Here We Go Again

jerry d

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
After the verdicts in the S.F. "dog mauling" trial was announced some yoyo in S.F. has come up with the brilliant idea that we should ban all breeds of "dangerous" dogs.

When ask how the breeds would be identified, he stated he didn't know but it should be left up to the Calif. Legisature.

Maybe they can use the same standards they used to ban some firearms in Calif. - If the breed looks different or may seem to be dangerous, ban um.

I've known some tiny poodles that would take a chunk out of your leg. Maybe they should start with them and then add to the list. But by all means, let's not hold the owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.

Now won't it help you sleep better at night knowing the Legisature will surely make another rational judgement as they did with firearms.............
 

Bald Eagle

Inactive
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
0
"But by all means, let's not hold the owners responsible for the actions of their dogs. "

Are you sure that's what you meant to say?  If you don't want the dog owners to be responsible for the actions of their dogs, then let's not hold the citizen responsible for shooting the dang thing.

If any dog attempts to attack me while I'm on public property you might as well start digging a hole to bury it.  Dead dogs don't bite.

I'm a dog lover and own two.  And like all dog owners, I'm also responsible for their actions.  Therefore any dog I own MUST be obediance trained and well socialized or they're dead meat.
 

hronk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2001
Messages
845
Reaction score
6
BACK off Mr. Eagle and re read jerry d's post.....  I think he sarcastically said what you just pounced on.....hronk
 

MNTNMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
703
Reaction score
0
Bald Eagle, I didn't find the sarcasm either. So Mr. Hronk maybe you should find out what old Jerry meant before you pounce.
 

Kernhuntr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Maybe I'm reading it wrong....but I see it drenched in sarcasm.

But then I've been told I'm sarcastic to begin with. Hard to believe. :muha:

Kernhuntr
 

Bald Eagle

Inactive
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
0
Yeah, I could have read it wrong.  Let's let jerry answer before we begin throwing stones.
 

colohunter

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I'm with hronk and Kernhunter.  Whenj erry d labeled the idea as "brilliant" I saw sarcasm.  Just my 2cents
 

karstic

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2001
Messages
3,019
Reaction score
0
Sarcasm with a capital S. Bald Eagle if you doubt it, you should try to find the thread when jerry d added 'environmentalist' to his signature.
 

jerry d

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Hey, hold up on the stones!!! Them things leave knots on my head!!!! :smile-yellow:

Sorry for the confusion.

I just used the same rational some people use when speaking of firearms - "Let's blame the firearm and, by all means, not the person behind the trigger". These same people seem to think that if some idiot uses a so called "assault weapon" or handgun to kill someone these firearms must be dangerous to the general public and need to be banned, even though there's hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" or handguns that have never, and probably never will be, pointed at anyone for any reason.

I'd bet the yoyo that came up with the dog ban idea feels the same about firearms.

By the way, after the knots on my head go down I'm gonna start a petition to have stones banned. :smile-yellow:
 

Bald Eagle

Inactive
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
0
Good ole communications to the rescue!  See, we're all in the same frame of mind.
<font size="2">I didn't think I threw any stones.</font>
 
Top Bottom