Saw a post by Doug Hagin on some of the "common sense" regulations some folks would like to put on gun owners. Their motto: "We don't want to take your guns...but we do have a bridge we'd like to sell you!"
It occurred to me that dogs have been known to injure and even kill people, so what if we were to apply the same "common sense" laws and regulations to dog ownership?
Mandatory dog registration- owner carries registration card that lists all dogs owned. Failing to register your dog would be a felony.
No adoptions unless done through a central registration office. Dogs must be picked up at central registration office.
No "straw purchases" of dogs to be given to someone else.
Mandatory government approved muzzle required to transport dog to your home.
Mandatory government approved, locked kennel required; only registered owner will have combination/key. (The government may, however, wish to check on the security of your kennel from time to time)
Mandatory obedience school classes and shots.
No more than two dogs may be purchased within a calendar year, unless you possess a Federal Fido License. (Trust the government to know just how many dogs you are permitted to own.)
Dogs may not be walked in public, or transported in vehicles, except initial purchase and trips to vet's office.
Waiting period for pet adoption extended to three months to allow all paperwork to pass. New owner will be responsible for food and kennel costs, pending adoption. (This may raise the cost of obtaining your dog)
People under 21 prohibited from owning/ caring for dogs.
Extensive mental evaluation for new and repeat owners.
Mandatory liability insurance for dogs.
The government will tell you the minimum and maximum size, and type of any dog you are allowed to own.
German shepherds largely resemble wolves. Therefore they must be illegal for civilian ownership.
Chihuahuas and dachshunds, the so called Saturday Night Special dogs, are completely prohibited.
Required reporting of stolen dogs within four hours of discovery
Kibble purchases made only for the dog specified on registration. Since there is no "sporting purpose" for large capacity cases of dog food/large bags of kibble/dry food, purchases will be limited to a maximum of six cans and/or a 2# bag. Despite a background check performed before purchasing the dog, background checks may be required before each and every dog food purchase.
DNA samples and microstamping of dog's teeth may be required. Millions of law enforcement dollars that could be utilized to investigate, solve or prevent actual crime, will be diverted to endless cataloguing and maintaining a largely useless database. Microstamping is largely useless in identifying bite marks in soft, fleshy objects, and will tend to wear naturally as your dog chews, rendering it further useless. But really, what price can we put on safety? It's for the children!
(Microstamping your dog's teeth will add an additional $200 to the price of your pet.)
If one of your dogs is suspected of a dog related crime, all of your dogs may be seized, and pending an investigation, might not be returned to you and destroyed.
Any time a dog commits an attack, anywhere on the planet, your dog may be subject to new regulations as we determine necessary.
If you fly your dog from one dog friendly state to another, but you have a layover in an anti-dog state, you may be arrested and have your dog taken from you.
Have I covered everything? I feel as though I must be leaving something out! Some of the "common sense" laws above already apply to gun owners. Others are merely being proposed.
I remember a story, back in the day, when gear shift levers were typically on the steering column, that a man left his dog in his pickup truck, with the motor running (the pickup truck, not the dog), when the dog hit the shift lever with his paw and ran over his owner. I don't know if a law prohibiting people from leaving dogs in running vehicles would have prevented this, but, then again, I don't recall it happening since. You cannot always legislate bad things from happening, particularly should people choose not to obey those laws.
No one has proposed any new law that would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, though the tragedy is invoked constantly by the gun control Left. None of the laws we have on the books prohibiting bombs kept the Aurora theater shooter from making and planting them. The laws we have against straw purchases did not keep the San Bernadino shooters from obtaining their weapons illegally.
There are already thousands of gun laws on the books. Rather than create new ways to trip up unwary or unsuspecting legal gun owners, how about we focus on enforcing the laws already on the books? Is Chicago's problem that there are no laws against murder or drive by shootings?
The country doesn't need any new gun laws. We need to enforce the laws already passed, and concentrate on dealing harshly with those who use a gun in the commission of a crime. Period.
Oh, and, by the way, if your betters in government can arbitrarily legislate anything that's legal, until it is unaffordable or too much hassle to own, which part of your liberty will they take away next?