Travis Lee
Member
All together now
YES WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
....I'm not!
YES WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
....I'm not!
WI: bill to make animal abuse the same as domestic abuse
- Thread starter Monkeyleg
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
GunTech said:
As high and mighty as the Constitution is, only two crimes are laid out inside of the document itself. Even the constitution will not stop a powerful majority from exerting its influence and opinion over it; IIRC it was Jefferson who said it belongs to the living, not the dead. This of course brings us back around to Plato hating Democracy as a concept in its entirety.
Obviously there have to be more than two laws for the state to operate efficiently and impose guidelines on what is both morally and socially acceptable, within reason. Animal abuse is neither of the two and should be viewed as such, and the punishment should fit the crime, even it is mandated "for the good of the state".
Officers'Wife
Member
OK, I have kept quiet about this but there is just one more thought on the subject I would like you all to consider.
Someone far wiser than I once told me that only one in ten crimes are actually solved and the perp jailed. Now, if you have 3 murders, 3 rapes, 3 burglaries and an abused animal which offender would you prefer face justice?
Which - by the way- might be a better argument to the Great White Father in the capital. (I'm spacing on the capital of Wisconsin at the moment so forgive me.)
Selena
Someone far wiser than I once told me that only one in ten crimes are actually solved and the perp jailed. Now, if you have 3 murders, 3 rapes, 3 burglaries and an abused animal which offender would you prefer face justice?
Which - by the way- might be a better argument to the Great White Father in the capital. (I'm spacing on the capital of Wisconsin at the moment so forgive me.)
Selena
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Back on topic.
I am a farmer/rancher.
I routinely perform what is considered surgery on animals. Wounds, docking tails, emasculations etc.
My animals are well fed, and well cared for.
What is to keep me from being considered an animal abuser and losing my gun rights?
I am a farmer/rancher.
I routinely perform what is considered surgery on animals. Wounds, docking tails, emasculations etc.
My animals are well fed, and well cared for.
What is to keep me from being considered an animal abuser and losing my gun rights?
Doggy Daddy
Member
Common sense and common practice. Taking a chain saw to a live horse would be neither.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Plausibility
. . . these are politicians.
They are not humanitarians.
They are in the authority and power business.
They've just found a new, improved universal "root password" to your rights. Rather than "for the children," they will have the additional magic incantation: "it's for the poor, defenseless ANIMALS!"
Michael Vick is just a convenient "catalysing agent" for this line of attack.
The attack on Reagan (where Brady got hurt) was a convenient catalyst, allowing a horde of shrieking witch hunters to "save us all" from dangerous weapons -- excepting, of course, the weapon and class of weapons actually used in the attack. They wrote a ban on everything EXCEPT small calibre revolvers.
Remember, laws that prohibit do not prevent they only provide justification for punishment after the deed.
Don't believe for a moment that politicians give a rip about the welfare of dogs.
They care that YOU SEE THEM CARING about dogs.
[With apologies to Jack Sparrow]
For once in their long and storied history, the politicians may have actually gotten something right . . .
. . . nah. Had you going, though!
You seem to forget . . .
. . . these are politicians.
They are not humanitarians.
They are in the authority and power business.
They've just found a new, improved universal "root password" to your rights. Rather than "for the children," they will have the additional magic incantation: "it's for the poor, defenseless ANIMALS!"
Michael Vick is just a convenient "catalysing agent" for this line of attack.
The attack on Reagan (where Brady got hurt) was a convenient catalyst, allowing a horde of shrieking witch hunters to "save us all" from dangerous weapons -- excepting, of course, the weapon and class of weapons actually used in the attack. They wrote a ban on everything EXCEPT small calibre revolvers.
Remember, laws that prohibit do not prevent they only provide justification for punishment after the deed.
Don't believe for a moment that politicians give a rip about the welfare of dogs.
They care that YOU SEE THEM CARING about dogs.
[With apologies to Jack Sparrow]
Wait! You lied about how that law would be used!
Uhh, Politician . . . !?
Of course, I could be wrong.Uhh, Politician . . . !?
For once in their long and storied history, the politicians may have actually gotten something right . . .
. . . nah. Had you going, though!
Monkeyleg
Member.
Thank you, ArfinGreebly.
As I've said before, there are all sorts of laws in WI punishing the abuse of animals, whether domestic or wild.
So why the new proposed law?
Perhaps it's part of the agenda of the animal rights groups. Or perhaps it's part of a larger agenda that is a partnership between animal rights groups and the likes of the Brady bunch (and that's no Black Helicopter paranoia).
If, twenty years ago, I would have told you that you could lose your Second Amendment rights because you yelled at your spouse, or she yelled at you, or your neighbors simply said that one of you yelled at the other...you would have told me I was nuts.
But that's the law today.
Don't look at a proposed law based upon what the supporters say it will do. Look at what the law will actually do. If more folks had looked carefully at the 1996 Lautenberg amendment, it would have been defeated. Law enforcement agencies and the military alone would have had sufficient lobbying power to kill the amendment. But nobody was really looking at it.
I love animals. I love my dog, and will protect him to every extent possible.
This isn't about how much you love animals in general, or your animals in particular. It's about giving anti-gunners another tool.
Yesterday it was Emerson. Tomorrow? Who knows who?
As I've said before, there are all sorts of laws in WI punishing the abuse of animals, whether domestic or wild.
So why the new proposed law?
Perhaps it's part of the agenda of the animal rights groups. Or perhaps it's part of a larger agenda that is a partnership between animal rights groups and the likes of the Brady bunch (and that's no Black Helicopter paranoia).
If, twenty years ago, I would have told you that you could lose your Second Amendment rights because you yelled at your spouse, or she yelled at you, or your neighbors simply said that one of you yelled at the other...you would have told me I was nuts.
But that's the law today.
Don't look at a proposed law based upon what the supporters say it will do. Look at what the law will actually do. If more folks had looked carefully at the 1996 Lautenberg amendment, it would have been defeated. Law enforcement agencies and the military alone would have had sufficient lobbying power to kill the amendment. But nobody was really looking at it.
I love animals. I love my dog, and will protect him to every extent possible.
This isn't about how much you love animals in general, or your animals in particular. It's about giving anti-gunners another tool.
Yesterday it was Emerson. Tomorrow? Who knows who?
Brerrabbit: your preforming an aid to the animals. sheep that dont have their tails docked will get bad infections in the tails which they cant controll very well, cleaning wounds ect helps remove bacteria and helps the wound heal.
beating your dog with a tire iron, kicking a cat so hard you break its pelvise, cutting a living horse up with a chainsaw (all seen on "animal cops" on animal planet) are all severe abuse of animals where the person doing the crime got a $5000 fine nothing more. they can go back to owning animals etc.
or to put t to a gun point. someone shoots a dog in the hind quarters, then in the side, then in the head and leaving the dog to die a slow painful death due to blood loss (not a brain shot, maybe shooting it in the muzzle) doing things just to spite animals or to make someone feel good should have a greater punishment than they have now.
i dont think that gun rights should be taken away for animal abuse unless guns were involved in the actual abuse. (as with the above example).
flame me if you like that im a hippy or whatever, im not. i dont beleave in undo suffering in animals. (just as a video i saw of the inside of a slaughter house.. one that was shut down for its practices of not "killing" the cows before they were gutted. cow run into the clams. flipped over had their neck slit, then dumped on the floor, you get the picture)
boy this turned out longer than i wanted.. hope its coherant as its 4am, and im fighting off a cold.
beating your dog with a tire iron, kicking a cat so hard you break its pelvise, cutting a living horse up with a chainsaw (all seen on "animal cops" on animal planet) are all severe abuse of animals where the person doing the crime got a $5000 fine nothing more. they can go back to owning animals etc.
or to put t to a gun point. someone shoots a dog in the hind quarters, then in the side, then in the head and leaving the dog to die a slow painful death due to blood loss (not a brain shot, maybe shooting it in the muzzle) doing things just to spite animals or to make someone feel good should have a greater punishment than they have now.
i dont think that gun rights should be taken away for animal abuse unless guns were involved in the actual abuse. (as with the above example).
flame me if you like that im a hippy or whatever, im not. i dont beleave in undo suffering in animals. (just as a video i saw of the inside of a slaughter house.. one that was shut down for its practices of not "killing" the cows before they were gutted. cow run into the clams. flipped over had their neck slit, then dumped on the floor, you get the picture)
boy this turned out longer than i wanted.. hope its coherant as its 4am, and im fighting off a cold.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Aries-, sorry, but your point wasn't coherent. At least not to me at this late hour.
You drew a distinction between abuse of animals using some tools, and abuse of animals using a gun.
Gun, knife, shovel, fencepost...what does it matter?
"i dont think that gun rights should be taken away for animal abuse unless guns were involved in the actual abuse."
Why? What makes the use of a gun more egregious than the use of a knife, a blunt instrument, or any other weapon?
Again, this is an attempt by the anti's to circumvent the legislative process to deny the right to keep and bear arms to those who would not otherwise be prohibited.
In the 1990's, the rallying cry was that it was "for the children." Now that the "for the children" rallying cry has lost its volume (and more and more people are thinking that maybe owning guns may be the best defense for their children), the anti's need to go somewhere else.
Somewhere warm and fuzzy. Dogs, cats, Bambi...who can argue that we shouldn't protect our beloved animals? The anti's have obviously hired some high-priced marketing firms.
I will guarantee you this, though: if this bill becomes law, there's going to be some otherwise law-abiding citizen who's going to get caught up in this snare. And then there's going to be post after post about how this guy was: entrapped; framed; targetted; guilty; innocent; or the victim of JBT's.
The purpose of laws is not to prevent crime. The purpose of laws is to deter those who are otherwise law-abiding from committing a crime, and to provide punishment for those who are not law-abiding.
All this proposed law does is narrow the circle of the definition of "law abiding."
With time, our opponents will be able to narrow that circle of definition. They want that. They need that.
Yeah, it's Ayn Rand all over again, but that's not to say that what she wrote wasn't true.
And, if this bill passes and you live in Wisconsin, don't go yelling at your neighbor's dog for dumping on your lawn. Just smile at your neighbor, and hope that he/she doesn't find another reason to have your guns taken from you.
You drew a distinction between abuse of animals using some tools, and abuse of animals using a gun.
Gun, knife, shovel, fencepost...what does it matter?
"i dont think that gun rights should be taken away for animal abuse unless guns were involved in the actual abuse."
Why? What makes the use of a gun more egregious than the use of a knife, a blunt instrument, or any other weapon?
Again, this is an attempt by the anti's to circumvent the legislative process to deny the right to keep and bear arms to those who would not otherwise be prohibited.
In the 1990's, the rallying cry was that it was "for the children." Now that the "for the children" rallying cry has lost its volume (and more and more people are thinking that maybe owning guns may be the best defense for their children), the anti's need to go somewhere else.
Somewhere warm and fuzzy. Dogs, cats, Bambi...who can argue that we shouldn't protect our beloved animals? The anti's have obviously hired some high-priced marketing firms.
I will guarantee you this, though: if this bill becomes law, there's going to be some otherwise law-abiding citizen who's going to get caught up in this snare. And then there's going to be post after post about how this guy was: entrapped; framed; targetted; guilty; innocent; or the victim of JBT's.
The purpose of laws is not to prevent crime. The purpose of laws is to deter those who are otherwise law-abiding from committing a crime, and to provide punishment for those who are not law-abiding.
All this proposed law does is narrow the circle of the definition of "law abiding."
With time, our opponents will be able to narrow that circle of definition. They want that. They need that.
Yeah, it's Ayn Rand all over again, but that's not to say that what she wrote wasn't true.
And, if this bill passes and you live in Wisconsin, don't go yelling at your neighbor's dog for dumping on your lawn. Just smile at your neighbor, and hope that he/she doesn't find another reason to have your guns taken from you.
"Animal rights" is a concept that has gotten way out of control in this country.
You need look no farther than Animal Planet for proof. When you have a couple of uniformed "animal control" officers racing through the city in a patrol car with sirens blaring, all because there's a house full of cats that needs to be emptied, something is Seriously Wrong.
You need look no farther than Animal Planet for proof. When you have a couple of uniformed "animal control" officers racing through the city in a patrol car with sirens blaring, all because there's a house full of cats that needs to be emptied, something is Seriously Wrong.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
EVERYBODY, PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND READ THE PROPOSED LAW.
It does NOT make abuse of any animal "domestic violence." What it does is, if in the midst of a divorce/abuse situation, your ex-spouse threatens to kill the dog you shared (or tortures it, or whatever) in order to psychologically threaten YOU, that is now classified as abuse of YOU. It is not about Michael Vick, or kicking your dog; it is about the use of animal abuse as a weapon against someone else.
This is NOT a bill to make mistreatment of pets in general "domestic violence." It is a bill to include mistreating a significant other's pet as a way to get at THEM "domestic violence," which it indeed is, if the courts have previously found that a domestic violence situation exists.
I know people to whom this has happened; wife leaves abusive husband, husband kills the dog in order to hurt the wife. It makes an exception for necessary agricultural or veterinary things, i.e. if the dog does need to be put down, it'd be OK to do so.
I have never seen a thread on THR so full of ad hominem and personal attacks, over things that have little or nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It does NOT make abuse of any animal "domestic violence." What it does is, if in the midst of a divorce/abuse situation, your ex-spouse threatens to kill the dog you shared (or tortures it, or whatever) in order to psychologically threaten YOU, that is now classified as abuse of YOU. It is not about Michael Vick, or kicking your dog; it is about the use of animal abuse as a weapon against someone else.
This is NOT a bill to make mistreatment of pets in general "domestic violence." It is a bill to include mistreating a significant other's pet as a way to get at THEM "domestic violence," which it indeed is, if the courts have previously found that a domestic violence situation exists.
I know people to whom this has happened; wife leaves abusive husband, husband kills the dog in order to hurt the wife. It makes an exception for necessary agricultural or veterinary things, i.e. if the dog does need to be put down, it'd be OK to do so.
I have never seen a thread on THR so full of ad hominem and personal attacks, over things that have little or nothing to do with the issue at hand.
benEzra's correct, we foolishly got off barking down the wrong trail with this, even me, because hardly any of us had the good sense to read what was actually in the proposed law.
The proposed law reads that using a pet to threaten a spouse is to be included as one of the forms of domestic abuse. It is not a more general animal cruelty law threatening your ability to own firearms.
, because hardly any of us had the good sense to read what was actually in the proposed law. The proposed law reads that using a pet to threaten a spouse is to be included as one of the forms of domestic abuse. It is not a more general animal cruelty law threatening your ability to own firearms.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked