NAACP: Let Vick Play!

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

Wow, thats some great spinning. Assualt rifles on my property aren't harming anyone. But sure, if you want to use your logic, a dog that is trained to fight, and constantly abused, most definitely does "have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life". Please don't tell me that you have never heard of someone being attacked by a dog.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

You obviously don't share the moral sense of humanity which the rest modern of society has adopted.

 

[jonks]

Please don't let the "dogs are property" people hi-jack this thread, which they do every time a Vick thread comes up. Ignore their posts, and they will go away. Let them start a "dogs are property so I should be able to kill them if I want to" thread.

As to claims above that Vick should be allowed to play again because after prison, people are supposed to get a "second chance", I think that's an incorrect understanding of what that "second chance" is. Well, first off, there is no right to a "second chance" but I'll leave that aside.

The "second chance" is getting another shot at freedom and having a life, any life, outside of jail. It is definitely not getting back your old life exactly as it was before jail without consequence. Vick will get out with millions in the bank, more than most other felons ever have when they get out, and if he gets banned, he should find some other positive way to spend his life. Acknowledge you screwed up and move on, show that you learned something from the experience.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

Wow, thats some great spinning. Assualt rifles on my property aren't harming anyone. But sure, if you want to use your logic, a dog that is trained to fight, and constantly abused, most definitely does "have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life". Please don't tell me that you have never heard of someone being attacked by a dog.

Well fine, if you want to make it an argument that Vick created an assault weapon by training those dogs, you may have a point, especially if he didn't take precautions to make sure those dogs wouldn't attack anyone. But then you can't also turn around and blame him for doing the responsible thing and destroying the dogs that were no longer useful for fighting, which is what the animal rights nutcases are doing.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

You obviously don't share the moral sense of humanity which the rest modern of society has adopted.

What exactly is moral in depriving a person of his real and inalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness over some imaginary animal rights that you happen to assign to his property?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

Wow, thats some great spinning. Assualt rifles on my property aren't harming anyone. But sure, if you want to use your logic, a dog that is trained to fight, and constantly abused, most definitely does "have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life". Please don't tell me that you have never heard of someone being attacked by a dog.

Well fine, if you want to make it an argument that Vick created an assault weapon by training those dogs, you may have a point, especially if he didn't take precautions to make sure those dogs wouldn't attack anyone. But then you can't also turn around and blame him for doing the responsible thing and destroying the dogs that were no longer useful for fighting, which is what the animal rights nutcases are doing.

I'm only making that argument using your logic, and since it was just proven to be nonsense, hopefully you'll stop showing up in all of these threads and spreading your "personal property rights" BS wrt the abuse of animals. Society as a whole has decided that its not acceptable to abuse certain animals, if you don't like it, move to some third world country where you are free to torture all of the animals that you'd like.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

But I need an assualt rifle to kill my dog so I can eat it!!

Seriously, I don't think animlas have rights but making two animals fight to the death just for entertainment is wrong. If you don't want the dog then kill it in a humane fashion.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

You obviously don't share the moral sense of humanity which the rest modern of society has adopted.

What exactly is moral in depriving a person of his real and inalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness over some imaginary animal rights that you happen to assign to his property?

I thought we just went over this, maybe you've changed and you believe that its perfectly fine for someone to have an assault rifle on their property as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Or you just don't mind being a hypocrite.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

Wow, thats some great spinning. Assualt rifles on my property aren't harming anyone. But sure, if you want to use your logic, a dog that is trained to fight, and constantly abused, most definitely does "have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life". Please don't tell me that you have never heard of someone being attacked by a dog.

Well fine, if you want to make it an argument that Vick created an assault weapon by training those dogs, you may have a point, especially if he didn't take precautions to make sure those dogs wouldn't attack anyone. But then you can't also turn around and blame him for doing the responsible thing and destroying the dogs that were no longer useful for fighting, which is what the animal rights nutcases are doing.

I'm only making that argument using your logic, and since it was just proven to be nonsense, hopefully you'll stop showing up in all of these threads and spreading your "personal property rights" BS wrt the abuse of animals. Society as a whole has decided that its not acceptable to abuse certain animals, if you don't like it, move to some third world country where you are free to torture all of the animals that you'd like.

Or I can speak out against the decision that you claim "society as a whole" has decided. "Society as a whole" has decided a lot of things wrong in the past only to change its mind later.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. I agree.

