“Pit Bull” Newspeak: Breed Bans “Protect” “Pit Bulls”

By Editor
In Breed-Specific Legislation
Jan 25th, 2013
0 Comments
822 Views

The good news about people doing bad things is that they are getting more foolish.  So when people try to pull a switcheroo and attempt to employ Orwellian newspeak but they’re bad at it, it makes it easier to expose them. (Kind of like have you ever noticed how political correctness is billed as a form of enlightenment but in actuality it’s just an elevated form of censorship?)  I don’t give much credence to “writers” on the Patch, the Examiner (And doesn’t that make them sound legitimate and even authoritative? Yeah, not so much.), or Opposing Views, but this little gem on Opposing Views caught my eye yesterday: Tough BSL Law Protects Pit Bulls in Fayette, MO .  Um, what?

So the latest propaganda piece is that breed-specific legislation (BSL) protects “pit bulls”?  Again, the Orwellian newspeak or double-speak or whatever you want to call it is unmistakeable: Good is bad, and bad is good.  Luckily for us, the newspeakers are bad at newspeaking.

Still, let’s reason this one out just for funsies.  So if I understand correctly, according to Fayette, “breed bans protect ‘pit bulls’”?  The same breed bans that unconstitutionally restrict that non-existent “breed” you call “pit bull,” that result in untold numbers of owner relinquishments thereby burdening the already overrun local shelters and animal controls, that make it impossible to adopt out and find homes for the number of now unwanted “pit bulls” in addition to the number of unwanted “pit bulls” there were before the onerous unconstitutional breed ban was passed, and that make it impossible to own any future “pit bulls” thereby making it a possible death sentence for any “pit bull” within a 50-100 mile radius?  This, according to Fayette, Missouri, is what “protects” “pit bulls”? 

Oh and by the way folks, “grandfathering” as you call it, is not true grandfathering if you have to register and provide pictures of the “pit bulls” you owned prior to BSL having passed, show proof of $100,000 in liability insurance, muzzle your “pit bulls” when they are being walked, etc.  True grandfathering means those who owned their dogs prior to the BSL being passed would be left as they were without the new requirements being applied to them.  What Fayette has proposed for existing “pit bull” owners isn’t “grandfathering”; it’s an ex post facto violation and a back-door registration scheme.  They must’ve taken a tip from those Nazi gun-grabbers who also like back-door registrations.  It makes it that much easier for them to find you and your “contraband” when they eventually completely strip you of your rights.  It’s also a pretense for “probable cause” for other things.  You know how they’re always calling us bulldog breed owners dog fighters, drug dealers, gang bangers, or painting us all as back-woods gun-toting rednecks who believe in crazy notions like our country, freedom, and the Constitution?  Yes, well, if that’s what “authorities” have been taught to think about those who own bulldog breeds — that we’re all criminals — you can imagine what they’ll do, if only eventually, with the knowledge of who owns these dogs and where they live.

And what is this about “rotating dogs”?  Is this the latest ploy from radical animal rightists and the “authorities” who, in this case, appear to be working together to negate your rights, offering up some ridiculous pretense to trespass on your property?  Yes, see if you have provided a picture of your dog, they have it in their little database, along with whatever other pertinent information on you they wish to keep (other information like that, for instance, though you may never have been adjudicated of a crime, they suspect you of being a drug dealer).  You may be innocently dogsitting your second cousin twice removed’s Labrador for the weekend and the dog just happens to be outside when Animal Control or some other “authority” happens by, but this then becomes “probable cause” to trespass on your property and perhaps even enter your home to see what else you’ve got going on, including something petty like a code violation (i.e. you don’t have the proper number of state-required working smoke detectors or some other nonsense).  Suddenly you have a different dog than the ones they have photo I.D.s for in their database and they now have the “authority” to want to know why.  No warrant needed right?  Constitution?  Yeah, they don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!  It gets in the way of Gestapo-like door-to-door illegal searches and seizures.

Oh sure, maybe they’re not going door-to-door now, but I’ve certainly read my fair share of articles where Animal Control has gone door-to-door for compliance checks.  And, of course, historically registering things has seldom worked out really well for the public.  For instance, Hitler required Jews to register and wear that little yellow Star of David.  Then he made the public register their firearms.  Next thing you know, he took both away!

Yes and the Opposing View article goes on to offer a pretense for why this particular town is negating this particular set of rights to supposedly legitimize their illegal ordinance.  And what is the reason?  Well check out the whole schpiel from the radical animal rightist posing as an animal welfarist about how Fayette is supposedly a dumping ground for fighting dogs, blah, blah, blah.  But then there it is again.  The cause of and seeming “solution” to the problem.  It was radical animal rightists who back in the day taught inner-city youth — and particularly minorities, because many upper-echelon animal rightists are elitists and therefore racists – how to fight dogs by passing out their little primers.  So now here is the very problem they created and look, they propose to “solve” it via draconian legislation that not only serves to kill more domesticated pets — which is a well known agenda of radical animal rightists — but potentially allows for warrantless searches.

Anyone remember a little post that Blue Dog State wrote a few years ago and that I piggybacked on with my own post about DNA databases for “pit bulls”?  Anyone?  Bueller?  The database was advertised as a way to nab dog fighters via supposed traceability of DNA from “pit bulls” who could supposedly be traced to certain “fighting” bloodlines.  Besides the fact that the ability to even test DNA for so-called “pit bulls” is highly debatable, the really stupid or really evil thing about that is that pretty much every bulldog breed could be traced to some line or another.  And?  Michael Vick ill-used 50 of those poor “pit bulls,” 49 of which went on to be rehabilitated, fostered, and even adopted out to loving families.  Does this DNA database now purport to call those loving families criminals?  Will the radical animal rights groups that tried to have Vick’s dogs summarily killed finally have those dogs put down because they can be traced to some bloodline?  Perhaps that’s an extreme example, but maybe it’s not.  These wicked doggy-killers will use every trick in the book to kill domesticated animals.  The doggy (DNA) database is only the latest in their bag of tricks.

And so what’s happening in Fayette with their “registration” of “pit bulls” — which they actually have the audacity to tell the public is for the public’s good and unbelievably for “pit bulls’” good — is nothing more than propaganda to get the public used to complying with database registries (gun registries, medical/pharmaceutical registries,  census-taking information that goes waaaay beyond just merely counting the number of people in a dwelling as per the Constitution, etc.).  So rest easy Fayette, Missouri. According to the Nazis trying to take away your fundamental Constitutional rights, you and your “pit bulls” are “safe.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>