Does Constitutional Law Only Work for Animal Rights?

Judging by media stories and news reports, very few judges or even owners really know or care about what happens to animals or personal property in the broad sense;  unless for some reason they may tend to think more like this judge:

JUDGE NAP

We have become accustomed to being apathetic for most things, in part due to the propaganda that is constantly being used, and because we usually do not feel by looking at the landscape, that we can do anything about it. However, as evidenced by the Bundy rancher case, when enough people come together in a consensus on a topic, we often find opposing sides arguing online. However, that alone is not enough, because sure, Facebook and social media etc can launch some huge issues and make it appear that there is huge support or opposition—but is that enough?

In most cases it is not going to do the job, UNLESS it can be vocalized to other businesses.

Citizens might stop buying a product, but a business has to usually SUFFER before action is taken. An example was the duck dynasty debacle, sparked by anti gay comments. As we know, anti gay comments are opinion, KKK have their opinion, animal extremists have theirs, and animal owners should have their own say. That is why the United States used to have what very countries have— freedom to some degree, to express First Amendment Rights.

When we see animal rights people seeking to destroy the pet trade–because–have no doubt–that is their actual goal– it’s easy to see why they pass the laws they set up. They are setting up laws to get animals into the category of personhood by slowing destroying businesses across the United States, group by group, type by type, and entity by entity.

They have managed to do huge damage to the trade, yet pet groups such as APPA claim pet ownership stats are still high, but no double digit increases, with an actual downturn (minus) for animal sales to the pet store bans.

Instead, sellers are pandering to owners’ who want to treat animals like children and spend $75 on a bag of dog food or much more on raw diets. If people have income to do so, that is their business, but it is not necessary to denigrate those who choose not to do so, whether by choice or otherwise.

The entire propaganda by animal rights always leaves out the truth about their actual goals. Instead they focus on extremes such as “abuse” and bad owners. They do not ever focus on the average owner or an average person. It’s either abuse or animal rights. Every one of their “abuse” stories is laden with the same crap, and we are sure that a lot of it is not even true to begin with. Of course in some instances there may be facts, but not exactly the way animal rights sets it up.

You will notice when HSUS loses a key case, they never admit it. Instead they say the Court found this but we will do that or something else and then switch on the mantra about how many members they have being the largest animal organization in the world or whatever.

They are on auto pilot and we think owners should learn from it.  Owners have FAR more rights than animal rights wing nuts. They have almost zero yet they purposely know how to tweak what they don’t have. It takes practice.

We suggest that if all owners were to make such effort even if only to their own friends– it could go a long way. There are far more of US than them.  Use your freedom of speech, don’t be selfish, try and educate others even people you don’t know. It could save someone else’s animal.

Constitutional rights exist for animal owners. As for ARs, we don’t care about their rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/12/The-Saga-of-Bundy-Ranch

Advertisements