Democrats Vs Chimps: Banning Yet More Freedom on Emotion

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
This just proves that not only are Democrats the anti-freedom party they are just a bunch of emotional people. You have one single incident in the news about a chimp attack (with the chimp on medication and not normal) and despite the hundreds or thousands of good chimps owned as pets, the Dems want to ban having them as pets for all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Fast_action_on_the_Hill.html

The Repubs were not perfect on this but MOST who voted, voted against it while ALL Democrats who voted, voted for it.
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/4769

I have no interest in having chimps as pets, nor do I think it's even a good idea, but I am not going to just devolve to thinking that just because it's not a great idea in my opinion doesn't mean I think government should ban it.
Just another piece of freedom we lose and a little bit less of a free economy.

And yes Bush is a chimp, (just need to steal some lame lefty's material before it gets said and the argument is detracted).
 
This is simply a knee-jerk reaction. The same thing has happened to owners of pit bulls, large snakes and other exotic animals.

It is ridiculous.

(I stand corrected - this was inaccurate)
 
Last edited:
I trust the chimp owners of America are not going to take this lying down.

If you ban the ownership of chimps who's going to move the pianos?

 
KingCondanomation said:
This just proves that not only are Democrats the anti-freedom party they are just a bunch of emotional people. You have one single incident in the news about a chimp attack (with the chimp on medication and not normal) and despite the hundreds or thousands of good chimps owned as pets, the Dems want to ban having them as pets for all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Fast_action_on_the_Hill.html

The Repubs were not perfect on this but MOST who voted, voted against it while ALL Democrats who voted, voted for it.
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/4769

I have no interest in having chimps as pets, nor do I think it's even a good idea, but I am not going to just devolve to thinking that just because it's not a great idea in my opinion doesn't mean I think government should ban it.
Just another piece of freedom we lose and a little bit less of a free economy.

And yes Bush is a chimp, (just need to steal some lame lefty's material before it gets said and the argument is detracted).
Click to expand...


This is actually something that has been under consideration for quite some time, having been introduced in the past three Congresses. This same bill passed the House back in June of 2008 (again, with overwhelming bipartisan support) but didn't pass the Senate (there was a Senate version that had bipartisan co-sponsors, including John Ensign, lifetime ACU rating of 94, and Pampers Vitter, lifetime ACU rating 94).

This same bill was introduced in both the House and Senate in 2005 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

While it appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, it is actually something that has been kicked around for a while, passing both chambers of Congress (but not during the same session of Congress). It's just that incidents like the one in CT give Congress a kick in the ass to get things done that (almost) everyone agrees on but which are seemingly unimportant.
 
Last edited:
It's hardly emotional, too. There is a very good factual case to be made that wild animals like chimpanzees should not be household pets.
 
Onceler said:
It's hardly emotional, too. There is a very good factual case to be made that wild animals like chimpanzees should not be household pets.
Click to expand...

Don't be so emotional, man.

If i want to keep a Great White shark in my bathtub and a rhinoceros in the back bedroom who the hell are you to say that i shouldn't, eh?

Ban chimps as pets and the terrorists have already won.
 
charver said:
Don't be so emotional, man.

If i want to keep a Great White shark in my bathtub and a rhinoceros in the back bedroom who the hell are you to say that i shouldn't, eh?

Ban chimps as pets and the terrorists have already won.
Click to expand...


Tell me about it. Once you lose the freedom to own a rhinoceros what freedom do you really have left?
 
The idea that wild animals shouldn't be kept as pets has merit. But not enough to outlaw the practice.

I have no problem with banning higher primates as pets because of the intellect of the animals and the difficulty in keeping them in a humane manner.

Perhaps a heavier permitting procedure would so better than an outright ban.


Dungheap, I didn't know this had been up several times before. Thanks for the info. Good post.
 
Solitary said:
The idea that wild animals shouldn't be kept as pets has merit. But not enough to outlaw the practice.

I have no problem with banning higher primates as pets because of the intellect of the animals and the difficulty in keeping them in a humane manner.

Perhaps a heavier permitting procedure would so better than an outright ban.


Dungheap, I didn't know this had been up several times before. Thanks for the info. Good post.
Click to expand...

The way i see it is if you really want to live with wild animals why not move in with them rather than getting them to move in with you?
 
charver said:
The way i see it is if you really want to live with wild animals why not move in with them rather than getting them to move in with you?
Click to expand...

Because its better to screw up one wild animal than the entire wilderness.
 
Solitary said:
Because its better to screw up one wild animal than the entire wilderness.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty zoos which will allow those seeking to commune with nature to wander round freely, on the condition you enter through the lion enclosure.
 
charver said:
I'm sure there are plenty zoos which will allow those seeking to commune with nature to wander round freely, on the condition you enter through the lion enclosure.
Click to expand...

Well now that is a good alternative.
 
There is another argument to be made for private ownership which is that it helps keep species off the endangered list. When you have more private owners who care about the well being of animals, they have a real incentive to keep them alive and in greater numbers.
With a black market (as this will now create) you get far worse individuals who only care often about getting an animal to kill it for some part of it to use in medicine or what not.
Let's face it there are no LEGAL pets on the endangered list.

What saved the bison and the alligator from being endangered was setting up private ranches and farms where they grow the animals to be used legally for commercial purposes. Private ownership works, government protection does not.
 
Dungheap said:
This is actually something that has been under consideration for quite some time, having been introduced in the past three Congresses. This same bill passed the House back in June of 2008 (again, with overwhelming bipartisan support) but didn't pass the Senate (there was a Senate version that had bipartisan co-sponsors, including John Ensign, lifetime ACU rating of 94, and Pampers Vitter, lifetime ACU rating 94).

This same bill was introduced in both the House and Senate in 2005 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

While it appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, it is actually something that has been kicked around for a while, passing both chambers of Congress (but not during the same session of Congress). It's just that incidents like the one in CT give Congress a kick in the ass to get things done that (almost) everyone agrees on but which are seemingly unimportant.
Click to expand...
First it is not overwhelming bipartisan support, as I pointed out MORE Repubs voted against it than voted for it.

You are right that the left got emotional on that incident and passed it faster than the stimulus with even less debate - that is hardly ever a good thing. For example, what about a debate over how almost all other chimp owners have had no problems? There are more dog attacks than chimp attacks I bet, even when looking at per capita. And what about the conservation argument that private owners who care about the well being of their pets help keep the species in higher numbers with more safe from illegal poaching as will happen more in a black market now.

The RUSH to pass it was certainly a knee jerk reaction.
 
KingCondanomation said:
There is another argument to be made for private ownership which is that it helps keep species off the endangered list. When you have more private owners who care about the well being of animals, they have a real incentive to keep them alive and in greater numbers.
With a black market (as this will now create) you get far worse individuals who only care often about getting an animal to kill it for some part of it to use in medicine or what not.
Let's face it there are no LEGAL pets on the endangered list.

What saved the bison and the alligator from being endangered was setting up private ranches and farms where they grow the animals to be used legally for commercial purposes. Private ownership works, government protection does not.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ on a crucifix that is the damndest backward ass logic I have seen in a long long time.

Save the chimps! Make them pets!

Awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top