|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 2, 2009 6:05:17 GMT -5
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 2, 2009 6:50:25 GMT -5
"Instead of focusing on and punishing owners who are irresponsible and criminals who use their dogs for illegal purposes, legislatures choose to place their focus on the dogs, making them into scapegoats. Many opponents believe BSL is the equivalent of racial profiling and banning a breed is, quite possibly, unconstitutional."
well i agree with every part of this paragraph except the last part. a bit of a hyperbole, the constitution applies to people. so i think people who support BSL would target that. overall the film looks good, NICE FIND. not a major blockbuster, but a good documentary.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 2, 2009 8:23:45 GMT -5
Well, it IS unconstitutional because it affects peoples' RIGHT to own the breed they choose. I think that's the argument I'm excited to see this. Dawn Capp's in it and she rox my sox.
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Feb 2, 2009 11:50:43 GMT -5
It also violates the illegal search and seizure clause in many cases, such as in Denver.
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 2, 2009 19:41:47 GMT -5
Well, it IS unconstitutional because it affects peoples' RIGHT to own the breed they choose. I think that's the argument I'm excited to see this. Dawn Capp's in it and she rox my sox. what right?(not that i disagree, i think as long as you are responsible you should be able to own any dog you want). but i'm pretty sure there is no constitutional right that states you can own any breed you want (i would love to be proven wrong on this). I think that instead of making obscure arguments we should be making ones we can back with solid evidence: stats, owner testimonies (although these can be highly opinionated. even irresponsible owners are going to say they love their dog), vet analysis, ATTS, and others. edit: i will prove my self wrong: dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/are_breed_bans_.htmlhowever, i do not think the case deals with breed but property. i think if a SPECIFIC dog is vicious it is a public safety concern, but should be looked upon as an individual case. it is just that as the dog gets bigger so does the risk factor (ei a bigger dog can inflict more damage). but it does not mean they will. on the other hand if dogs are now property, they can be seized legally with a warrant.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Feb 2, 2009 21:55:19 GMT -5
There's only one Court that decides ultimately whether something is unconstitutional: the US Supreme Court. There is a case that determined that dogs are property. There is no case on whether BSL is unconstitutional. STATE Supreme Courts have ruled against us on the issue.. remember the Ohio Supreme Court overturned the lower court on the Tellings case.
But BSL SHOULD be unconstitutional.
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 2, 2009 23:06:06 GMT -5
But BSL SHOULD be unconstitutional. yes i agree. but i think until the supreme court rules otherwise, we should fight it with more concrete evidence.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 3, 2009 6:21:41 GMT -5
Well, it IS unconstitutional because it affects peoples' RIGHT to own the breed they choose. I think that's the argument I'm excited to see this. Dawn Capp's in it and she rox my sox. what right?(not that i disagree, i think as long as you are responsible you should be able to own any dog you want). but i'm pretty sure there is no constitutional right that states you can own any breed you want (i would love to be proven wrong on this). I think that instead of making obscure arguments we should be making ones we can back with solid evidence: stats, owner testimonies (although these can be highly opinionated. even irresponsible owners are going to say they love their dog), vet analysis, ATTS, and others. edit: i will prove my self wrong: dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/are_breed_bans_.htmlhowever, i do not think the case deals with breed but property. i think if a SPECIFIC dog is vicious it is a public safety concern, but should be looked upon as an individual case. it is just that as the dog gets bigger so does the risk factor (ei a bigger dog can inflict more damage). but it does not mean they will. on the other hand if dogs are now property, they can be seized legally with a warrant. Well, I never said it was IN the constitution, you suggested that this wasn't a possibility of violation of constitutional rights because dogs don't have rights.....I said the ARGUMENT is that it IS unconstitutional because it EFFECTS HUMAN RIGHTS to own the breed they choose.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 3, 2009 6:24:21 GMT -5
If we have the right to own dogs, we have the right to own ANY BREED. Pit Bulls are *just dogs*, genetically, behaviorally, in EVERY WAY. BSL has been passed *because* of hyperbole - distortion, exaggeration, and outright lies, and NOT because of anything scientific.
|
|
|
Post by bamapitbullmom on Feb 3, 2009 7:38:17 GMT -5
|
|
snipe
I Love RPBF!
Posts: 421
|
Post by snipe on Feb 3, 2009 16:28:12 GMT -5
what right?(not that i disagree, i think as long as you are responsible you should be able to own any dog you want). but i'm pretty sure there is no constitutional right that states you can own any breed you want (i would love to be proven wrong on this). I think that instead of making obscure arguments we should be making ones we can back with solid evidence: stats, owner testimonies (although these can be highly opinionated. even irresponsible owners are going to say they love their dog), vet analysis, ATTS, and others. edit: i will prove my self wrong: dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/are_breed_bans_.htmlhowever, i do not think the case deals with breed but property. i think if a SPECIFIC dog is vicious it is a public safety concern, but should be looked upon as an individual case. it is just that as the dog gets bigger so does the risk factor (ei a bigger dog can inflict more damage). but it does not mean they will. on the other hand if dogs are now property, they can be seized legally with a warrant. Well, I never said it was IN the constitution, you suggested that this wasn't a possibility of violation of constitutional rights because dogs don't have rights.....I said the ARGUMENT is that it IS unconstitutional because it EFFECTS HUMAN RIGHTS to own the breed they choose. again what right? what i am saying is that to attack the argument for BSL we need to use facts rater than opinion. because the people passing the law, if they can come up with evidence, have every right to pass it. they also have every right to seize a dog (if it is now property) with a warrant. so instead of countering with opinion based arguments, parry with the truth. sure pit bulls were bred to be aggressive, but towards other dogs. and even if that may be true, it has been shown countless times that the dogs environment plays a huge role in how it behaves. also, use statistics from the ATTS and testimonials from authorities on dogs, that the pit bull is indeed a stable dog.
|
|