Dog Guardian?
There is a move by animal rights wackos to define dog owner into dog guardian. So, what's the big deal? The big deal is that the change means the dog belongs to the state not to you. That is a HUGE change in the law and affects your ability to do just about anything with your dog. Imagine if your kid became a ward of the state, and you were no longer considered their parent but just a guardian. That would be huge, and a total change in the line of authority regarding your home and your relationship with everyone in your family. And if the kid is the ward of the state, then the state has the right to ultimately take that kid from you AT A MUCH LOWER THRESHOLD than exists today. Citing a couple of extreme examples, Hitler took kids from their parents, Mao took kids from their parents, and so forth. That's too much power to give to a government. And the same is true regarding your pet, and it will have far reaching consequences.
Why would animal rights wackos not want you to be the owner of your dog? Because they don't believe in animal ownership at all. They are against domestication of all animals, including dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep and so forth. The ultimate goal would be to let all domesticated animals go extinct, which is why they viciously attack the breeding of dogs, and why they put so much emphasis on spaying and neutering animals.... even animals that deserve to be bred. Also, have you noticed that the animal rights wackos are also usually committed Leftists? They line up this way, politically, because leftists are against private property rights of any kind, thus they tend to vote socialist / communist. Our Constitution protects private property rights. Redefining a dog as being something other than property means those provisions of the Constitution can't be used when fighting to defend yourself in court against another person, animal control, or the government. Animal "guardianship" adds a lot more angle to the slippery slope we are already on, and it is important to fight against these types of laws.
There is a move by animal rights wackos to define dog owner into dog guardian. So, what's the big deal? The big deal is that the change means the dog belongs to the state not to you. That is a HUGE change in the law and affects your ability to do just about anything with your dog. Imagine if your kid became a ward of the state, and you were no longer considered their parent but just a guardian. That would be huge, and a total change in the line of authority regarding your home and your relationship with everyone in your family. And if the kid is the ward of the state, then the state has the right to ultimately take that kid from you AT A MUCH LOWER THRESHOLD than exists today. Citing a couple of extreme examples, Hitler took kids from their parents, Mao took kids from their parents, and so forth. That's too much power to give to a government. And the same is true regarding your pet, and it will have far reaching consequences.
Why would animal rights wackos not want you to be the owner of your dog? Because they don't believe in animal ownership at all. They are against domestication of all animals, including dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep and so forth. The ultimate goal would be to let all domesticated animals go extinct, which is why they viciously attack the breeding of dogs, and why they put so much emphasis on spaying and neutering animals.... even animals that deserve to be bred. Also, have you noticed that the animal rights wackos are also usually committed Leftists? They line up this way, politically, because leftists are against private property rights of any kind, thus they tend to vote socialist / communist. Our Constitution protects private property rights. Redefining a dog as being something other than property means those provisions of the Constitution can't be used when fighting to defend yourself in court against another person, animal control, or the government. Animal "guardianship" adds a lot more angle to the slippery slope we are already on, and it is important to fight against these types of laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment