[tsovimnpb]

Why are places banning breeds instead of educating the public?....
Simply because for a cost-effectiveness for a government to ban a breed that are often referred to as a "Gladiator" (APBT,German Shepherd, Bulldog, Boxer, Dooberman Pincher, Rottweiller, Bull Terrier) its easier on the public and requires less brain activity to ban over educate. As I quote Chris Rock, " Nothin make a N****r more happy than to not know, Like y should we ban "Gladiator" Dogs? I don't know that s**t I'm jus keepin' it real.... " uh yeah real dumb.... So as society as a whole continues to deteriate more and more we must ask ourselves when does it stop? should we keep going till we are no longer allowed to think for ourselves? What next the Government will say " You are hearby deemed unfit to think and so therefore we shall ban thinking in our land." when will it stop? How many more loving dogs will be put down because of the choice of ignorance over education? what to stop them from banning the next set of breeds? what will stop them from making Dogs illegal? and will it even stop there? what about our right to think to be human? when is enough, enough? This isn't a war on dogs or breeds it's really the war on common sense. You know some1 once said those who stay in power keep it by dumbing down the remainder of society, ignorance is bliss knowledge is power we must invoke our power we have. It is no longer a fight to save the Dogs we love it has become in reality a fight to save what makes us human the ability to innovate, the ability of rational thought, us and only us have the tools to realize that this is more than just a battle to save our dogs I incur u to open your minds and see this for what it really is. It is more than just fighting to save our Dogs which we love, we are being called to do battle in the field of wit for our right to have "Common Sense" but not for us but for our children as well. Draw a line in the sand and stand for it "stand for something u believe in or else you will fall for anything especially the rhethoric of those in power who want to influence what u think.

[fudelholf]

We could start to treat it like this. Stand up and flaunt.

PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.
A man is shown legally carrying a rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona.





Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder.
Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.
"It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said.
Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest. Watch the rifle being legally carried at rally »
"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," the man, who wasn't identified, said in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."
Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before. Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry.


U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.




In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.
"We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," Donovan said. "We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced."

[gluckmeea]

[xpllmr]

Because banning a specific breed is a band aid on cancer. People see it as a "quick fix". What they fail to see is that banning a specific breed only gives the public a false sense of security. Banning APBT's will not be a cure all for ending dog bites, and people will still die from being attacked by some random breed or mutt. However, they feel like if they ban our breed, the whole world will be safe and that will be the end of dog bites everywhere.

[viagracheapest]

Let history show us i is easier to kill than to educate. People would rather ignore than learn.