parking lot. Lets just outlaw anything and everything that anyone doesn't like. I don't like your posts txaggie02. Ever. I would like to ban them. You really are one annoying sob. Shouldn't you be out shopping for a purse? Or mooching of your girlfriend's dad? Or bragging about being in a dirty tatty joint? Go away for a while. Please.

Almost every law we have on the books infringes upon someones "right" to do something.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

It obviously does because you have nothing better to do with your life than to come back on this thread and keep posting.

---

No really it doesn't . Don't flatter yourself.

quote:

---

Smoking in bars/restaurants is not a right because it infringes on others. Again, doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but to some it is beyond their comprehension level.

---

Its this sort of stupidity that keeps me coming back.

[This message has been edited by MasterAggie (edited 5/26/2009 2:02p).]

Master, you are the winner of this thread. You have hit the ultimate rock bottom.

quote:

---

You're also more dangerous behind the wheel in the parking lot.

---

And I think your daddy Rock Lime is on the same page. He doesn't realize we have laws for DUI and DWI.

quote:

---

Or mooching of your girlfriend's dad?

---

Going hunting with your future FIL isn't mooching. I did take note of the obsession since you do know alot about me though.

[This message has been edited by txaggie02 (edited 5/26/2009 2:10p).]

quote:

---

ince exposure to secondhand smoke has been show to increase the risk of cancer, it's OK to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

---

It is most definitly NOT ok to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Bars and restaurants are private property. Banning smoking (something legal) in private property infringes on the rights of the business owner. It is the business owner's choice (and their choice alone) to allow/disallow smoking.

quote:

---

Smoking in bars/restaurants is not a right because it infringes on others.

---

Thanks to capitalism, nobody is making you go to that bar or restaurant.

quote:

---

Almost every law we have on the books infringes upon someones "right" to do something.

---

So why would you want more of you liberties taken away from you? Do you feel it is the responsibility of the government to pass legislation to keep you safe from others?

any reasonable person can have a mental breakdown also. so is it ok that he has easy access to an RPG? or something less dangerous. I know a .22 can do a hell of a lot of damage, but I'll take my chances with that rather than the RPG.

that's part of the reason they aren't allowed. the amount of damage is too much to risk with a) people who are not reasonable / mentally balanced and/or b) people that are originally balanced but then flip out (ex.: coming home to see your wife getting plowed by your neighbor)

yet it seem to be enough to trample the liberties of the majority.

this mentality is the one-way road this Nation has started down.

35, are you completely against ammendments that provide for a better quality of life? You seem like you want the government run off the way the Constitution was originally written. You know, when there was no cars, no computers, no strip bars, etc.

[This message has been edited by txaggie02 (edited 5/26/2009 2:27p).]

Now imagine if RPG's had a mind of their own and could choose to go off on any particular passer by that it chose to.

Scary, huh.

quote:

---

yet it seem to be enough to trample the liberties of the majority.

---

Actually, the rights of the majority are constantly sacrificed to protect the rights of the minority.

quote:

---

Thanks to capitalism, nobody is making you go to that bar or restaurant.

---

Thanks to certain municipalities, you can't smoke in ANY bar or restaurant.

quote:

---

Do you feel it is the responsibility of the government to pass legislation to keep you safe from others?

---

I am more in favor of prevention than punishment. Using your logic, it is ok to drink and drive as long as you don't kill or injure anyone in the process.

I think the punishment should be the prevention.

Unfortunately, this country isn't severe enough with it's punishment in my opinion.

You can't prevent stupid, you can only deal with the results.

quote:

---

You can't prevent stupid, you can only deal with the results.

---

But you can prevent, or atleast try to prevent, stupid people from doing stupid things. That is why they have laws and background checks for many things in our country. Right? The reason we have laws is because we have too many stupid people to just have punishment. In fact, now we are starting to not punish, or shorten the punishment, of many stupid people because or prison system is overflowing.

quote:

---

The reason we have laws is because we have too many stupid people to just have punishment

---

[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 5/26/2009 3:10p).]

No. Just an example of a law designed to protect the population from itself.

"You seem like you want the government run off the way the Constitution was originally written. You know, when there was no cars, no computers, no strip bars, etc." - txaggie02


I hope I am misinterpreting your statement...

The Constitution assures innovation can happen, it does not hinder it. Second, most everyone on the board would LOVE for the government to return to the way the Constitution was originally written! You treat this as a BAD thing when most people on this board would rejoice at the thought of a government that lived and breathed the document we hold near and dear as opposed to trouncing the liberties it guarantees at every turn, whether out of consideration for 'common sense' laws or the less sinister but equally dangerous pandering to emotion.

