license for deadly weapon (a dog)

[KAYNE]

So are you implying that humans and dogs are on the same intellect level? very big difference there. there is a very big difference in kids and dogs, there is a very big difference in having a child and owning a dog. do you know the difference between a dog and human?

I'M NOT IMPLYING SHIT. I AM A LITTLE FUZZY ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A DOG THOUGH. YOU MAY HAVE TO FILL ME IN.

COME ON MAN, LETS GET REAL HERE. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THIS YOURSELF??? ANYWAY, IF A PERSON IS PROVED TO HAVE INFLUENCED THE DOG TO ATTACK SOMEONE, THAT PERSON CAN BE CHARGED.

NO SENSE IN CHARGING THE OWNERS OF A DOG UNLESS THEY MADE THE DOG ATTACK. THIS REMINDS ME OF ALL THE FAT FUCKS WHO ARE SUING MCDONALDS FOR BEING FAT. AND THE IDIOTS WHO SMOKE SUING THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.





KAYNE

 

[big_bad_buff]

so wouldn't it be the owners fuilt if they let there dog roam free were ever it pleased, and it attacked a young child?

 

[KAYNE]

so wouldn't it be the owners fuilt if they let there dog roam free were ever it pleased, and it attacked a young child?

LETTING THE DOG ROAM FREE (ESP. IF THEY KNOW IT IS AGGRESSIVE) IS ONE THING. WHEN SHIT JUST HAPPENS IS ANOTHER.

I'VE GOT TWO ROTTS AND A PIT. ACTUALLY, ONE ROTT IS MINE. THE OTHER DOGS ARE FOR MY BROTHER. NONE OF THEM ROAM FREE. NOR WILL THEY.





KAYNE

 

[Kalashnikov]

Cars are inanimate objects that are not intended to be weapons as a firearm would be. Cars do, however, require licenses for operation (as do firearms).

Yes but cars are not built to be weapons. A gun is built to be an instrument of death and destruction. A car is built to be a method of transportation.

Now, a dog is not "built" to be a weapon of death and destruction. It's "built" to be a loyal companion and friend. A dog, however, is not a machine.



-Warik

I don't think you need a license to operate a firearm. All you need is a clean record for the NICS background check.

Also, I object to your calling guns devices of death and destruction. When someone protects their family from a home invader, it becomes a life preserver and a tool for survival. There are many more deaths caused by negligent use of an automobile than there are caused by misuse of guns.

A dog can be "built" to be a weapon if properly trained. A gun is an inanimate device which is contolled by a human. Humans should be held responsible for the acts they commit, whether they be the misuse of a firearm or the lack of control of their animals. The firearms are not responsible nor are the dogs.

P.S. Your quotes above were taken from two different posts.

 

[Imnotdutch]

190lb rotts????????!!!!!!!!! huh since when was this the norm? Slightly out on your numbers there.

You also implied that terriers are big in another post........since when? Terriers on the whole are considered small dogs......they are just tenacious. Shit I've seen a Yorkshire Terrier that was under 9 inches at the shoulder try to shake a German Shepherd.

Like I said, this is more complicated than labelling all big dogs aspotential problems.

i think all larger dogs should require some sort of license of this sort, and dogs that were bred to be attack dogs like the pit-bull, rot, mastiff etc. it's pretty obvious that no dogs should roam free. but i do think that these bigger and sometimes meaner dogs, should have qualified owners, that will be held accountable for anything this dog does.

let me as you this, which of these dogs would you feel more comfortable meeting one on one in a ally way, or in a park by yourself? better yet, say you are walking along your naborhood with your small child, 5 feet away their is a 190 pound rot walking your way, what do you do? you quickly grab your child and proceed to shit your pants and hope it is a nice dog. would you feel the same way, and act out the same way, if it were a medium sized dog, say a golden retriever? no you wouldn't because you know these dogs can rip you apart and you can't do shit about it.


could you even defend yourself against these dogs ?
http://www.fila.org/images/fila_mastiff_bodhi_ragnar.jpg
http://rottweiler.chiensderace.com/imagesbis/rottweiler_dressage.jpg
http://cyberechos.creteil.iufm.fr/cyber9/Actualite/pitbull/Pitbull2.jpg

how about I own a lion as a pet!! about the same thing. if it was up to me, i would outlaw these huge monsters. no one within 10 miles of a city or town could own one.

