when does the government have the power to march through our homes and kill our pets !!! why should the government be given that kind of power to kill millions of innocent animals because one stupid football player did something wrong vick should go to jail for a long time but why should the dogs have to pay
2007-08-09 06:30:28 · 8 answers · asked by hi 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Not sure what "government" your talking about, but I know there are a few municipallities where they won't allow you to keep certain breeds, WITHIN THE CITYLIMITS. You can move them out of the city limits and be just fine. If you don't do that, they can seize the animals and euthanize them. That's not quite the same as "marching through homes killing pets." And those laws were in place long before "vick" even thought about dog fights, it was because of other owners failed to train or control their animals.
2007-08-09 06:38:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of what value are pitbulls?
If they are going to be destroyed, then Vick's punishment should be to throw him in a pit with all the pitbulls and have him exterminate them by hand!
2007-08-09 13:35:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should kill all pitbulls, they're dangerous animals and nine times out of ten the people that own them aren't fit to own a fish much less a dangerous dog... I think there is a list (not sure what it's called) of animals that people are prohibited from keeping without having proper licensing (you know like lions or bears) and pitbulls should be on that list because (like lions and bears) they are so dangerous and unpredictable...
2007-08-09 13:34:41 · answer #3 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
"they can seize the animals and euthanize them. That's not quite the same as "marching through homes killing pets.""
It's different just like 'drink a bottle of water' is different from 'consume a container of H2O'.
For crying out loud.
How strange that people support wiping out a breed of animals in a city because of hyped but extremely rare incidents, yet they do nothing to stop the dreaded swimming pool.
"About 1,500 children drown each year in the United States."
"Thirty-seven percent of children who drowned were between one and four years old"
"Toddlers between the ages of one and four years were most likely to drown in artificial pools (56 percent)"
Let's see...
37% of 1,500 = 555
56% of 555 = 310.8
310.8 children between the ages of 1 and 4 died because of swimming pools in 1995.
Meanwhile, "During 1995-1996, at least 25 persons died as the result of dog attacks (11 in 1995 and 14 in 1996)."
11 People in 1995, not just 1 to 4 year olds, but overall.
Hmm. Sounds like a lot of panic over a relatively small number of fatalities while the terrible, evil swimming pool goes unmentioned.
What a heap of garbage. Just the type of illogical panic legislation that sacrifices liberty on behalf of the news-panicked, gullible people among us.
Think it through folks. Heck, more kids probably died in buckets and bathtubs than as a result of dog attacks. Are we ready to send the FBI in to seize unauthorized buckets?
2007-08-09 14:18:03 · answer #4 · answered by the_defiant_kulak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government won't do that; I'm not sure where you are seeing or hearing this, but either you or your source are mistaken.
My wife used to own a pit bull. She was a very loving dog who never bit anyone in her entire life.
2007-08-09 14:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My son owns a pitbull and there wonderful dogs
2007-08-12 21:50:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure and the pitbull breed will stop in the world once they kill all the once in america
2007-08-09 13:34:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
because pit bulls were breed to kill other dogs ?
2007-08-09 13:33:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