The return to a Constitution the way it was originally written does nothing to hinder the rights of the individual. Indeed, it is my sincere belief that the original 12 amendments were so perfect that they encompass every amendment thereafter, negating the need for further enumeration. Slavery was illegal before the 13th amendment, women could legally vote before the 19th amendment, and alcohol was always legal, even during the prohibition era....(let me know if you don't grasp this, as I am more than willing to clarify the stance)...

Class of '07
College of Architecture



[This message has been edited by karlthomas (edited 5/26/2009 3:35p).]

Wow. This thread has been all over the place. We went from pit bulls, to the Bill of Rights, to drug use, to abortion, to owning RPG's, to smoking bans, dogs forced to wear seatbelts, and a few cat fights and name calling all mixed together. It was like the Outdoor Board clashed with the Politics and Gyn Board all at the same time.

Not sure anything was resolved, but it was pretty entertaining at times.

quote:

---

But you can prevent, or atleast try to prevent, stupid people from doing stupid things

---

The stupid ALWAYS find a way to manifest their stupidity, given enough time.

All you do by trying to control it is put retraints on the freedom of the non-stupid.

quote:

---

I did take note of the obsession since you do know alot about me though.

---

Actually txaggie02, I don't know a lot about you. Just what I've gathered from reading all of your posts here on the OB. I do know you're very arrogant. Egotistical. And you really love to talk down to other posters and try to belittle them at times. Its best that I don't know a lot about you. In fact, like I said earlier, I just wish you would go away for a while.

quote:

---

The stupid ALWAYS find a way to manifest their stupidity, given enough time.

All you do by trying to control it is put retraints on the freedom of the non-stupid.

---

That might be the dumbest statement I have heard today. You just straight up said that we need to have no laws in this country. In fact, while we are at it, lets allow child molesters hang out around our kids schools, take down the speed limits on all our roads and highways, do away with all the drug laws so that crack and heroine can become every day items to everyone, and allow men to rape women. Unbelievable.


Rock,
You are very much entitled to your own opinions, even though I am not the least bit concerned about them. This board is a place for me to burn some time and shoot the ****. I pretty much say whats on my mind whether people are going to like it or not and I am pretty sarcastic. That's just the way I am. I know 5-6 people on this board in person (prior to joining Texags) and each of them would strongly disagree with your statements. Maybe one day you will be fortunate enough to meet me in person and you can buy me a beer.


[This message has been edited by txaggie02 (edited 5/26/2009 4:36p).]

After reading this whole thread beginning to end, I realized the level of emotional thinking was on the level of a liberal think tank.


Indeed, my emotions could not be restrained either...I was disgusted at the trouncing of individual RIGHTS simply because the debate was no longer guns and instead an animal...

Fact should move legislative policy, not emotion. txaggie02, i call you out because i've read your past posts on other threads and you seem to want to be a conservative(though your underlying conservative principles were cast rather than forged and have crumbled with time and emotion) ....With this debate you again yeild to emotion, in your attacks of other's( master and 35) comments and in your misinformed OPINIONS of what constitutes a right. You get angry at the delivery of a sound argument and denounce it as nonsensical because it does not align with your views.
In all truth, I agree with you; the pit bull is a dog with the capacity to harm(though I believe a 140lb yellow lab has an equal capacity to harm given its musculature if put in a survival situation..) A chihuahua may be more aggressive than any other breed but they can be easily kicked across the room and 'managed'. But emotions and OPINIONS aside, this is an aesthetics debate. Because the dog is big and ferocious and has a bayonet lug doesn't mean it can not be used by a responsible owner. Laws are in place to prevent and ultimately punish those who fail to exercise their rights in a fashion understood to be 'responsible'. The degree to which this breed is aggressive should not be on debate; the ability for the owner to responsibly wield their property is of sole importance.

If you are looking for an answer to the debate 02, i suggest attempting to promote awareness of the dangers, thus having an educated populace to help encourage the enforcement of our constitution.
Ask yourself this...
"Why should I actively try to remove someone else's liberties simply because they have the potential to remove mine."

