KY - HOA bans 11 dog breeds

[pcosmar]

Absolutely!

And for those who may be nursing niggling doubts on the practicality of freedom, reminding and hammering home to them that freedom actually saves lives might be a good approach to assuage their doubts.

Well, I can't say I hate them or love them, but I'm pretty sure I'm not an authoritarian. My own preference is to be able to build whatever I want to on my own land, but I understand that not everyone values/prioritizes that as much.

Well you should know.. as hard as you tried I still found the argument you took to be rather lame.. despite a fine attempt to debate it. you were just starting from a shaky position to argue a bad cause..

Much like the Gun Control Debate..

now watch the NRA compromise ,,, and endorse Gun Control by Doctors Note (ERPO).

I'm watching things I don't want to see.

[H_H]

Well you should know.. as hard as you tried I still found the argument you took to be rather lame.. despite a fine attempt to debate it.

Fair enough.

you were just starting from a shaky position to argue a bad cause. Much like the Gun Control Debate.

Yeah.

now watch the NRA compromise ,,, and endorse Gun Control by Doctors Note (ERPO).

I'm watching things I don't want to see.

Well, I hope not. NRA has never been what I would call a beacon of not compromising, but the fact is during my lifetime if anything the gun control situation has actually gotten better. Shall-issue has spread across the country like wildfire (slow wild-fire, at least), now Constitutional Carry is doing likewise, various other victories have been won, and no major new gun control bills have been passed for two decades. And looking forward, soon armed teachers in school may be a thing, and nationwide permit reciprocity may be passed (which would be a HUGE bombshell victory). Guns are the one issue that we've more or less stood strong on and that we've held the line on or even won back some ground. It's the right's only -- ONLY -- such issue; everything else -- EVERYTHING -- they've wimped and caved and become compromised on.

I actually expect that winning will continue.

[DamianTV]

As much as I dont like the specifics, I will say that I prefer the way that HOAs usually work.

Any form of self imposed regulation should start at the very smallest level, two people agreeing to things that affect both of them. An example is maintaining a tree that bridges both neighbors properties. They decide the rights and responsibilities of each party to each other. As that community grows and involves more people, that is where the power should exist. Such as everyone on a small cul de sac setting their own speed limits on that street, lawnmower times of usage, etc. Things that can annoy each other, but arent necessarily crimes. At the small level, one community will have different guidelines than other communities, and those guidelines will best suit each others situations.

The trouble I think we have today is we have too much top heavy interference instead of being community driven. When things get too top heavy, the differences in communities are discarded and individual cooperation is replaced with conformity, and guidelines that eventually turn into laws that do not suit the smaller communities. The result of being too top heavy is that people interact less in their smaller communities. The top heavy solutions do not suit each persons needs and do not scale from big picture to small community very well.

There are appropriate places for both, but the basic concept is still the same. Minimal top heavy interference, and foundation is built at small community level. Im hoping @Anti Federalist can weigh in on this, but its the principle of of States having final authority over themselves and only the minimal level of Federal Govt. We dont need the Fedgov trying to regulate every single thing. The problems and benefits of both Federalism and Antifederalism might be best described by AF and other Antifederalists.

[Anti Federalist]

As much as I dont like the specifics, I will say that I prefer the way that HOAs usually work.

Any form of self imposed regulation should start at the very smallest level, two people agreeing to things that affect both of them. An example is maintaining a tree that bridges both neighbors properties. They decide the rights and responsibilities of each party to each other. As that community grows and involves more people, that is where the power should exist. Such as everyone on a small cul de sac setting their own speed limits on that street, lawnmower times of usage, etc. Things that can annoy each other, but arent necessarily crimes. At the small level, one community will have different guidelines than other communities, and those guidelines will best suit each others situations.

The trouble I think we have today is we have too much top heavy interference instead of being community driven. When things get too top heavy, the differences in communities are discarded and individual cooperation is replaced with conformity, and guidelines that eventually turn into laws that do not suit the smaller communities. The result of being too top heavy is that people interact less in their smaller communities. The top heavy solutions do not suit each persons needs and do not scale from big picture to small community very well.

There are appropriate places for both, but the basic concept is still the same. Minimal top heavy interference, and foundation is built at small community level. Im hoping @Anti Federalist can weigh in on this, but its the principle of of States having final authority over themselves and only the minimal level of Federal Govt. We dont need the Fedgov trying to regulate every single thing. The problems and benefits of both Federalism and Antifederalism might be best described by AF and other Antifederalists.

I'm torn on this.

While on the one hand, the idea of smaller, local government seems best.

On the other hand, there is a valid point to be made that local government can be even more tyrannical than a distant central government, the former being right up in your business every day.

Never really gave it much thought on a "macro" level like the way you are approaching it.

Let me scratch my noggin on this a little bit...

[DamianTV]

I'm torn on this.

While on the one hand, the idea of smaller, local government seems best.

On the other hand, there is a valid point to be made that local government can be even more tyrannical than a distant central government, the former being right up in your business every day.

Never really gave it much thought on a "macro" level like the way you are approaching it.

Let me scratch my noggin on this a little bit...

Believe me, Im torn on it too.

And yes, the Tiny Tyranny can be even worse than giant distant central government.

I think its the Scale that should be considered. In small groups, the voice of the individual can be easily heard without shouting. In large groups, the voice of the same individual is so drown out that not even shouting is effective. Neither idea works at all when those in power choose to not listen.

[tod evans]

I'm torn on this.

While on the one hand, the idea of smaller, local government seems best.

On the other hand, there is a valid point to be made that local government can be even more tyrannical than a distant central government, the former being right up in your business every day.

Never really gave it much thought on a "macro" level like the way you are approaching it.

Let me scratch my noggin on this a little bit...

Believe me, Im torn on it too.

And yes, the Tiny Tyranny can be even worse than giant distant central government.

I think its the Scale that should be considered. In small groups, the voice of the individual can be easily heard without shouting. In large groups, the voice of the same individual is so drown out that not even shouting is effective. Neither idea works at all when those in power choose to not listen.

If you can't knock on the $#@!s door that would lord over you on a Sunday afternoon then they're too far removed.

[specsaregood]

Believe me, Im torn on it too.
And yes, the Tiny Tyranny can be even worse than giant distant central government.
I think its the Scale that should be considered. In small groups, the voice of the individual can be easily heard without shouting. In large groups, the voice of the same individual is so drown out that not even shouting is effective. Neither idea works at all when those in power choose to not listen.

Not all HOAs are the same either. As we have been househunting in an area where there is almost no non-HOA houses available, I've been reading the association rules as part of the process. Some are very restrictive, others are just joint partnerships/agreements for utilities and communal properties.

[Anti Federalist]

If you can't knock on the $#@!s door that would lord over you on a Sunday afternoon then they're too far removed.

Mather Byles was a Loyalist clergyman in Boston during the Revolution.

He asked this question:

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

It's a valid question, I think.

[tod evans]

Mather Byles was a Loyalist clergyman in Boston during the Revolution.

He asked this question:

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

It's a valid question, I think.

Tyrants within range are far more amicable...

Tyrants permitted to hide.............It doesn't matter if they're 3000 miles away or 300 yards..

You and I not holding government agents in our own neighborhoods accountable for their actions are the problem....

Have we become so scared of 'themme' that we shy from being men and confronting 'themme' for their behavior?

[Anti Federalist]

Have we become so scared of 'themme' that we shy from being men and confronting 'themme' for their behavior?

I can't speak for everybody, of course, but my answer is, yes, without a doubt.

I know, we all know, what happens if you truly oppose the force of the state, willingly, with purpose, manfully.

Like mafioso, theye will kill you, your family, your friends, anybody associated with you and burn your body down inside your bullet riddled home.

Then theye will use the government media organs to slander and utterly destroy your name and reputation posthumously, so you become worse than an unperson and anybody they may have missed killing will be destroyed by association.

I will admit it, I am afraid of that, terrified in fact, because I know exactly what these $#@!ers are capable of and willing to do.

I am not willing to bring down that level of heat on my children or family.

Call me a pussy for it, if you want, I call myself one.

But until we can get to point where there is more than one of us impaling themselves on the castle gate at a time, I'm going to have to choose not being another forgotten martyr.

[tod evans]

I can't speak for everybody, of course, but my answer is, yes, without a doubt.

I know, we all know, what happens if you truly oppose the force of the state, willingly, with purpose, manfully.

Like mafioso, theye will kill you, your family, your friends, anybody associated with you and burn your body down inside your bullet riddled home.

Then theye will use the government media organs to slander and utterly destroy your name and reputation posthumously, so you become worse than an unperson and anybody they may have missed killing will be destroyed by association.

I will admit it, I am afraid of that, terrified in fact, because I know exactly what these $#@!ers are capable of and willing to do.

I am not willing to bring down that level of heat on my children or family.

Call me a pussy for it, if you want, I call myself one.

But until we can get to point where there is more than one of us impaling themselves on the castle gate at a time, I'm going to have to choose not being another forgotten martyr.

For this very reason I eagerly await the terminal diagnosis........

[Intoxiklown]

Actually the lineage was first used as a herding animal. They were breed to herd bulls. So successful with biting a bulls nose and getting it under control that there became competitions. Thus "bull-baiting." Which eventually evolved in to "bear-baiting" and eventually as these two animal competitions were outlawed into dog fighting. They were also hellacious "ratters."

So you are absolutely correct that they began to be breed as a blood sport canine.

The English brought them to America in the early 19th century. They were used on boar hunts and, yes, fighting. Their strength and determination are renown. And as such much maligned.

As Americans headed west the breed became more of an "all purpose breed." They were great herding dogs, both of sheep and cattle, excellent as guard dogs, and became known as very loyal family dogs with both an excellent demeanor and a very loving nature to children. I've witnessed this myself. I've never met a breed of dog that loves kids more. I've seen kids learn to walk grabbing on to a pitt-bull's skin to hold themselves up. Kids tugging their ears. Kids lying, with their full weight, on top of them. And the pitty's just smile their pitty smiles.

During the first half of the 20th century they became to be recognized as, not only a great working dog, but as companion animals. They actually became the "All American Dog" and were the largest breed owned by households. Go look at WWII advertisement. The Pitt Bull WAS America's favorite canine.

And then ass-hats decided to start beating them, starving them and fighting them.

But, as a breed. They're a very good dog. If raised right.

The original bulldog was the Olde English Bulldogge (Pits, American bulldogs, Bull Mastiffs, English Bulldogs, Rotts, ect all descend from the breed), although back then they were simply called bull dogs as they were bred purely for bull baiting. We're actually lucky that they bred with other breeds to keep their genetics and traits available because it wasn't very long after bull baiting was banned that the original breed literally was extinct. But in the 1970s when Carolina Dogs (the American wild dingo) had been captured and examined making national news about this as domestication became the "in thing", another breeder (I forget his name) got interested in the bull dogs original ancestor.

While not a true "Olde English", he recreated the breed by basically reverse breeding it's ancestors based on getting physical traits he could find in paintings and sculptures, and gauged temperament based on writings of the dog from the time period.

The ONLY reason I know this is I stumbled on a breeder of them while looking for an American bulldog. But I'm glad I did, as I've owned several different bully breeds but have never seen such an even keeled dog with (and I know this will sound cliche', but I promise I'm being literal) a young child's affection for a parent. Super easy to train as any sense of you not being happy with their action will result in them going to pout until you go love on them. We have a male who is just over 4 years old, and ironically just picked up a female this past Sunday to give Boss Man a friend and future momma to his puppies (I want to be sure I get a male off of Boss before I lose him to time). I'll never own another breed.

And two things I have to point out about this entire thread I'm a bit shocked weren't mentioned....

1) More people are bitten by Golden Retrievers per year than a bulldog (that includes ALL bulldog breeds)

2) The only dog on that list I'dhave to agree is an honest "vicious breed" would be a Chow. I owned one when single and that is a dog that takes getting used to. They are so loyal they will die all day long to protect you, but so independent they don't listen to you. And they are a TRUE one owner dog because to a Chow....their pack mentality consists of you and them. And that is it....anyone else after that they'll ignore until they piss that dog off (which can be nothing more than being born....lol) and that Chow will show them what a damn dog bite really is.

[Swordsmyth]

Mather Byles was a Loyalist clergyman in Boston during the Revolution.

He asked this question:

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

It's a valid question, I think.

The single tyrant can just hire 3,000 assistant tyrants and then you are not much better off.