Vick gets 23 months in jail

[Lavabe]

The Saints are playing reasonably well. 17-7 at the half. Falcons drove the ball to the Saints 1 as the clock ran out.

The Falcons are awful.

Cheers,
Lavabe

[EarlJam]

The Saints are playing reasonably well. 17-7 at the half. Falcons drove the ball to the Saints 1 as the clock ran out.

The Falcons are awful.

Cheers,
Lavabe

The Falcons, much like Madonna, suck hard, are old, and decrepit. It's embarrassing.

-EarlJam

[xenic]

Pit Bulls are vicious vicious creatures. Having one as a pet is akin to having a wild animal - it may seem tame but can snap, and when it does - watch out. I think every owner of a pitbull is "on notice" about the danger their pet can cause, and has no excuse when it does that damage

That's a bold statement.

[billybreen]

The Falcons, much like Madonna, suck hard, are old, and decrepit. It's embarrassing.

-EarlJam

While we're off topic from this off topic thread: EJ, you need to pick up the pace. BlueDawg is nipping at your heels, and I don't want to live in a world where BD has the highest non-mod post count.

[Lavabe]

The Falcons, much like Madonna, suck hard, are old, and decrepit. It's embarrassing.

-EarlJam

Think Duke wants to talk to Petrino?

Notice on the last drive of the first half: the Falcons couldn't kick a field goal so they had to try for a touchdown.

Hmm...

Lavabe

[hc5duke]

That's a bold statement.

Yeah, I think we've had plenty of nature vs nurture discussions about dogs before.

Personally, I'm in favor of requiring some sort of a license for dogs over a certain weight, regardless of breed. Let's say like 50 lb. Not just a registration, I mean like the type people go through for legal gun ownership.

[Channing]

That's a bold statement.

it is a bold statement and I stand by it. I dont see much difference between owning a pit and owning a pet tiger http://www.exoticcatz.com/speciestiger.html

[Lavabe]

Think Duke wants to talk to Petrino?

My mistake...
Think Petrino wants to talk with Duke?

31-7 in the 4th.
Ycch... EarlJam may be correct YET again.
Cheers,
Lavabe

[billybreen]

Yeah, I think we've had plenty of nature vs nurture discussions about dogs before.

Personally, I'm in favor of requiring some sort of a license for dogs over a certain weight, regardless of breed. Let's say like 50 lb. Not just a registration, I mean like the type people go through for legal gun ownership.

Clearly you've never seen a Newfoundland. Super lazy loafing dogs should get an exemption. The only thing they could threaten is a ham.

[DevilAlumna]

Personally, I'm in favor of requiring some sort of a license for dogs over a certain weight, regardless of breed. Let's say like 50 lb. Not just a registration, I mean like the type people go through for legal gun ownership.

My dog's got a license, through the county. Have to pay a fee every year. Have to prove he's got his rabies shot.

Kind of like with guns, those who are responsible owners already follow the rules.

And size doesn't have anything to do with viciousness. My bully's 60 lbs, and would only hurt someone by taking out their knees in his rush to come get pets and attention. HMy parents' 15 lb. miniature schnauzer would as soon as bite your hand as take a treat from it, if she's feeling grumpy.

[Lavabe]

The Falcons are now trailing 34-14 w/2:15 left in the game.

How much more misery will the city of Atlanta endure?

Lavabe

P.S. And I am now off that Nickel-nose thing.

[wilson]

And size doesn't have anything to do with viciousness. My bully's 60 lbs, and would only hurt someone by taking out their knees in his rush to come get pets and attention. My parents' 15 lb. miniature schnauzer would as soon as bite your hand as take a treat from it, if she's feeling grumpy.

AMEN! My Walter weighs 53 pounds (as of 3 weeks ago), and it's all muscle (well OK, there's a good bit of face in there too). He could definitely kick my butt if he wanted, but he would and will never decide to do so. I have, on the other hand, met vicious representatives of otherwise docile breeds, ranging from Labs to the aforementioned miniature schnauzers. Breed-specific regulations are shortsighted and misguided.

[hc5duke]

My dog's got a license, through the county. Have to pay a fee every year. Have to prove he's got his rabies shot.