 

[Imnotdutch]

how about I own a lion as a pet!! about the same thing.

again..........huh??

 

[big_bad_buff]

190lb rotts????????!!!!!!!!! huh since when was this the norm? Slightly out on your numbers there.

it is very normal for a rot to be in the high hundreds. 150-200, the 4 that different people i'v known in the past owned were all over 150. so your saying rots are not very big dogs?

You also implied that terriers are big in another post
........since when? Terriers on the whole are considered small dogs......they are just tenacious. Shit I've seen a Yorkshire Terrier that was under 9 inches at the shoulder try to shake a German Shepherd.

what different post? I did no such thing, i said terriers and pit bulls are smaller like who ever that, that i was quoting. terriers are obviously smaller dogs, you just wrote all that for nothing, you need to stay up later next time studying my post to find something wrong, some sort of error. you should just try correcting me on my spelling for now on, much easier for you to find errors. trying to argue against things i say just for fun is becoming quit pointless is it not?

Like I said, this is more complicated than labeling all big dogs as potential problems.

yeah, i know it is! your catching on. a little slow though.

 

[Imnotdutch]

So you didnt type this (?):

"as it should be for larger dogs that are known for being violent. exactly, like terriers, and pit bulls." ??

Speaks for itself.

You then admit that pitts are a bit smaller but say nothing about terriers in general.

"pitbulls aren't that big, but they have lock jaws and can be very violent."

BTW a 200lb dog is a huge dog............ridgeback size. You do realise that most owners exaggerate about size right?

At what point did I say Rotts aren't considered big dogs? I only said that you have exaggerated on the numbers to justify your opinion. you are good at exaggerating in order to justify what you say.

Perhaps the problem here is that you never say what you think you are saying.........or you expect everybody to trawl through all the crap that you write to find one worthwhile point.

190lb rotts????????!!!!!!!!! huh since when was this the norm? Slightly out on your numbers there.

it is very normal for a rot to be in the high hundreds. 150-200, the 4 that different people i'v known in the past owned were all over 150. so your saying rots are not very big dogs?

You also implied that terriers are big in another post
........since when? Terriers on the whole are considered small dogs......they are just tenacious. Shit I've seen a Yorkshire Terrier that was under 9 inches at the shoulder try to shake a German Shepherd.

what different post? I did no such thing, i said terriers and pit bulls are smaller like who ever that, that i was quoting. terriers are obviously smaller dogs, you just wrote all that for nothing, you need to stay up later next time studying my post to find something wrong, some sort of error. you should just try correcting me on my spelling for now on, much easier for you to find errors. trying to argue against things i say just for fun is becoming quit pointless is it not?

Like I said, this is more complicated than labeling all big dogs as potential problems.

yeah, i know it is! your catching on. a little slow though.

 

[big_bad_buff]

So you didnt type this (?):

"as it should be for larger dogs that are known for being violent. exactly, like terriers, and pit bulls." ??

notice the period after "violent" meaning the start of a knew sentence. I admit that it doesn't make much since just looking at the new sentence, so i should have put this quote that i was referring to by bunnmt "Some terriers, although not the biggest of dogs" (and then my reply) exactly, like terriers.

get it now? this was for her, not for you to nit pick through

 

[Imnotdutch]

Well ok...........if you include that section the whole meaning is changed to what you meant to say.

notice the period after "violent" meaning the start of a knew sentence. I admit that it doesn't make much since just looking at the new sentence, so i should have put this quote that i was referring to by bunnmt "Some terriers, although not the biggest of dogs" (and then my reply) exactly, like terriers.

get it now? this was for her, not for you to nit pick through