Sanfrancisco considering banning the sales of all pets.

http://www.ctnow.com/news/la-me-goldfish-20110627,0,7271888.story

"The proposal started with dogs and cats, expanded to birds and hamsters, and now includes any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it."

Please don't be too lazy to click the link and read the story.


What do you think about this?

 

Well, First attempting to ban video games to minors, and now it seems like they are trying to ban a species, wow society.

 

Well, looks like Asians like me don't have to worry about a damn thing. Good luck with your pet issues!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wouldn't be anything stopping you from going to Los Angeles and buying a puppy and coming back, right? So it's really not a big deal (unless if it expanded into other cities).

And I've always thought that any pet other than a dog or cat is just stupid. If the pet can't roam your house or yard, it's pointless. So if this law didn't include cats or dogs I wouldn't have any problems with it.

 

Any pet that isn't a dog or cat is stupid? You have a boring life.

Also, a boring dinner menu.

 

Misguided liberal piety masquerading as virtue. There are a thousand issues more pressing to the moral needs of man than the selling of animals as pets.

 

FIFY. San Francisco is in it's own county apart from the rest of the bay area. I doubt this would spread.

However, upon realizing that this is done to help shelters instead of banning shelters from selling, I'm for this bill. I don't have much sympathy for the animal making factories, but for the abandoned pets I do.

 

Or maybe I don't get the point of keeping a bird locked up in a cage for its entire life.

 

I don't get people that want or already own pets.

 

Morons.

 

This guy, he has wisdom.

 

And it doesn't necessarily detract from our ability to deal with those things as well.

 

+1.

Constant Vigilance.

 

+1 for the Mad Eye Moody/Barty Crouch Jr. reference.

 

Your San Francisco pun is quite amusing, even if unintentional.

 

No, it necessarily does. It's energy and attention placed where energy and attention is not of an urgent nature. Energy (via activism or attention) is therefore diverted from one subject to another. Whether or not the detraction is of a critical nature is the question worth asking, but the presence of detraction is immutably true.