Animals should be put down for attacking people. If my dog mauled somebody for no good reason, I'd shoot him myself.

Now, an intruder with ill intentions? In that case, I think the dog should be given an extra helping of milk bones. There's also been instances of intruders succesfully suing people who shot them or beat them with baseball bats.

I agree... that's a heaping pile of horseshit. If you break into somebody's house late at night, you have no rights, as far as I'm concerned. And if you get bitten in the balls by Fido, smacked upside the head with a baseball bat by Mr. Smith and then shot in the ass by Granny Smith... that's your tough luck. If you wanna cry about it, cry to your cell mate.

As far as "animal rights," I think they are in the same category with Bugs Bunny and Santa Clause. It's a cute idea.. but has no basis in reality.

In USA Today, there was a query put forth concerning the revelation that the Supreme Court is going to take up the question of the Second Amendment, and the lawsuit filed in the Washington DC court system. The query put forth was: Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

I posted the following on another WebSite:
-----------------------------------------------------
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

That's a loaded question. I would have to vote NO on that one. The Second Amendment does NOT give any rights to anyone. It only recognizes rights already existing. These elitists will never get it.
-----------------------------------------------------

Around 95% of the respondents voted YES. Of course, they are believing that the query meant that the Second Amendment was meant to be an individual right, but it was worded wrong. That's what happens when you have an uneducated media trying to handle such historical questions.

This is why Prohibition is a bad thing, beer is such an important thing deep down. Things could have been so much better if yes, she had only got him his damned beer.

As for the subject of animal rights, im agreeing with mytmouse, its a cute prospect but it really is rediculous to the extent people take it. Animals are animals, on the whole property. I dont condone unessercery violence, but there just animals.

Syrokal-

Syrokal,
try role playing this thing out differently. Bet y'all would conclude differently if the woman was home getting juiced up the kazoo watching the t.v. and told her husband to bring home more brewski for her!!!

Syr, I think you are a very enlightened young man,but perhaps still maintain a certain chauvenism. You see that too?





OhDear

OD...Sy was being sarcastic I believe...He's like that and enjoys a good tease. LOL! Actually, he's a very good tease.

I was waiting to see what the final ruling by the Supreme Court would be. I think a majority of our different outlooks come from the fact that the Supreme Court has been unwilling to address this issue.

Individual Rights exist by agreement between sovereigns. If you don't violate my individual rights and sovereignty, then I won't violate yours. It is an agreement against mutually insured destruction.

garysher wrote:Sure I can. It is declared, in Article Two of the Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It is obvious, to anyone who can comprehend a simple statement, that the right pre-existed this bold declaration. There is no indication whatsoever that there is a declaration that the right was granted by the Bill of Rights.