Obama Admin comes out against breed bans using the same arguments pro-gun people use against gun ban

It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

Responding to a breed-ban petition on petitions.whitehouse.gov the administration comes out against them with such gems as:

research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.

Hasnt research shown the Clinton AWB did nothing to reduce crime as well?

They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people

So what about "assault weapon" deaths in relation to all deaths?

CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren't deterred by breed regulations -- when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds.

Criminals will just keep on breaking the law regardless? Now where have I heard that before?

any breed can become dangerous when they're intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.

It's not the dog it's the person behind the dog?

And ultimately, we think that's a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.

Education is better than banning?

Really Whitehouse? REALLY?!?!?!?!

I dont know if this is simple hypocrisy or outright insanity.

So why do all these things apply to dogs and dog owners but not to guns and gun owners?

I like it, this was a great analysis my friend.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It reads like a Double Negative.

I thought it was a Breed Ban rather than Ban Breed Bans.

Say that damn thing 3 times fast.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


The petition was asking the .gov to ban breed bans. Some municipalities and even states have gotten it into their heads to outlaw species of animals.

The .gov response to the petition was against breed bans, a good thing. The irony (or sadism) comes into play in the .gov using the very same reasoning so many use to speak out against gun bans to speak out against the breed bans and apparently doesnt make the connection.

Reasoning which holds true for essentially all prohibitions.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


No, they do hear it. They just don't care enough to hide it anymore.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Macman's life lesson #1. It is always different for Progressives.

Well, after careful consideration and thoughtful reflection? I wonder who thought it was the position of the leader of the Federal Government to determine which breeds we can or cannot have or produce more of in our individual homes...across our 50 states?

Is he a President our do we just call him Papa? I mean really, he isn't saying it this time perhaps. At least, the White House didn't pick the topic ..but still. That people even look to the White House with expectations on such a local matter shows how very far we've fallen from a Republic into a highly centralized Government with people quite happy for it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

The petition was asking the .gov to ban breed bans. Some municipalities and even states have gotten it into their heads to outlaw species of animals.

Why yes that IS what they are trying to do with gun owners legislate them out of existence.

Just another face of the fundamental lack of consistency in this country we call America.

We need to ban law makers

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

So why do all these things apply to dogs and dog owners but not to guns and gun owners?

And I feel silly having to point this out to you...but that's because a gun is not a dog? Psst....one of them has four legs and barks ...just in case you needed a hint.

reply to post by Indigo5


Irrelevant. The very same arguments against the breed ban apply to a gun ban. Any ban.

The object of the ban doesnt negate the logic of the ban.

Even when you post it twice.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.

Just like people don't know the difference between full auto and semi-auto and tell government it has permission to take away private property under the false pretense of 'making them safe'.

Pretty much like the Breed specific legislation.

Then that same government you know that entity some people outsource to 'make them safe' turns around and gives the same weapons, and worse to any 2 bit dictator, or drug cartel they think is friendly to it.

That is HYPOCRISY at it's epitome.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, after careful consideration and thoughtful reflection? I wonder who thought it was the position of the leader of the Federal Government to determine which breeds we can or cannot have or produce more of in our individual homes...across our 50 states?

Hey Rabbit...To answer your question...It was the people submitting the petition that were asking for Breed Bans at the Federal Level...check the link in the OP. It was the WH/POTUS who said no to the petition...leaving it to the states to decide for themselves.

So it would appear you and the WH are on the same page with this issue? I find it ironic that when the WH responds in a way the Right can and does support...it still inspires vitriol as evidenced in this OP.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.

Just like people don't know the difference between full auto and semi-auto

Yes...cuz a Poodle is to a Semi-Automatic rifle...as a Semi-Automatic Rifle is to a Fully Automatic Rifle?

Sorry...can't really have discussions with that kind of ideallogically driven cognitive disfunction.

Everyone should at least come to the debate with a willingness to at least think sanely.

reply to post by Indigo5


It was a rhetorical question. lol.... If you look at my reply a bit closer, I had intended to clarify my 'vitriol' was toward those who have come to look to Washington for solutions to such very local issues. They've been encouraged to see it that way and long before Obama came along, as well as reinforced in thinking since he came.

We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.

BEHOLD!
The Double Bind Theory of Schizophrenia
is alive and well.

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will be automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation.

wikipedia.org / Double Bind

Perhaps we should recommend that the current administration
seek therapy!


Mike

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.

We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

So why do all these things apply to dogs and dog owners but not to guns and gun owners?

And I feel silly having to point this out to you...but that's because a gun is not a dog? Psst....one of them has four legs and barks ...just in case you needed a hint.

Actually, because dogs can act on their own, banning them makes more sense as a gun does absolutely nothing by itself.

Originally posted by Indigo5
We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.

That's not why the admin is being "bashed" here.

The admin is being "bashed" for citing reasons not to support a dog ban that are the very same reasons it should not support an AWB or any ban for that matter.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.

Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.

Just like people don't know the difference between full auto and semi-auto

Yes...cuz a Poodle is to a Semi-Automatic rifle...as a Semi-Automatic Rifle is to a Fully Automatic Rifle?

Sorry...can't really have discussions with that kind of ideallogically driven cognitive disfunction.

Everyone should at least come to the debate with a willingness to at least think sanely.

Actually, you are the one with the cognitive issues. The principles that are applied to ban one object that some foolish and frightened people want to ban can, and are applied to other objects that foolish and frightened people want to ban.