See what some shooter has done at recreational shooting area

imported post

tat2ed_guy wrote:

DEROS72 wrote:

You don't put someone on trial for shooting a dog.

Click to expand...

They do if its cruelty. The dog was just left to die, in this case who knows how long it was there or if the one that shot it was even the owner.

Click to expand...

Who determines cruelty? You?? This was an animal, not a human, and therefore, there is no cruelty other than some subjective version of it that each person will see differently... to most people in this world, killing a dog is no different than someone picking a carrot and leaving it out to rot. The only reason the person should face any charges at all would be leaving an animal carcass on someone else's property... and if it is public property... they should not even get those charges as an animal rots and is considered biodegradable.

imported post

I had dog in Vietnam and its not bad with the right seasonings.....

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

I had dog in Vietnam and its not bad with the right seasonings.....

Click to expand...

Yuck! Eating NCO's, no matter how well cooked or seasoned, is just gross.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

tat2ed_guy wrote:

DEROS72 wrote:

You don't put someone on trial for shooting a dog.

Click to expand...

They do if its cruelty. The dog was just left to die, in this case who knows how long it was there or if the one that shot it was even the owner.

Click to expand...

Who determines cruelty? You?? This was an animal, not a human, and therefore, there is no cruelty other than some subjective version of it that each person will see differently... to most people in this world, killing a dog is no different than someone picking a carrot and leaving it out to rot. The only reason the person should face any charges at all would be leaving an animal carcass on someone else's property... and if it is public property... they should not even get those charges as an animal rots and is considered biodegradable.

Click to expand...

Actually YES I do, and so do you and every other member of this society.What makes being cruel to a human any diff? If you are worthless and not good for anythingor a danger to other humans it should be ok to do the same to that person shouldnt it?

imported post

As I see it, the real problem is the idiot who shot the dog:

A. did not kill it

B. tied it to a tree and let it suffer



If your going to shoot something, at least have the decency to make a quick kill. Any animal, especially one that someasshole decided he didn't want anymore, deserves at least that much.

imported post

tat2ed_guy wrote:

Actually YES I do, and so do you and every other member of this society.What makes being cruel to a human any diff? If you are worthless and not good for anythingor a danger to other humans it should be ok to do the same to that person shouldnt it?

Click to expand...

Because it's a human. Humans are protected by the Constitution, animals are not. Animals are animals and do not deserve rights... you give your animals rights... I use most of mine for food...

If you cannot tell the difference between a human and an animal... you do not deserve to own or carry weapons and in fact, if anyone on this board knows who this is.. they should warn the local police that this person cannot tell the difference between a human and an animal.

You really are a danger to your fellow man and should not be able to carry or own a firearm.

imported post

The problem with what this person did kinda scares me in the fact after he is tired of shooting a dog, where does he go next? Yes, a dog is not a person, but at times I would rather be around dogs than some people.

imported post

While I'm not advocating violence or cruelty against animals... I think that they are just animals... no matter how much people love their dogs. I've had dogs in the past and loved every one of them, but choosing between an animal and a human is not a choice... that is unless I'm choosing betwen a dog and a murderer (of humans) or a child molester...

Humans come first... if you don't like it... too friggin bad! Grow up or grow a pair... either way... you had better figure out fast that humans are first or you will find out the hard way that your way of thinking is truly in the minority.

imported post

I thought King County outlawed all 'recreational shooting areas.'

imported post

rady8um wrote:

As I see it, the real problem is the idiot who shot the dog:

A. did not kill it

B. tied it to a tree and let it suffer



If your going to shoot something, at least have the decency to make a quick kill. Any animal, especially one that some@#$% decided he didn't want anymore, deserves at least that much.

Click to expand...

A great big AMEN here....

To do otherwise is cruel and inhumane!

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

tat2ed_guy wrote:

Actually YES I do, and so do you and every other member of this society.What makes being cruel to a human any diff? If you are worthless and not good for anythingor a danger to other humans it should be ok to do the same to that person shouldnt it?

Click to expand...

Because it's a human. Humans are protected by the Constitution, animals are not. Animals are animals and do not deserve rights... you give your animals rights... I use most of mine for food...

