To the mods

divemedic · January 24, 2008, 09:50 AM

There was a recent thread where a member admitted to committing a felony with his firearm (he shot his wife's dog because it was annoying his horses and then lied to her about it) and solicited opinions on how to get back in his wife's good graces. Unsurprisingly, the membership overwhelmingly castigated the OP.

Don't get me wrong- this is not a slam on the mods at all- just a suggestion that threads which constitute an admission to a felony should be looked at a little more critically in the future. I can't imagine how such a rule could be crafted, as hunting is not cruel (IMO) but shooting an uninjured domestic animal IS. A blanket rule against posts advocating breaking the law would also unfairly limit many L&P topics.

Any ideas on whether or not restricting these sorts of things is a good idea, and if so, how would it be done?

copenhagen · January 24, 2008, 10:05 AM

Hey, it was a pest and it was shot right? Not sure as that is any more cruel than animal control shooting strays. Those are domestic. What about that hamburger you ate the other day? Did you know that they sometimes kill cows with sledge hammers? If the dog is interfeering with the man's horses, I would imagine that is that man's business to do as he pleases. A bullet is not torture. Vick's electrocution of dogs was cruel.

copenhagen · January 24, 2008, 10:13 AM

Also, I would like to add, I am in no way shape or form advocating Animal Cruelty- I believe that is dispicable. I just think if a man deems that his animal is no longer needed that it is his perogative to do with it as he pleases.

copenhagen · January 24, 2008, 10:14 AM

Finally, restrictions? Freedom of speech is already beginning to ebb, need we contribute?

divemedic · January 24, 2008, 10:23 AM

1 Wasn't his animal
2 Killing for food is entirely different than killing a pet that is "annoying" you
3 Free speech and the first amendment do not apply to private property (which this website is)
4 Why three posts, when one will do?

copenhagen · January 24, 2008, 07:23 PM

1.) If a dog is on someones property and is being disruptive, I don't see a problem with killing it rather it is their animal or not. A man is king of his castle is he not?

2.) Don't see a problem with killing an animal which is disruptive to arguably more valuable animals.

3.) Website is private property, no argument with that.

4.) Kept on thinking of things I wanted to add.

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

1 Wasn't his animal

YES IT WAS!

The mods will stop this soon and i wont likely get much chance to explain, but IT WAS MY ANIMAL that was harassing MY HORSES, one of which pays for MY CHILDRENS college via stud fees.
You city folk with your poodles need to accept that theres a whole 'nother world out there.
We use our dogs to protect property, round up stray cattle and chase off predators.
when the dog doesnt do its job, its expendable. I didnt kill it. just stopped it from harassing my horses (livelyhood).
My wife is over it WHY ARENT YOU?!

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 07:58 PM

Oh, and divemedic,
Lying to your wife is not a felony.
might not be advisable, but definately NOT a felony!

and like i said, SHE'S OVER IT!

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 08:06 PM

OH, what the heck;
Besides Copenhagen, Isnt there ANYONE who will come Fwd in public and say I am not a monster?
c'mon you send me private msgs offering support but youre not willing to go up against the "moral majority" in public.
Have we really become so afraid to exercise our freedom of speech?
If we cant speak out , honestly, on this subject, how can we expect to preserve the 2nd ammendment?
Wake up people.

honkylips · January 24, 2008, 08:17 PM

I'm with you. I love dogs and could never bring myself to shoot one, but in your circumstances and your situation, you do what you do (and I'll do what I do).

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 08:19 PM

C'mon divemedic, you decided to play. Decided to attack me...So lets hear from you. I've given you ample chance for response.
HOW ABOUT A RESPONSE??
The internet is a great thing, you get to shoot your mouth off with total anonymity.
tplumeri is my REAL NAME. Thomas Plumeri
Post youre real name now if you insist on attackin me!
Same for the rest of you.
tom

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 08:51 PM

Thanks honklips.
Of course you know that your handle will cause you grief!
but happy you have the Huevos to speak your mind.
rare thing now. much easier to just agree with the uneducated,
Not EVERYTHING you hold to be dear is in fact THE ONLY WAY TO SEE THE WORLD.
Thank God we have a choice in what we believe!

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 08:59 PM

Dont mean to beat this to death, but where i come from, if you challenge a man, you better follow thru.
I'm still waiting for divemedic to be respectable.
this forum does not give you the right to attack a member w/o justification.
continue with your attack on my person or apologize for trying to slander my good name.
In your court.

copenhagen · January 24, 2008, 09:04 PM

Oh, I love the bickering. Mr. Plumeri, you couldn't have re-enforced my point any better with your many posts after the snide comment about my multiple posts because I thought of more things to add.

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 09:38 PM

Yeah, Strange, youre the only one responding.
rest of the forum is waiting to see if it is politically correct.
So afraid they might not be part of the majority.
What a sad comment on our rights to freedom per the first ammendment.

**Mal H** · January 24, 2008, 09:38 PM

Don't any of you guys see the Edit button in the lower right corner of your posts??

Anyway, I'm not saying tplumeri did the right thing, and I'm not saying he did the wrong thing either. In most states, a pet is considered property, nothing more, nothing less. Shooting your property, no matter how despicable many think it is, is not a felony. This case is not at all like the trouble quarterback Michael Vick got himself into. If tplumeri had tortured his dog, that would be a different matter. He didn't (I assume). His dog was causing a real problem in his eyes and could have caused some serious damage or eventual death to one of his horses. In his view, the dog had to go. Like it or not, that's life on a ranch.

tplumeri · January 24, 2008, 09:43 PM

MAL,
thank you for youre input and sanity.
I am not an animal. Just live by a different code.
PLEASE let this go away, cause we will never agree!
Thank you again for intervening.
tom

TheBluesMan · January 24, 2008, 10:19 PM

tplumeri,

You posted a purposefully misleading thread simply to shock the reader. You strongly implied that you killed the dog - "told the wife the dog went rabid" were your exact words.

In the original thread, you claimed it was your wife's dog. Now, in this thread, you claim it was your dog. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

If I wasn't personally involved in this whole mess from the beginning, I'd ban you for violating rule #5. As it is, your reputation as a straight shooter and a man who speaks the truth is sullied by your own hand. As I said before, you deserve everything you get.

VUPDblue · January 26, 2008, 12:27 AM

I don't have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) and I know how a working ranch operates. Even if a domesticated dog is a pest and he has to be put down, it happens, that's life out there. I don't necessarily think it is cruel to kill a pest with a firearm. That said, you should respect the pest enough to end his life as quickly and humanely as possible. Shooting your wife's (or yours, doesnt matter which) dog with a pellet gun as a form of discipline is just mean and disrespectful. That is the kind of act an immature juvenile would commit. Had you said that you came right out and used a .22lr between the eyes and ended it right then and there, you would not have received the unwanted attention you have been showered in. IMHO you were just plain cruel to that dog. There's no way around it. I am, of course, just stating my own opinion here, but you asked for it and you know it. Kind of similar to the old construction addage, "think twice, post once".

**Mal H** · January 26, 2008, 01:17 AM

Whoa! He shot it with a pellet gun?! I completely missed that follow-up thread.

Before I say anything that will force me to ban myself, I'll just say - "What TheBluesMan said". The story got even more sordid. Here I thought you had rid the ranch of an annoying pest. If I had known you were cruel to the dog, I would never have been quite as gentle in my post above.

January 24, 2008, 09:50 AM	#1
divemedic Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2006 Posts: 1,310	To the mods There was a recent thread where a member admitted to committing a felony with his firearm (he shot his wife's dog because it was annoying his horses and then lied to her about it) and solicited opinions on how to get back in his wife's good graces. Unsurprisingly, the membership overwhelmingly castigated the OP. Don't get me wrong- this is not a slam on the mods at all- just a suggestion that threads which constitute an admission to a felony should be looked at a little more critically in the future. I can't imagine how such a rule could be crafted, as hunting is not cruel (IMO) but shooting an uninjured domestic animal IS. A blanket rule against posts advocating breaking the law would also unfairly limit many L&P topics. Any ideas on whether or not restricting these sorts of things is a good idea, and if so, how would it be done? __________________ Caveat Emperor

January 24, 2008, 10:05 AM	#2
copenhagen Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: South Carolina Posts: 592	Hey, it was a pest and it was shot right? Not sure as that is any more cruel than animal control shooting strays. Those are domestic. What about that hamburger you ate the other day? Did you know that they sometimes kill cows with sledge hammers? If the dog is interfeering with the man's horses, I would imagine that is that man's business to do as he pleases. A bullet is not torture. Vick's electrocution of dogs was cruel. __________________ 'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' Thomas Jefferson National Rifle Association Life Member

January 24, 2008, 10:13 AM	#3
copenhagen Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: South Carolina Posts: 592	Also, I would like to add, I am in no way shape or form advocating Animal Cruelty- I believe that is dispicable. I just think if a man deems that his animal is no longer needed that it is his perogative to do with it as he pleases. __________________ 'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' Thomas Jefferson National Rifle Association Life Member

January 24, 2008, 10:14 AM	#4
copenhagen Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: South Carolina Posts: 592	Finally, restrictions? Freedom of speech is already beginning to ebb, need we contribute? __________________ 'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' Thomas Jefferson National Rifle Association Life Member

January 24, 2008, 07:23 PM	#6
copenhagen Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: South Carolina Posts: 592	1.) If a dog is on someones property and is being disruptive, I don't see a problem with killing it rather it is their animal or not. A man is king of his castle is he not? 2.) Don't see a problem with killing an animal which is disruptive to arguably more valuable animals. 3.) Website is private property, no argument with that. 4.) Kept on thinking of things I wanted to add. __________________ 'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' Thomas Jefferson National Rifle Association Life Member

January 24, 2008, 10:23 AM	#5
divemedic Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2006 Posts: 1,310	1 Wasn't his animal 2 Killing for food is entirely different than killing a pet that is "annoying" you 3 Free speech and the first amendment do not apply to private property (which this website is) 4 Why three posts, when one will do? __________________ Caveat Emperor

January 24, 2008, 07:58 PM	#8
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	Oh, and divemedic, Lying to your wife is not a felony. might not be advisable, but definately NOT a felony! and like i said, SHE'S OVER IT!

January 24, 2008, 08:06 PM	#9
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	OH, what the heck; Besides Copenhagen, Isnt there ANYONE who will come Fwd in public and say I am not a monster? c'mon you send me private msgs offering support but youre not willing to go up against the "moral majority" in public. Have we really become so afraid to exercise our freedom of speech? If we cant speak out , honestly, on this subject, how can we expect to preserve the 2nd ammendment? Wake up people.

January 24, 2008, 08:17 PM	#10
honkylips Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2007 Location: Arvada, Co Posts: 124	I'm with you. I love dogs and could never bring myself to shoot one, but in your circumstances and your situation, you do what you do (and I'll do what I do).

January 24, 2008, 08:19 PM	#11
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	C'mon divemedic, you decided to play. Decided to attack me...So lets hear from you. I've given you ample chance for response. HOW ABOUT A RESPONSE?? The internet is a great thing, you get to shoot your mouth off with total anonymity. tplumeri is my REAL NAME. Thomas Plumeri Post youre real name now if you insist on attackin me! Same for the rest of you. tom

January 24, 2008, 08:51 PM	#12
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	Thanks honklips. Of course you know that your handle will cause you grief! but happy you have the Huevos to speak your mind. rare thing now. much easier to just agree with the uneducated, Not EVERYTHING you hold to be dear is in fact THE ONLY WAY TO SEE THE WORLD. Thank God we have a choice in what we believe!

