David Johann wrote on January 07, 2008 10:16 PM: Have you ever thought about the weapons used to kill that cougar?

An RJ article on 01/07/08 describes how the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort is using a howitzer artillery cannon to prevent avalanches.

We hear that Review-Journal editorial writer and gun nut Vin Suprinowicz is advocating for the right of law abiding citizens to be able to keep and bear their own howitzers, and is against a howitzer "waiting period."

John F wrote on January 07, 2008 09:16 PM: My first attempt at this post used a word that the censors may not have liked, so I'll try again.

oldlawdawg,

As a resident of North Las Vegas, I'd like to ask you specifically what article of the constitution this ordinance violates. You specify the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments.

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Do you mean to suggest that the government is unreasonably seizing my dog's te***cles?

The fifth amendment says I shouldn't be deprived of property without due process of law. Do you mean to suggest the city of North Las Vegas should sue to seize said t***icles?

The sixth amendment says defendants have the right to counsel. Do you mean to suggest my dog has the right to retain an attorney if he should choose to keep said te***cles? Does this mean the city is obligated to provide him with an attorney if he can't afford one? Or do I, as his owner, have to provide the attorney?

Since the subject of your rant is the inferior nature of the North Las Vegas intellect, I feel justified in pointing out that your post is replete with misspellings, run-on sentences, and errors in grammar. I anxiously await your response in order to learn how, despite your lack of language skills, your reading of the constitution is superior to mine, a lowly North Las Vegan.

oldlawdawg wrote on January 07, 2008 04:51 PM: How about a City of Las Vegas ordinance that requires all residents of North Las Vegas to cork, muzzel, spay/neuter themselves once they cross the boundary into the City of Las Vegas? O better yeat, one that permits every resident of the City of Las Vegas to cork, muzzel and spay/neuter any resident of Noth Las Vegas caught in the City of Las Vegas unless on leash held firmly in the hands of a responsible adult who has passed a test demonstrating he/she has read and understood the Constitutions of the United States and the Strate of Nevada? While such ordinances would be unconstitutional, we w0uld not have to fear any lawsuit to delcrae them as such since nobody in North Las Vegas is capable of articulating a coherent constitutional argument, especially since such ordinances would probabaly appear perfectly reasonable to most North Las Vegans except for the fact they are directed at them rather than by them. I mean its not like we'd be acting like Nazi's for godssakes, and we would only have to leave the law on the books long enough for residents of North Las Vegas to become frustrated enough that they would have to sit down and start thinking things through for a change. In the meantime, I have instructed my properly neutered cat on Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and given him a cell phne with direct-dial to my lawyer in case he gets nabbed by any of the North Las Vegas Booty-Hole Patrol that wanders into Las Vegas with their flashlights and rubber gloves to look up each of our --- well, you know...

John F wrote on January 07, 2008 02:23 PM: Ed R.,

Read Vin Suprynowicz's column from yesterday and you'll know all you need to know about what's behind this editorial. I guess Thomas Mitchell told Vin he could write today's piece.

John F wrote on January 07, 2008 02:08 PM: Ed R.,

More from that same Brownson quote (Works XVIII, 224):

"What I saw served to dispel my democratic illusions, to break the idol I had worshipped, and shook to its foundation my belief in the divinity of the people, or in their will as the expression of eternal justice. I saw that they could easily be duped, easily made victims of the designing, and carried away by own irresistible passion in the wrong as easily as in the right ...."

No wonder the RJ editors like him so much. They've been carrying people away with passion in the wrong for quite some time.

Then, of course, there's Rose Wilder Lane who said, "I am law-abiding purely for expediency, for self-defense, in the main against my conscientious principles..." Another in the Ayn Rand school of "doing what is best for me is the highest of all aspirations." (All you Ayn Rand fans out there, I made that up; she didn't actually say this, but it sums her up succinctly, don't you think?)


Ken,

I imagine enforcement will be like not wearing your seat belt. You're not going to get caught unless you're doing something else more serious. I don't think anyone from the police department is going to waste his time going door to door to see if our dogs have been fixed (mine have, by the way). Further, there are legal penalties that stop well short of imprisonment; I don't think anyone's going to jail for not having his dog snipped. A simple fine will suffice, I'm sure. Perhaps we fine these malefactors an amount equivalent to the cost of euthanizing the average-sized litter. I would assume that jail time - if it is given out at all - would be reserved for egregious, multiple offenders.

Ed R. wrote on January 07, 2008 12:39 PM: Fichte? Brownson? The RJ editors were wandering new aisles at Barnes and Noble today. Readers might want to check up on Brownson to learn about his conversion from egalitarian socialist thought to conservative Catholicism, which he thought the only religion capable of controlling Americans. After his conversion, he became the kind of "American patriot" that the RJ and modern conservative movement admire, writing such gems as: "I ceased henceforth to believe in democracy."
(Works, XVIII, 224). A perfect right wing combination: an embarrassment to American political thought AND Catholicism at the same time, kind of a nineteenth-century Robert Novak. Editors, try again.

Ken wrote on January 07, 2008 10:57 AM: Point taken Jen,

John F,

Your point is taken as well, however, the RJ's point is that while this law has good intentions, how do you expect to enforce it. From what I read, if the police come to your house for some reason, they can ask you if the dog has been "fixed". If the answer is no, then you have 30 days to correct the problem. How many people are going to say no to that question? Are we relying on the inept, the idiots, or just those that cant tell a lie? How many more animals will be dumped off at the shelter because thes people cant afford to "fix" their animal? If they cant afford to pay for the "fix" where the heck are they going to come up with the $1000.00 fine? Also, up to six months jail time? We must have added more space to our jails while I wasnt looking.

Jen wrote on January 07, 2008 10:27 AM: Ken, I think you made that point clear. I doubt Ruth meant to. Instead she probably just meant that anyone who doesn't have strict "sex is for marriage only and then only to produce children" outlook is somehow out of control. I get your point and agree. But please don't give Ruth the credit of thinking out that argument.

John F wrote on January 07, 2008 10:27 AM: I'm betting the lady with the neighbor whose shoes were on the porch was getting letters from her homeowner's association, not from the city government. As far as I know, the city of NLV has no ordinances requiring residents to take their shoes off their porches.

RJ editors,

There are more than two models for organizing a modern society. There are models that lie between the two extremes you put forth. Republican government is one of them. It recognizes that government must exist to guarantee our rights, but that no right is absolute. Therefore government also serves the purpose of drawing the lines that limit the individual's right to do exactly as he pleases. As long as people keep throwing unwanted dogs and cats over the fence at our local animal shelters, I think the citizenry are justified in requiring that all dogs and cats be spayed or neutered.

Ken wrote on January 07, 2008 10:09 AM: Having the ability to control ourselves when it comes to sex is the primary difference between humans an all other species on this planet. That being said, Ruth makes a good point that some humans may not have evolved with this capability.

Read All Comments