If you cannot tell the difference between a human and an animal... you do not deserve to own or carry weapons and in fact, if anyone on this board knows who this is.. they should warn the local police that this person cannot tell the difference between a human and an animal.

You really are a danger to your fellow man and should not be able to carry or own a firearm.

Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly its ok to do things like this to anything other than a human because of the constitution? While I do actively support and defend that very doncument I dont believe that itsays thatit is ok to be cruel to anything. But with that being said, call theArlington PD and let them know what ever you think will help your point of view. I have nothing to worry about, like you said , I am human and protected by the constitution.

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

I do know the diff. and I have came across alot more HUMANS than animals that I would tie up and treat the way that this dog was.

imported post

I agree. If its an aggressive dog and needs to be put down and for some reason cannot have it euthanized, at least have the decency to put it out in one shot.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

While I'm not advocating violence or cruelty against animals... I think that they are just animals... no matter how much people love their dogs. I've had dogs in the past and loved every one of them, but choosing between an animal and a human is not a choice... that is unless I'm choosing betwen a dog and a murderer (of humans) or a child molester...

Humans come first... if you don't like it... too friggin bad! Grow up or grow a pair... either way... you had better figure out fast that humans are first or you will find out the hard way that your way of thinking is truly in the minority.

Click to expand...

Read the post. We are not comparing dogs to people. The topic is: leaving a dog to suffer. IMHO you might want to stop digging yourself a hole because you're getting in pretty deep. Your last post sounds like a teenager trying to pick a fight.

imported post

If you're going to kill something, kill it, for pete's sake and don't just assume it will die because you left it. Any moron that leaves a wounded animal or human is a criminal, and should be dealt with accordingly. Hit a deer with your car? Make sure it's dead or take measures to either finish the job or transport to an animal hospital. Someday it might be you that is left for dead and you'd appreciate the humane treatment if you got it.
I could give a rat's a$$ less for those PETA types, but don't leave something to suffer.

imported post

The comments made by someone here has infuriated me... Here's my take, if someone is attacking to kill my dog when my dog has not provoked it I would have no problem pointing and using my gun to stop the attack, what he is doing is a felony (correct me if I am wrong) but he is essentially stealing my property if he kills my dog or have to spend thousands to hospitalize my dog, I have every right to stop a felony... my dog would give her life to protect me, on the flip side I would protect my dog with everything but my life...

Leaving a suffering dog to die, is INHUMAN, what makes people - human - is compassion for all creatures no matter how big or small... wild or domesticated...

We are all "animals", some smarter than others, if someone beats, shoots and leaves an animal to die, they lower themselves to a wild animals level, perhaps lower, because humans should know better...

I show no compassion to anyone who abuses animals...

edited to add:

However... if my dog was attacking someone unprovoked, I would sadly shoot my own dog...

imported post

To everyone comparing humans to animals... you have a serious problem. When you begin to equivocate killing or maiming or running over a human and leaving them to die in a ditch... or make somehow equal, treatment of animals and humans... you have gone too far.

So you like dogs or cats or whatever animal you like... they're animals.

If someone is trying to kill your dog, and you're there, by all means shoot the person... that is... unless your dog was trying to kill them first. If someone is onyour property robbing you, and is attacked byyour dog... and is then trying to killyour dog...you should(as is preferred here) shoot to stop the threat.Your dog isyour property, and someone trying to takeyour property can be stopped by you with the use of force.

But all of that aside... if you hit a deer and you don't put it out of its misery, you should be jailed? You think that equals hitting a human and leaving them in the ditch??? You sicko... a deer is just meat... if I go to the grocery store and buy 200 pounds of meat, then, leave it on ground to rot or spoil, have I committed a crime? Well, to most Statists who want more and more control over every damn thing we do... I probably have... there's probably some law in Washington that criminalizes that... all I can tell you is that all these restrictions on liberty will not end well.

