Re: Time for a Dog Ban

[Spartan613]

"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:jetooq$c3p$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...
> On 15/01/2012 12:16 PM, Spartan613 wrote:
>> "B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:jet3l3$h5l$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>> On 15/01/2012 10:26 AM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:16:42 +1100, B J
>>>> Foster<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/01/2012 10:06 AM, Poof wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 14, 6:16 pm, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Researchers at Azabu University in Japan found that a dog's gaze is
>>>>>>> enough to increase their owner's oxytocin
>>>>>>> level".http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/nurture-or-nature-a-question-of-bre...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And two are more dangerous than one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Banning anything is the simpleton's answer and an indicator of of a
>>>>>> lack of logic, and what's that word they like to use so often - ah
>>>>>> yes, tolerance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I don't like it let's just ban it - now where can I start?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pit bulls?
>>>>> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=pit+bull+attack&tbm=nws
>>>>>
>>>>> Dobermans, Rottweilers, Bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've personally known several Dobermans who were pussy cats. The
>>>> others you
>>>> mention? I can't say the same.
>>>>
>>>>> http://media.watoday.com.au/news/national-news/puppy-love-why-keep-dangerous-dogs-2888734.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The video proves my previous point. Ban stupid owners.
>>>
>>> I think it's a bit of both.
>>>
>>> Certain breeds were specifically bred for a purpose, e.g. Bull
>>> terriers were bred to hang onto a bull's nose. And those breeds & that
>>> purpose cause the animals to instinctively do things which cause
>>> serious problems - almost regardless of the owners. These breeds
>>> should be banned. Period.
>>>
>>> Then there is the ownership question. A psycho in charge of a Labrador
>>> could turn it into a weapon.
>>>
>>> This is analogous to gun control.
>>> An automatic weapon with a high rate of fire, is an attack weapon
>>> designed for use in warfare. There is no conceivable civilian purpose
>>> for such weapons.
>>
>> Unless you're a collector who has an interest in these machines.
>>
>> You take them to the range once a month and fire them. I fail to see the
>> harm.
>>
>> As you say, people, not guns, dogs, or cars are the problem.
>>
>> It's how people use them.
>>
>
> Sure. As long as they're licensed, secure and properly controlled, I don't
> see why not.
>
> On that basis, you could allow collections of tanks, missiles, ships, and
> fighter jets.

Exactly.

Been to Temora? They have an awesome collection of fighter planes.

I know of lots of people who own tanks and other armoured vehicles.

--
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not
want merely because you think it would be good for him".

Robert A. Heinlein.

[Spartan613]

"Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:jf0fk3$u2q$2...@dont-email.me...
> On 16/01/2012 9:38 AM, Spartan613 wrote:
>> "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote in message
>> news:jetvp8$3s9$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 15/01/2012 5:35 PM, B J Foster wrote:
>>>> On 15/01/2012 5:29 PM, Swampfox wrote:
>>>>> On 15/01/2012 4:35 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:

>>>>>>> That's not a use, collect stamps.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You take them to the range once a month and fire them. I fail to
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> harm.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Or take a single shot rifle to the range and fire it, what's the
>>>>>>> difference?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you say, people, not guns, dogs, or cars are the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's how people use them.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> They can't use automatic weapons if they don't own them, problem
>>>>>>> solved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they do own them, despite the illegality of doing so. Just ask
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> Browntongue - there are thousands of hand machine guns floating
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> in car glove boxes. Problem not solved at all by gun control
>>>>>> legislation
>>>>>> - crims (by definition) don't take any notice of the laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Howard took many automatic and semi automatic weapons out of
>>>>> circulation, no one at the time suggested that criminals wouldn't
>>>>> still
>>>>> be able to get hold of them.
>>>>> They can get hold of Heroin by the tonne so why would weapons be any
>>>>> different?
>>>>
>>>> 0.1% of crim weapons originate from licensed gun holders.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that your gubbermint has stuffed up again, not the
>>>> individuals who (once again) have to bear to cost and hassle of ever
>>>> more regulation.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you and the Labor party stop flooding this country with
>>>> lawless morons, instead of passing more and more laws and regulations
>>>> hassling law-abiding people, laws which achieve precisely nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Like fucking carbon tax - a tax on civilisation conceived and imposed
>>>> by
>>>> morons!
>>>
>>> I must have found that elusive parallel universe that I've heard so
>>> much about, either that or you've spent Sunday on the sauce.
>>> Weren't we talking about the gun buy back and tightened gun laws
>>> introduced by Howard?
>>
>> No. We were talking about banning dogs.
>
> We already have,

No we haven't.

> you can no longer buy a pit bull in Victoria.

Who's talking exclusively about pit bulls or Victoria?

We need National Uniform Dog Laws to take all dogs out of the hands of
people who have no good reason to have them.

> Try and keep up.

Yes, you should.

>>
>> Especially those owned by inner-city terrace house dwellers.
>>
>> After all, what do they need a dog for?
>>
>> Dogs are dangerous. Every one a potential killer.
>>
>> They're far too dangerous to be owned by inner-city airheads.
>>
>> Only the military and police should have dogs.