As for the defining of the responsible person, this is an ever-changing debate and as such, should be an ever-changing definition...to this point, I point to the 'Standard of Care' that professionals are held to. The standard to which we are held is generally phrased in the following manner: "to act or proceed with reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances."
While some may prefer a concrete definition, there is not one and will never be...this is the best i could come up with and then it goes to what governing body determines the 'Citizens Standard of Care'...but that is another issue

I'm on the line of black and white, much with 35.
Our constitution allows for you to do ANYTHING, simply anything you can think of, so long as it does not violate someone else's LL&POS. In particular, one right that should be understood in that huge umbrella of protection of rights was quite important...we know that right to be the Second Amendment. It was understood that the danger that a gun COULD cause may be reason for a governing body to remove the right of ownership. Indeed, I view the Second as a framework for every other 'dangerous' device, material, animal, 'fill-in-the-blank'...

Removing emotion, this SIMPLE enumeration provides for an infallible argument that emotion can never touch, so long as those who believe in it are willing to fight for its continued existence.

as for both powerbiscuit and txaggie02, atleast txaggie, i don't think you really want to eradicate the breed, so much as find a 'common sense' solution to the ownership of the breed.

But once again, what I call common sense is grounded in the Constitution and maintains a belief that the INDIVIDUAL right will outweigh public concerns until that right violates your LL&POS.
What many politicians view as common sense is based on EMOTION and will NEVER hold up to real scrutiny under the Constitution.

One question to ask when confronting these types of arguments where you disagree with the action....Is the responsible exercising of his or her right violating my LL&POS?

Class of '07
College of Architecture

[This message has been edited by karlthomas (edited 5/26/2009 4:42p).]

Damn! That is too long. I ain't reading all that.

it'd make you a better american...

your above statement now has me wondering if you've ever taken the time to read your Constitution...perhaps too long?



[This message has been edited by karlthomas (edited 5/26/2009 4:55p).]

Reading someone's opinion about a dog debate, why I don't like a certain breed of dogs, and my opinion on what I would do to solve the problem isn't going to make me a better American.

I don't like pitbulls. I don't own one. I never will own one. I would prefer for nobody living around me to own one, especially once I have kids. If there was never another pitbull on the face of the Earth, it wouldn't bother me. And if I ever see one running loose and I can shoot it without anyone knowing, then I am going to do it. That is all I got. Call it arrogant. Call it a horrible opinion. Call me a dumbass. That is just the way it is. By the way, I don't like snakes either and will shoot every one of those SOBs. We can start another thread on that if you want.....I need a change of topic.

Your understanding of American priniciples is quite flawed and your reading of my comments, indeed your understanding of my comments, will make you a better American.

I am not that arrogant, I simply am that sure of my argument, as it is fully based on a document that we collectively hold to be the supreme law in this country.

My comments have NOTHING to do with pit bulls, just as the argument in this thread should have nothing to do with the object and everything to do with individual freedoms.

Your failure to acknowledge the individual rights and your subsequent reading and understanding of these rights will indeed make you a better person...

oh i am sure I am opening a can of worms here but i must know.....






txaggie02...did you live on southside by chance?

quote:

---

You seem like you want the government run off the way the Constitution was originally written. You know, when there was no cars, no computers, no strip bars, etc.

---

DING! DING! DING! Absolutely! Where do I make this happen!!

quote:

---

Actually, the rights of the majority are constantly sacrificed to protect the rights of the minority.

---

Yep, and it is utter crap.

quote:

---

Thanks to certain municipalities, you can't smoke in ANY bar or restaurant.

---

A fine example of people actually voting away their liberties based off emotion and an uneducated stance. I can think of another...

quote:

---

I think the punishment should be the prevention.

Unfortunately, this country isn't severe enough with it's punishment in my opinion.

---

I cant agree with you more. People do things day in and day out knowing full well what the punishment is. It is obviously not severe enough.

quote:

---

But you can prevent, or atleast try to prevent, stupid people from doing stupid things.

---

These are the words of a socialist government. "The people are too stupid, we mush save them from themselves"

B.S. Where is personal responsibility in all this?

quote:

---

The reason we have laws is because we have too many stupid people to just have punishment. In fact, now we are starting to not punish, or shorten the punishment, of many stupid people because or prison system is overflowing.

---

No, I think we have overflowing prisons because prison life is easier then being homeless. Nothing outside the prison walls should be easier then what goes on inside the prison walls.

quote:

---

No. Just an example of a law designed to protect the population from itself.

---

See socialist views above.

quote:

---

The stupid ALWAYS find a way to manifest their stupidity, given enough time.

All you do by trying to control it is put retraints on the freedom of the non-stupid.

---

Exactly the same as gun control. People want to enact laws that punish only the law abiding.

Edited to retract personal insult.

[This message has been edited by 35chililights (edited 5/26/2009 5:21p).]