Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215637,00.html
For once the Media especially Fox gets it right.
:party3:

Letter to City Councilmen Scott Cowdell

If my name sounds familiar I worked for you as a sweeper for the 1995-97 school years.

A little back ground, I studied auto mechanics 1998-2001 I quit that and in September 2001 and, joined the Active U.S. Army. I did well for my self in the Army, as a Military Police "Officer"(enlisted) I was deployed to GTMO Cuba and Iraq. The last two years of service I was a Patrol Narcotics Dog Handler with over 3k hours training dogs and over 160 hours of formal training related to dog training. I have lived with and served with dozens of dogs in the military and hundreds volunteering with the humane society. I have experience with dogs. There are general traits among breeds such as Dalmatians and German Pointers are energetic, Great Danes and, Saint Bernard's are larger breeds. Any depth beyond that especially relating to an overall temperament to a breed is no different than assigning personalities to humans by race. Banning breeds or burning books is saying you are subjects not capable of being trusted as a whole with this thing. Training and breeding have more effect on temperament then what breed a dog belongs to. I feel strongly that this is a needless restriction that would be far less effective than enforcing existing laws, and holding animal services accountable to that specific end.

Thank You for your time and consideration,

MY FULL NAME HERE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
another knee jerk dumb law.

What about the people that have good pits for quite some years? Is he going to tell then to get rid of their beloved family pet
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
usSiR said:
another knee jerk dumb law.

What about the people that have good pits for quite some years? Is he going to tell then to get rid of their beloved family pet
This was the case in Colorado

Come to my home to take away my dog

:tank: :swat: :bat: :copcar: :gun1: :gun4: :gun5: :gun10: :gun9: :gun6: :gun7: :sheriff: :cop: :tank:

bring friends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
It is a good thing I do not live in Sandy. I would move before getting rid of my Pit. She Is 5 years old and fixed. Has never bit anyone and stays in her own back yard. The 10 lb cat even gets her. But she is very protective of the grand kid's. It is not the breed but owners that make them mean, these fools will train or abuse them just to make them mean. Sure the breed was trained to fight, but not to attack humans. It is the macho image that these fools want, not a good family dog. Yes I stand up for the breed, I have been around them all my life and love them. All these attacks by Pit's has been in the last 25 years or so. This is due to bad or inbreed breeding. Just my .02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Typical. We don't like what some people are doing with this_________. So lets ban it, even though the people are the problem and not the _________.

I really wish politicians would pull their heads out. Even if it was just for one issue so I could have some renewed faith in them.

On this topic I don't have much first hand experience with the so called dangerous breeds. I did grow up with Rottweilers and Dobermans but I'd never call them dangerous. I was attacked by a friends family Chow who chewed my hand and legs pretty good as a kid. But I don't blame the breed, it was their fault for being idiots with the dog. It had been kicked and mistreated since it was a puppy and was always locked in a small garage. I thought the door went outside, it didn't out came the dog and down I went. But it was the people who made the mistake, not the breed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Whether I agree or disagree with this ban in Sandy, (Sandy seems to be bent on destroying the Constitution in its search for power), This "Breed Ban" reeks of violations of the following Amendments to the Constitution; 4th Amendment, 5th Amend,. 9th amend., 10 and 14th amendments.

The problem seems to be that no one is willing to, or has the money to take this type of discriminatory law, which probably has no grandma clause it it which it should to keep the people from violating the law when it is enacted. Of course, even though we all know that an unconstitutional or immoral law which violates the constitution is not a law we must obey. This is because it is not a law. This new ban could easily be crushed if the right people are contacted.

When people get a little power it begins to corrupt them and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a election year so perhaps the people of Sandy can eliminate these dastardly individuals who do not care for, and enjoy stomping on the constitution of this country, as well as the people they were sworn to protect and to uphold the law for.

We might as well all be told we can only drive Suburu Outbacks! Not me! The major ownership of these vehicles it a very liberal base and why should I be subjected to the interests of that minority? I shouldn't, neither should you. The same is true of such a farcical "law" in Sandy. When will the people there wake up and start trusting people to live life as it is meant to be enjoyed, as free citizens of this great country. :flag: :patriot:
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top