Kind of like with guns, those who are responsible owners already follow the rules.

And size doesn't have anything to do with viciousness. My bully's 60 lbs, and would only hurt someone by taking out their knees in his rush to come get pets and attention. HMy parents' 15 lb. miniature schnauzer would as soon as bite your hand as take a treat from it, if she's feeling grumpy.

Oh, I agree completely there are plenty of larger dogs that wouldn't/couldn't hurt anyone. But I figured a weight restriction would be the easiest way to regulate something like this. What if you have a half-rottie, half-Newfoundland? What if you adopted a mutt and didn't know what it was? Going by breed will just bring more problems IMO and endless discussions of nature vs nurture that won't get you anywhere. Either way, I know something like this would never be implemented in the real world

As for the schnauzer, what's the worst thing it's going to do, maybe leave a scratch on your ankle. :-p

[Johnboy]

Yeah, I think we've had plenty of nature vs nurture discussions about dogs before.

Personally, I'm in favor of requiring some sort of a license for dogs over a certain weight, regardless of breed. Let's say like 50 lb. Not just a registration, I mean like the type people go through for legal gun ownership(my emphasis).

You have a constitutional right to own a firearm (unless you are legally disqualified). No license required!

Are you referring to a concealed carry permit?

[greybeard]

I was merely echoing the sentiment that the laws are meant, in part, to express the will of the people. The argument that "the founding fathers didn't want it so" doesn't hold water, because as I intimated, they didn't pass laws on a lot of things that we've subsequently decided were a good idea. Moreover, plenty of people would submit that laws against cruelty to animals jibe with one of your three rubrics for legal reasoning by serving the Aristotelian "good."

Seems to me that that is the only case to be made, the Aristotelian one. However, ole Aristotle had powerfully little influence on the shaping of the republic. Hobbs and especially Mr. Locke's thinking did; their thinking leaves dog fighting out in the cold, I'm afraid. Dogs, unlike children, are chattels to be owned, and if they are to be owned, Mr. Locke would say that the law is meant to protect the owner's right to do with them what he will.

As for the framers, without getting way over my head here, they did right a constitution that gave the feds certain rights and left lots of things to the states.

They had to pass a freakin new Amendment to not allow certain people to treat other people like dogs.

That being the case, one would presume that, absent a new amendment we haven't seen yet, the Constitution was meant to leave people with their right to treat their dogs any way they see fit as long as they don't bite kid's faces off, one would presume, but the next time somebody goes to jail for 23 months because his pit bull got frisky and hurt a little kid would probably be the first. And, you can bet one thing: it will not have been a federal prosecutor and a federal judge who will have lifted one finger to do anything about it.

So, I see nothing in the Constitution that could possibly give Congress the right to protect dogs against their masters except for a strained reading of the Commerce Clause, which puts me in the same camp as Scalia and Thomas, which, I can assure you, I do not like, not one little bit.

Before I close let me ask you this: why was it okay for the owners of that horse, Barbaro, to torture that animal for months on end for the sake of money (how did the vets know the horse wasn't in pain or mentally tortured by the extraordinary efforts they employed to keep him alive) but it is wrong to kill killer dogs. To me, it's all in the PR; the single most bruttal sport in the world involving animals next to bull fighting is horse racing; no, not for the way the industry treats the horses; it's the way they treat the jockeys. Don't get me started!

[hc5duke]

You have a constitutional right to own a firearm (unless you are legally disqualified). No license required!

Are you referring to a concealed carry permit?

I meant like background checks that's required for gun ownership (I think that's in all the states, right?)

[dukepsy1963]

the expressions, "treat people like dogs" versus "treat dogs like people" makes you think. I prefer the latter. Don't get me started!!!

--------
Vietnam Scout Dog Trainer (1968-69)

[xenic]

I meant like background checks that's required for gun ownership (I think that's in all the states, right?)

I think the distinction you're looking for may be gun purchasing, not ownership.

[hc5duke]

I think the distinction you're looking for may be gun purchasing, not ownership.

That would make my sentence more correct, thanks.

[Lavabe]

Atlanta Falcons football is the most brutal sport involving animals.

Cheers,
Lavabe