January 24, 2008, 08:59 PM	#13
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	Dont mean to beat this to death, but where i come from, if you challenge a man, you better follow thru. I'm still waiting for divemedic to be respectable. this forum does not give you the right to attack a member w/o justification. continue with your attack on my person or apologize for trying to slander my good name. In your court.

January 24, 2008, 09:04 PM	#14
copenhagen Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: South Carolina Posts: 592	Oh, I love the bickering. Mr. Plumeri, you couldn't have re-enforced my point any better with your many posts after the snide comment about my multiple posts because I thought of more things to add. __________________ 'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' Thomas Jefferson National Rifle Association Life Member

January 24, 2008, 09:38 PM	#15
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	copenhagen Yeah, Strange, youre the only one responding. rest of the forum is waiting to see if it is politically correct. So afraid they might not be part of the majority. What a sad comment on our rights to freedom per the first ammendment.

January 24, 2008, 09:38 PM	#16
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,948	Don't any of you guys see the Edit button in the lower right corner of your posts?? Anyway, I'm not saying tplumeri did the right thing, and I'm not saying he did the wrong thing either. In most states, a pet is considered property, nothing more, nothing less. Shooting your property, no matter how despicable many think it is, is not a felony. This case is not at all like the trouble quarterback Michael Vick got himself into. If tplumeri had tortured his dog, that would be a different matter. He didn't (I assume). His dog was causing a real problem in his eyes and could have caused some serious damage or eventual death to one of his horses. In his view, the dog had to go. Like it or not, that's life on a ranch.

January 24, 2008, 09:43 PM	#17
tplumeri Junior member Join Date: September 26, 2007 Posts: 1,919	MAL, thank you for youre input and sanity. I am not an animal. Just live by a different code. PLEASE let this go away, cause we will never agree! Thank you again for intervening. tom

January 24, 2008, 10:19 PM	#18
TheBluesMan Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 15, 1999 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,558	tplumeri, You posted a purposefully misleading thread simply to shock the reader. You strongly implied that you killed the dog - "told the wife the dog went rabid" were your exact words. In the original thread, you claimed it was your wife's dog. Now, in this thread, you claim it was your dog. Were you lying then or are you lying now? If I wasn't personally involved in this whole mess from the beginning, I'd ban you for violating rule #5. As it is, your reputation as a straight shooter and a man who speaks the truth is sullied by your own hand. As I said before, you deserve everything you get. __________________ -Dave Miller ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection. Tick-off Obama - Join the NRA Today - Save $10

January 26, 2008, 12:27 AM	#19
VUPDblue Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2005 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 1,981	I don't have a dog in this fight (no pun intended) and I know how a working ranch operates. Even if a domesticated dog is a pest and he has to be put down, it happens, that's life out there. I don't necessarily think it is cruel to kill a pest with a firearm. That said, you should respect the pest enough to end his life as quickly and humanely as possible. Shooting your wife's (or yours, doesnt matter which) dog with a pellet gun as a form of discipline is just mean and disrespectful. That is the kind of act an immature juvenile would commit. Had you said that you came right out and used a .22lr between the eyes and ended it right then and there, you would not have received the unwanted attention you have been showered in. IMHO you were just plain cruel to that dog. There's no way around it. I am, of course, just stating my own opinion here, but you asked for it and you know it. Kind of similar to the old construction addage, "think twice, post once". __________________ Silencers have NEVER been illegal !

January 26, 2008, 01:17 AM	#20
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,948	Whoa! He shot it with a pellet gun?! I completely missed that follow-up thread. Before I say anything that will force me to ban myself, I'll just say - "What TheBluesMan said". The story got even more sordid. Here I thought you had rid the ranch of an annoying pest. If I had known you were cruel to the dog, I would never have been quite as gentle in my post above.