[keithr]

On 17/01/2012 11:41 AM, Spartan613 wrote:

> Who's talking exclusively about pit bulls or Victoria?
>
> We need National Uniform Dog Laws to take all dogs out of the hands of
> people who have no good reason to have them.
>
>>>

>>> After all, what do they need a dog for?
>>>
>>> Dogs are dangerous. Every one a potential killer.
>>>
>>> They're far too dangerous to be owned by inner-city airheads.
>>>
>>> Only the military and police should have dogs.

The same old shit goes round and round,
Round and round,
Round and round.
The same old shit goes round and round,
Every single day here!

So you are telling me that my cocker spaniel is a potential killer? You
might be right if you are a lizard. You aren't a lizard are you?

[Spartan613]

"keithr" <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4f151311$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Of course it is.

Why does a piss-ant like you need a hunting dog?

> You might be right if you are a lizard.

What about a baby, or small child?

>You aren't a lizard are you?

No. But I have babies.

Time for you to surrender your potentially lethal hunting dog.

Your blasé attitude to native wildlife (lizards) proves you're too
irresponsible to own such a potentially dangerous animal.

[keithr]

On 18/01/2012 8:49 AM, Spartan613 wrote:
> "keithr" <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4f151311$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> On 17/01/2012 11:41 AM, Spartan613 wrote:
>>
>>> Who's talking exclusively about pit bulls or Victoria?
>>>
>>> We need National Uniform Dog Laws to take all dogs out of the hands of
>>> people who have no good reason to have them.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, what do they need a dog for?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dogs are dangerous. Every one a potential killer.
>>>>>
>>>>> They're far too dangerous to be owned by inner-city airheads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the military and police should have dogs.
>>
>> The same old shit goes round and round,
>> Round and round,
>> Round and round.
>> The same old shit goes round and round,
>> Every single day here!
>>
>> So you are telling me that my cocker spaniel is a potential killer?
>
> Of course it is.

Of course he isn't, but I do make sure that he doesn't have access to
firearms just to be on the safe side.

> Why does a piss-ant like you need a hunting dog?

To hunt down piss-ants like you?

>> You might be right if you are a lizard.
>
> What about a baby, or small child?

Nope, he has never shown the slightest aggression to people of any size.

>> You aren't a lizard are you?
>
> No. But I have babies.

Good for you. Since they may grow up to be mass murderers or terrorists
it would probably be safer to put them down now. We need National
Uniform Laws to take all babies out of the hands of people who have no

good reason to have them.

> Time for you to surrender your potentially lethal hunting dog.

Nope time to celebrate my passive pet dog.

> Your blasé attitude to native wildlife (lizards) proves you're too
> irresponsible to own such a potentially dangerous animal.

The lizards that inhabit my 700 square metre block are not what you'd
call endangered especially since the dog usually only barks at them.

[Spartan613]

"keithr" <kei...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4f16148f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> On 18/01/2012 8:49 AM, Spartan613 wrote:
>> "keithr" <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4f151311$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> On 17/01/2012 11:41 AM, Spartan613 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who's talking exclusively about pit bulls or Victoria?
>>>>
>>>> We need National Uniform Dog Laws to take all dogs out of the hands of
>>>> people who have no good reason to have them.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, what do they need a dog for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dogs are dangerous. Every one a potential killer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're far too dangerous to be owned by inner-city airheads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only the military and police should have dogs.
>>>
>>> The same old shit goes round and round,
>>> Round and round,
>>> Round and round.
>>> The same old shit goes round and round,
>>> Every single day here!
>>>
>>> So you are telling me that my cocker spaniel is a potential killer?
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> Of course he isn't, but I do make sure that he doesn't have access to
> firearms just to be on the safe side.

So you think you're funny.

Fail.

>
>> Why does a piss-ant like you need a hunting dog?
>
> To hunt down piss-ants like you?

Fail.

>
>>> You might be right if you are a lizard.
>>
>> What about a baby, or small child?
>
> Nope, he has never shown the slightest aggression to people of any size.

Doesn't matter. It could turn vicious without warning.

Just ask dog-breeder and gun-grabber Samantha Lee.

>
>>> You aren't a lizard are you?
>>
>> No. But I have babies.
>
> Good for you. Since they may grow up to be mass murderers or terrorists it
> would probably be safer to put them down now. We need National Uniform
> Laws to take all babies out of the hands of people who have no good reason
> to have them.

See? You can be trained.

>
>> Time for you to surrender your potentially lethal hunting dog.
>
> Nope time to celebrate my passive pet dog.
>
>> Your blasé attitude to native wildlife (lizards) proves you're too
>> irresponsible to own such a potentially dangerous animal.
>
> The lizards that inhabit my 700 square metre block are not what you'd call
> endangered especially since the dog usually only barks at them.

Doesn't matter. It's inhumane to terrorise them like that.

[keithr]

I see that the humourectomy was very successful.