Master or Slave?

[suijuris]

Now, I like most dogs just fine, and the golden retrievers is a beautiful dog.



Now, go read this news release and ask yourself, what Law has been broken? Are animals property or do they have rights? And is $12,000 for the arrest and prosecution (at the taxpayers expense) of the man or woman who did this cruel deed the best way for bleeding hearts to spend their money? Where is their concern for the masses in 3rd world countries who die of AIDS, starvation, or violence? How about the people in our own country who are homeless or cannot afford health care?



We have become our own worst enemy. Blind to the real need around us... we become slave to that which we are the rightful master of.

Oh, just another meangingless distraction so BB can continue doing what it does best: Divide and conquer.



Of course, you already knew that, right?

[suijuris]

Actually, that hadn't crossed my mind, here I was thinking these were random, isolated events. HA!

[Camino]

The reward money could be used to post the perpetrators face in the paper though.

I know what I'd like to do to anyone who killed my dog. Maybe the dog is only property to some but my dog is a valued member of my family.

Are you saying that property crime is not worthy of investigation?

[wirlwind]

I guess I don't have my prioriities right, but I think someone that does something like that should be punished. People that will do things like that to an animal do it because they can. they would do it to a child if they could get away with it. If there isn't a law that they broke, then the judges can do what they do best with my blessing- make one up! I probably wouldn't give money to support searching, but I would support porsecuting the sorry SOB that could do someting like that. I'm like Camino, my dog is a valued member of my family, and, I don't even want to think about how I would feel if someone did that to my dog. If they can prosecute someone for vandalizing your car or home, then it is just as much against the law to hurt an animal. It's just not right!. Law or no law!

[suijuris]

Camino,



Are animals property? YES. If you disagree, then stop reading here as that is the basis of my futher discussion.



I am all for propery rights, I assume that is what you mean by "property crime." This post is about property rights, if anyone thinks otherwise, they have entirely missed the jist.



All we know about this story is what appears in the article linked to in my first post. You will find NO indication whatsoever that the dog was stolen prior to being killed, was reported missing, etc. The only logical conclusion based on facts provided in the article is that it was in fact the property of the individual who did the act.



So, back to property rights. If we really have property rights, then we are free to dispose of our property as we see fit. I for one do not think what happened to the dog was the most humane way to dispose of it, and would not have personally taken such an action. But it did happen, and cannot be changed. The time spent trying to punish the property owner by painting them as a crminal for their action chould be spent far more productively, see my origonal post.



So it boils down to this question: "Do I have the right to plaster my neighbor's picture all over the news as you have suggested, because I do not agree with his method of disposing of his property, or because I disagree that he has the right to dispose of his property at all?"



For a crime to exist, a man or woman or their property must be injured. I see no indication that this has taken place.

[suijuris]

Camino and Wirlwind,



I feared my post would raise the hackles on many with pets, but far to much is being assumed!



You are assuming that whomever did this did not own the dog.



You are assuming that whomever did this did it for a sick thrill.



You are assuming that whomever did this did not do it to put a sick animal out of their misery.



You are assuming that whomever did this must be a sick child molester deserving of any punishment a judge decides to mete out.



Come on!



There are plenty of laws to punish people who would attempt to perform such an act on YOUR dog. For example, you could sue the within an inch of their lives (any attorney would love such a case). Alternatively, if they broke into your house to take your property, you could just shoot them.



Why are you so worried that your propery rights? They are well protected. But get emotional about somebody elses exercise of their property rights and you may find them at risk very soon.



If your family pet takes ill and is suffering, do you not want the choice to put it down without being subjected to criminal prosecution and public humiliation?



That is the point I am trying to make.

[wirlwind]

If an animal is sick, there are humane (and cheap) ways to put it down. Vets don't charge that much, and many will do it for nothing if you don't have the money to pay for it. There are moral laws that we acknowledge everyday, and I view an animal as a crature that God created and it has the right to live. It certainly is not the right of a human being to kill one for kicks. And I believe that people who do that will answer to God one day for it. I live in the country, and I have seen so many animals abandoned and left to die of starvation, or be hit by cars, and it tears me up. I have a whole yard full of stray cats that have been abondoned. Every dog that I have ever had has been a stray.



I'm not worried about my property rights in this case. I don't view my pets as "property". They are part of my heart, and to see any innocent animal abused and neglected just rips my heart out.

I can't watch the commercials for the children in third world countries either. I'm a nurse, and I could never work pediatrics or labor and delivery because I couldn't deal with the overwhelming pain of sick and dying and abused babies and children.

[Ice]

It doesn't matter how you "view" your pet. Even the gubmint views your pet as your "property" -- and they will hold you accountable if your "property" does something they don't like.



The point is "property rights" and whether or not you want to continue to have such.



The "heart" is where the propagandist works his magic and turns the Free American into a silly emotional confused mess that can't see straight enough to KNOW when his rights are being taken from him.



How do you think we got to this point in the first place ?



We got here because they worked on the "hearts" of the people.



A dog is a dog. Sure, I'll be sad when my little "buzz" ( boston terrier ) bites the big one ... but he's still a dog.



Just don't allow them to use an emotional argument to trick you into agreeing to the loss of yet another "Right".



Ice

[Jerseee]

This is in essence what happened in 9/11.



They have a saying when in the middle of a conflict and the public is looking on..."to win the hearts and minds". I'm sure many of you have heard this.



This is mostly for shock value! To get you so apalled by the act that you willingly and hastly give up your rights. Then the next thing you know---you're Rodney King.



Hell if you don't mind an animal getting wacked--then why not the human being?



Clear thinking is a must in this game. let your emotions stay with your husband or wife or life partner---there is no room on the battle field for heartache. You will lose for sure.



This is not to say that I condone or accept cruelity. The act of cruelity is a motive for something greater---slavery!



The ends will justify the means by "winning the hearts and minds" of the people.



Allegedly, Osama attacked but Saddam is jailed. Go figure. The ends will justify the means.



Property rights are the ends and for you to abandon them willingly after being violated is the means. Let's think folks.