It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights.

I seem to remember you making some idiotic comments about gun owners and trailer parks, you didn't care too much about peoples rights wrt firearms on their own property at the time, whats changed?

Edit - Yep, you said that you don't think anyone should own assault rifles. So in your world, owning an assault rifle should not be allowed because thats bad, but torturing animals is ok because its on your own property. Weird.

Nothing weird about it at all.
Assault rifles have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life. Dog fighting does not impact anyone's rights, since dogs don't have any rights. They are animals, not people, and rights are for the people. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating hamburgers. That would be murder too if animal rights crowd gets its way.

Wow, thats some great spinning. Assualt rifles on my property aren't harming anyone. But sure, if you want to use your logic, a dog that is trained to fight, and constantly abused, most definitely does "have potential to impact on other people's constitutional right to life". Please don't tell me that you have never heard of someone being attacked by a dog.

Well fine, if you want to make it an argument that Vick created an assault weapon by training those dogs, you may have a point, especially if he didn't take precautions to make sure those dogs wouldn't attack anyone. But then you can't also turn around and blame him for doing the responsible thing and destroying the dogs that were no longer useful for fighting, which is what the animal rights nutcases are doing.

I'm only making that argument using your logic, and since it was just proven to be nonsense, hopefully you'll stop showing up in all of these threads and spreading your "personal property rights" BS wrt the abuse of animals. Society as a whole has decided that its not acceptable to abuse certain animals, if you don't like it, move to some third world country where you are free to torture all of the animals that you'd like.

Or I can speak out against the decision that you claim "society as a whole" has decided. "Society as a whole" has decided a lot of things wrong in the past only to change its mind later.

There are plenty of sick people out there, I'm sure you could find a small following that would support you in your crusade to make animal torture and abuse legal. Please let us know when you get your website up.

 

[Rustler]

senseamp'


When your refer to an "assult" rifle you mean a military fully automatic weapon do you not?

If so very few of these have been used in crimes since they are tightly controlled by the Federal Government on the requirements of ownership of these weapons by civilians.

However any copies of these sold in gun stores would be semi-automatic rifles.

 

[JD50]

I guess child porn is ok too, as long as its not an American (that way you don't have to worry about any constitutional rights) kid in the film?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

You obviously don't share the moral sense of humanity which the rest modern of society has adopted.

What exactly is moral in depriving a person of his real and inalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness over some imaginary animal rights that you happen to assign to his property?

Maybe because the vast majority of civilized people have acknowledged that animals are living, breathing, feeling creatures. It's called humane treatment, and it's evolved from thousands of years of interaction with them. From this sense of humanity, we have realized that as the dominant creature of this planet, we have a moral responsibility toward animals, among which include human treatment.

You've already shown how contradictory you are in your views, no need to show us how broken your moral compass is as well.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

You obviously don't share the moral sense of humanity which the rest modern of society has adopted.

What exactly is moral in depriving a person of his real and inalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness over some imaginary animal rights that you happen to assign to his property?

I thought we just went over this, maybe you've changed and you believe that its perfectly fine for someone to have an assault rifle on their property as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Or you just don't mind being a hypocrite.

I have already answered that "point" in a previous post, which you obviously didn't get or chose to ignore.
Society can decide to ban certain weapons because they pose an unacceptable risk to other people's rights. Ever wonder why you can't own a nuclear bomb or anti-aircraft missile? Now you can debate all day long about where to draw the line between what weapon is or isn't allowed. It would even be legitimate to classify fighting dogs as assault weapons and say they pose too much of a risk to people and should be banned. But that's not the argument being made here. The argument being made is that dogs have some sort of rights, and that's why we shouldn't have dogfighting. But where are these rights for animals in the Constitution? Do chickens have right to life too?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do chickens have right to life too?

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.

Edit: Note that there is no law "animal murder". Only "animal cruelty" and such.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't see why what he did is even a crime. Fighting his dogs on his property. In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights. Animals aren't persons, and assigning them some imaginary rights is completely asinine, and infringes on people's rights wrt their property for the benefit of someone else's feelings about animals.

You obviously don't share the moral sense of humanity which the rest modern of society has adopted.

What exactly is moral in depriving a person of his real and inalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness over some imaginary animal rights that you happen to assign to his property?

I thought we just went over this, maybe you've changed and you believe that its perfectly fine for someone to have an assault rifle on their property as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Or you just don't mind being a hypocrite.

I have already answered that "point" in a previous post, which you obviously didn't get or chose to ignore.
Society can decide to ban certain weapons because they pose an unacceptable risk to other people's rights. Ever wonder why you can't own a nuclear bomb or anti-aircraft missile? Now you can debate all day long about where to draw the line between what weapon is or isn't allowed. It would even be legitimate to classify fighting dogs as assault weapons and say they pose too much of a risk to people and should be banned. But that's not the argument being made here. The argument being made is that dogs have some sort of rights, and that's why we shouldn't have dogfighting. But where are these rights for animals in the Constitution? Do chickens have right to life too?

The mental gymnastics you are performing are incredible. YOU are the one making this about personal property rights, even though you freely admit that those rights shouldn't extend to assualt rifles, when it states very clearly in the constitution that we have a right to them. I can't believe that you say "But where are these rights for animals in the Constitution" in the exact same paragraph that you are arguing against the 2nd amendment.

"It's nice to know that we as a society can decide what people do with their private property on their private property without infringing on anyone's rights."

"In a free country, you should be able to do what you want unless you are violating some other person's rights."

"well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assualt rifle"

disgusting

 

[Rustler]

Typical liberal, he would scream the loudest when they come to take his rights away, but not worry about anyone else. And your arguement about Nuclear weapons and anti aircraft missles is laughable.

I am a former Airborne Ranger circa 71-78 two Tours of Duty in Vietnam and I know what real assult weapons and death are all about.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do chickens have right to life too?

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.

Edit: Note that there is no law "animal murder". Only "animal cruelty" and such.

OK, where is this right of "humane treatment" for animals in the Constitution?
Also who defines humane? Some people can say putting a leash on a dog or neutering it is not humane. You wouldn't do it to a human.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. humane and quick killing is better than sadistic torture. are you for real? I can't follow this thread anymore, to many thick-heads trying to justify sadism and torture, truly pointless

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do chickens have right to life too?

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.

Edit: Note that there is no law "animal murder". Only "animal cruelty" and such.

OK, where is this right of "humane treatment" for animals in the Constitution?
Also who defines humane? Some people can say putting a leash on a dog or neutering it is not humane. You wouldn't do it to a human.

Obviously "humane treatment" is not a black and white issue. Vick was not arrested for putting a leash on his dog. I think most reasonable people would agree that putting a leash on your dog is humane, while making him fight other dogs, torturing him, and then killing him is not humane.

 

[Rustler]

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.


I would tend to agree with you on this.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
as a society we have decided deliberate and wanton cruelty and abuse to animls for amusement is unlawful and should be punished. humane and quick killing is better than sadistic torture. are you for real?

Sadly, yes, he is.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Rustler



Typical liberal, he would scream the loudest when they come to take his rights away, but not worry about anyone else. And your arguement about Nuclear weapons and anti aircraft missles is laughable.

I am a former Airborne Ranger circa 71-78 two Tours of Duty in Vietnam and I know what real assult weapons and death are all about.

The Constitution says there is a right to bear arms. Period. It doesn't explicitly spell out the limitations on that right. So if you accept that there are limitations when it comes to certain types of arms, such as missiles, you are acknowledging that there is this implicit limitation, then there is only a question of where you draw the line left. You can draw it at assault rifles at tanks, at whatever that's up to debate, but there is an implicit limitation there. There is no right to animal rights implicit or explicit in the Constitution. It's a complete fabrication. And I will take real property rights over fabricated animal rights any day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do chickens have right to life too?

We aren't arguing a right to life. Nobody (sensible people) values the life of an animal over the life of a human. We are arguing right to humane treatment.

Edit: Note that there is no law "animal murder". Only "animal cruelty" and such.

OK, where is this right of "humane treatment" for animals in the Constitution?
Also who defines humane? Some people can say putting a leash on a dog or neutering it is not humane. You wouldn't do it to a human.

Why must something be in the constitution for it to be a law again? Do we need an amendment for everything humanity deems as good and right?

Where is it in the constitution that I can't walk around downtown naked making lewd comments to people? If I want to do it, why does society have a right to stop me? It goes with my right to a pursuit of happiness, right?