It isn’t every day I find a “three-fer,” but in today’s Detroit Free Press I found a story which touches on why so many people are willing to surrender freedom.
Drugs, dogs, guns. Clearly, some people cannot handle any of them. So they must all be taken away from everyone.
Just think! If we could save just one spouse from gunfire intended to save a child from pit bull puppies named Cocaine, it would all be worth it!
MORE: Not that it would matter to purveyors of hysteria, but according to the video linked here, neighbors say there never was any attack on children by the puppy.
Silly as it is, I think this story sheds light on the impulse to ban things and take away freedom. If a pet python owned by irresponsible parents were to eat a baby, many people would join the clamor to ban pet pythons, right? But if the same irresponsible people ran over the same baby with their SUV, few would see that as an argument against SUVs. The reason is that SUVs outnumber pythons and are considered more socially useful. Freedom has nothing to do with it. So, the more irresponsible scumbags there are who own pit bulls, the more Coco is at risk of judicial extermination.
Government for the worst, by the worst.
Comments
6 responses to ““COCAINE-RELATED DEATH””
One of my frequent comments is “You can’t legislate common sense.” That would seem to fit in this instance.
We cannot rest until every human leads a bubble-wrapped existence.
Nice shootin’ Tex!
Isn’t it convenient that the wife shoots the husband trying to save the grandkids from a dog attack the neighbors say never happened? Cheaper than a divorce I guess. (Does thinking that make me a *bad* person?)
“If a pet python owned by irresponsible parents were to eat a baby, many people would join the clamor to ban pet pythons, right?”
As a matter of fact… they are looking to charge the python’s owner, but the local newspaper WAS on about banning pythons…
[…] I think it's time to ban government … […]