And as for knowing the Constitution.... anyone who wants to criminalize what people do with their property if its not taking away someone else's liberty does not know the Constitution and is just as bad as any Statists who wants to take our guns... it all starts somewhere and all of you feel you have the right to impose your morals on everyone else... I have news for you... it is the exact philosophy you have and your desire to impose your morals on others that is destroying this country and taking away all of our other rights.

imported post

Prophet wrote:

...a flag burner. They say its their right to burn the flag...fine...then its my right to wrap then in that fiery flag and laugh while they burn.

Click to expand...

How do you figure?

To be honest, I kind of want to burn a flag now because I get the impression it would get a rise out of you. And since I don't place any weight in symbols which represent a government rather than a people...

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Because it's a human. Humans are protected by the Constitution, animals are not. Animals are animals and do not deserve rights... you give your animals rights... I use most of mine for food...

If you cannot tell the difference between a human and an animal... you do not deserve to own or carry weapons and in fact, if anyone on this board knows who this is.. they should warn the local police that this person cannot tell the difference between a human and an animal.

Click to expand...

Rights are not derived from the Constitution, but from the nature of beings. Justify your position.

As for "If you're going to equate x to y, then you're a sicko!" statements, I feel compelled to point out that if someone is going to equate (or even compare) killing animals for food to hurting animals purely for the pleasure of it, I'm inclined to declare that someone sick. Is that the comparison you're trying to make?

I know that that's not necessarily what happened here, but I do wonder why the dog was left the way it was. I have seen people hurting animals for no reason other than their own enjoyment, and while I don't feel there is a compelling argument for using government to "punish" them, I do feel that we as a society should view such behavior as repugnant and abhorrent, and encourage such individuals to seek help.

For what it's worth, since rights are derived from the nature of things, and it is in the nature of humans to eat animals, I believe we have the natural right to eat animals, at least in an ethical fashion (to be determined by society, as with all ethics). However, being that it is in the nature of animals is to be alive, it similarly follows that they self-evidently possess the right to be alive basically up until the point that some carnivore decides to eat them or they die otherwise of their own accord. To put it another way, your right to eat animals (a reflection of the nature of things) does not give you a right to torture them for no reason (what in nature kills for pleasure? Are we going to make the argument that it is properly "natural" for people to do so?).

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote: WFL, the points you seem to be missing here are that there is a difference between necessary (food preparation, labor, etc) and unnecessary cruelty. YES, animals are, in the end, just property. NO, they do not have any "rights" as we understand them. But they are different from a carrot or a cinderblock in that they are capable of experiencing pain on varying levels. What was done here was absolutely repugnant, and we as a society have a right to draft laws restricting such actions and punishing those who do so anyway. You've said elsewhere that you beleive liberty is an absolute. Well, I disagree. Liberty ceases to be an absolute the minute you choose to live in a society with other people, since in doing so your liberties will to one extent or another be inherently limited. If a society wishes to create laws restricting unnecessary or extreme animal cruelty, and those laws do not exceed the restrictions of the state or national constitutions, then it has the right to do so. This does not make the people who endorse such laws liberals, fascists or (even worse) PETA members:what:.

imported post

I'm a biologist, so I felt compelled to fix Marshaul's statement. From a biological perspective, after all, humans are animals and just another link in the food chain. The only reason that humans think it is OK to kill animals but immoral to kill another human is because humans have an anthropomorphic view of the world.

marshaul wrote:

For what it's worth, since rights are derived from the nature of things, and it is in the nature ofanimals to eat humans, I believeanimals have the natural right to eat humans, at least in an ethical fashion (to be determined by animals, as with all ethics). However, being that it is in the nature ofhumans is to be alive, it similarly follows that they self-evidently possess the right to be alive basically up until the point that some carnivore decides to eat them or they die otherwise of their own accord. To put it another way,their right to eathumans (a reflection of the nature of things) does not giveanimals a right to torture you for no reason (what in nature kills for pleasure? (uh, apparently humans do) Are we going to make the argument that it is properly "natural" for people to do so?).

Click to expand...

How did this thread derail to this absurd discussion? Yes, if you believe in the Bible, animals were put on this earth for our use. But, we are supposed to be good stewards of animals, which means insuring they don't suffer at our hands or through our negligence.

Charles