A END OF THE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD DOGS. - Page 14

I believe that dogs should be fed and watered daily and provided with a safe and comfortable environment, unlike the dogs on the video I posted. I don't think dogs should be wetted down and shocked with e-collars or that e-collars should be put anywhere else on dogs than around their necks. I don't think that prongs should be filed to points or that dogs should be hung til they pass out or helicoptered. If and when I see anyone doing any of that at training class or a trial, I will report it. If I know of dogs that are being starved to death I will report it. 

 

Hundmutter

     "Who fought for and changed that situation, the GOP ?"

This is your quote and I answered your question. Will you answer mine?

Blitzen

I can agree with that. Personally I would not turn anybody in but I have preformed some "social justice" when needed.

Sorry Paul, what WAS your question ?

Btw actually the UK puts a good deal of money INTO the
USA, through some of the odd financial arrangements
that go on between our two nations ... I believe I specifed
​an example or two when responding to a similarly NIMBY
remark from Keith not too long ago.  Don't recall when I
was last tempted to tell any Americans on here they can
only comment on their own country ...
 

Hund

I would like to see the facts on that.

Sorry (not personal) I have little to no respect to the UK on how to run our country seeing how you would either be speaking German or Russian if it were not for the USA.

Then I guess we don't disagree so much after all, Paul?

Blitzen

I believe we have way too many laws in my opinion. There is no limit to what law makers will do for money, and most of them take away our freedoms. 1 law always brings another.
They made it illegal to own and make bombs and look at Boston, and the list could go on forever. Criminals will never obey the law and the righteous will not break it. I know it is a hard thing but we have to look past some of the crap to see the whole. We do need common sense and sometimes it is not so common. It requires thought, and a lot of it.  

So how would fewer laws make things better?

You use the example of the Boston bombing. Don't you think that by having 'laws' against the sale of Semtex (for example) to just anyone is common sense. Imagine if that were on sale freely, how much worse that could have been?  If the original argument is followed to it's logical conclusion, the banning/restriction on the sale of Semtex would be an infringement of liberty. Anyone should be allowed to purchase it and  those who use it improperly should be punished for doing so.

I don't agree with all laws made, I don't agree with every ban, but I can generally see the reasoning behind it even if I don't like how it affects me personally. I didn't like the smoking ban, being a smoker at the time. But I could see the benefits to everyone else.  

Paul, you also would not report improper use of the ecollar if such 'rules' were in place. So in essence you prove to Hans that his solution doesn't work when there are people that think like you do. Therefore a ban would be preferable, because you have proved that there are situations where it would not happen that people who did misuse the device were brought to book. I have found this to be very much the case in actuality. Therefore, better that the device were banned and unavailable, then that situation could not arise.

Abby Normal

It is a slippery slope. There is no end to the laws that could be made to saves lives. Lets start with gun control. Ban them all, then only outlaws will own them, and use them. Then we have to ban knives and protection dogs. But if you really want to save lives we have to ban cars. More people die in car wrecks then guns or the effects of smoking. How about banning food deemed to be bad for your health.

I can see the reasoning behind most of the laws we have. But a lot of them are out of control and getting worst. What happens when government wants to save money, and take a good look at social security. One easy way to save money would be to euthanize all of the non-productive elderly people. Do you see what I mean? There is no end to the madness. We can ban smoking drinking e-collars ect ect ect and then you wake up one day and say "oh shit" we are living in England.

My point is, people are going to make bad decisions, that is life. some will learn and some will not. 

The ban on e-collars will not stop dog abuse, it won't even slow it down. You would have to ban leashes any kind of collar sticks boards baseball bats and the list goes on. The same person that abuses a dog will abuse a person. The tool is not the problem it is the person.

Reread what I posted. I said I would not turn them in. I did not say I would let them do it. But read the bill of rights and the constitution. All of the right removing laws is why we left England. These harmless laws  are getting us less and less liberty that our forefathers fought for.
If you want more laws MOVE there are all you can stand in other country's