<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>www.NoPitBullBans.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nopitbullbans.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com</link>
	<description>When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality. --Thomas Jefferson</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:18:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Can So-Called &#8220;Pit Bulls&#8221; Get a Fair Shake from the Media?</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/09/05/can-so-called-pit-bulls-get-a-fair-shake-from-the-media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/09/05/can-so-called-pit-bulls-get-a-fair-shake-from-the-media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA["Pit Bull" Hysteria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor&#8217;s note: Soon after publishing this post, I was watching America&#8217;s Funniest Home Videos and there was a clip of an overly-exuberant Golden Retriever who knocked a child down and excitedly licked the child&#8217;s face and kept bopping at the child with his nose.  The audience of course roared with laughter.  What&#8217;s the difference between [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/09/05/can-so-called-pit-bulls-get-a-fair-shake-from-the-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kirksville, Missouri to Consider &#8220;Pit Bull&#8221; Ban</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/09/02/kirksville-missouri-to-consider-pit-bull-ban/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/09/02/kirksville-missouri-to-consider-pit-bull-ban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:21:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA["Pit Bull" Hysteria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor&#8217;s note: There is a wealth of information nationally and internationally that breed-specific legislation (BSL) does not work.  Please write the Kirksville Mayor and City Council here and politely inform them that BSL offers only a false sense of security since it is well known at this point that BSL in ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/09/02/kirksville-missouri-to-consider-pit-bull-ban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s in a Name?</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/28/whats-in-a-name/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/28/whats-in-a-name/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardianship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1277</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What&#8217;s in a name?  Plenty.  So when animal rightists disguised as normal, rational human beings say things like this, &#8220;We needed to change the language [from "owner" of pets to "guardian"]&#8230;My feeling* was the term &#8216;owner&#8217; denigrated the animal companions we share our lives with.&#8221; it sounds reasonable.  But guardianship is anything but reasonable. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/28/whats-in-a-name/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barstow, California May Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for &#8220;Pit Bulls&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/26/barstow-california-may-consider-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-for-pit-bulls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/26/barstow-california-may-consider-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-for-pit-bulls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mandatory Spay/Neuter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barstow California]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Victorville Daily Press: A consultant working with Barstow to update its vicious-dog ordinance recommends that the city consider a mandatory spay-and-neuter law. But whether that law would require all dog owners to fix their animals or only to pit bull owners is up to city officials, he says. &#8230;A draft of the updated [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/26/barstow-california-may-consider-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-for-pit-bulls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>With Elected Officials Like These, Who Needs Enemies?</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/25/with-elected-officials-like-these-who-needs-enemies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/25/with-elected-officials-like-these-who-needs-enemies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA["Pit Bull" Hysteria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mandatory Spay/Neuter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollister California]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Heavens to murgatroid, what is becoming of this country?  On the one hand we have very power-drunk nanny-staters who push overly-bureaucratic legislation like breed bans, and on the other hand we have racist podunkers who pass the same breed-specific legislation only with a racist bent.  The former, the nanny-staters, we lobby against every day because [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/25/with-elected-officials-like-these-who-needs-enemies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shoot First&#8230;No Consequences Later&#8230;Apparently</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/25/shoot-first-no-consequences-later-apparently/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/25/shoot-first-no-consequences-later-apparently/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA["Pit Bull" Hysteria]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Visitors to this site have frequently noted the alarming frequency with which law enforcement officers shoot dogs first and apparently have to answer no questions later.  For instance, if a law enforcement officer feels threatened by a dog, s/he apparently has the &#8220;right&#8221; to use deadly force against the animal.  But are these officers trained [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/25/shoot-first-no-consequences-later-apparently/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Colerain Township, Ohio May Consider &#8220;Pit Bull&#8221; Restrictions</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/21/colerain-township-ohio-may-consider-pit-bull-restrictions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/21/colerain-township-ohio-may-consider-pit-bull-restrictions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor&#8217;s note: Again, what is a &#8220;pit bull&#8221;?  There is no such breed.  And since what folks refer to as &#8220;pit bulls&#8221; often runs the gamut of actual breeds and their mixes, it&#8217;s clear that Colerain Township has a free-roaming dog problem, not a &#8220;pit bull&#8221; problem.  As we have seen time and again with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/21/colerain-township-ohio-may-consider-pit-bull-restrictions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Batesville, Arkansas to Consider &#8220;Pit Bull&#8221; Ban</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/16/batesville-arkansas-to-consider-pit-bull-ban/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/16/batesville-arkansas-to-consider-pit-bull-ban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:04:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor&#8217;s note: Since there is no breed &#8220;pit bull&#8221; statistics from this non-existent &#8220;breed&#8221; are meaningless.  Also, while breed bans themselves have been found to be unconstitutional, banning &#8220;pit bulls&#8221; from owners who owned their dogs prior to legislation being passed is a serious ex post facto violation. From KAIT 8: &#8230;&#8221;We&#8217;ve had seven attacks [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/08/16/batesville-arkansas-to-consider-pit-bull-ban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some Politicos Should Be Registered as Weapons</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/07/27/some-politicos-should-be-registered-as-weapons/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/07/27/some-politicos-should-be-registered-as-weapons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA["Pit Bull" Hysteria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following excerpted opinion piece from the Halifax-Plympton Reporter, &#8220;Pit Bulls should be registered weapons,&#8221; was written by Massachusetts Republican State Committeeman Richard Greeley. (Sections of his article appear in block quotes, and my comments follow.)  You know, we expect the nanny-staters to push overly bureaucratic, bloated government-type legislation like breed bans and mandatory registrations [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/07/27/some-politicos-should-be-registered-as-weapons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yucaipa, CA to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for &#8220;Pit Bulls&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/07/27/yucaipa-ca-to-consider-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-for-pit-bulls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/07/27/yucaipa-ca-to-consider-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-for-pit-bulls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA["Pit Bull" Hysteria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breed-Specific Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=1064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Yucaipa City Council has given initial approval to a proposed ordinance requiring the spaying or neutering of pit bulls. The City Council approved the ordinance&#8217;s first reading on a 4-1 vote Monday night. If approved during a second and final reading, Yucaipa residents would have 30 days [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nopitbullbans.com/2010/07/27/yucaipa-ca-to-consider-mandatory-spayneuter-ordinance-for-pit-bulls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
