Anti-Gun Astronaut Mark Kelly (husband of Gabriel Giffords) American Bull Dog Attacks Baby Seal.

Anti-Gun Astronaut Mark Kelly’s Bull dog attacks the Federally protected baby Harbor seal. This un-provoked attack involved the his unleashed dog, that leapt from it’s property. Warning!!! Very bloody graphic video.

Perhaps if somebody had been carrying a firearm, this rare endangered baby seal would be alive. But then, what is more important, a baby, or a baby seal?

If this mother had been trained in fire arm safety, these two criminals would be dead instead of her baby.
(read the sick criminal comments under this youtube video. These thugs are the reason why free people need to protect themselves and carry firearms)
www.woai.com...

first off while its sad this guys dog attacked an animal shooting the dog is not the answer and in my exprience shooting some ones dog is one easy way to make sure that bad things end up happening to the person who shot them(if some one shot my dog well for legal reasons i will just state it would be a long unpleasant experience for who ever did it)

not really getting the comparison your trying to make between that baby that got shot the other day perhaps you could clarify?

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


I agree, shooting the dog and possibly killing it for attacking/killing the seal wouldn't solve anything, but a good hard kick or punch to its skull was necessary. All these people did was tap its head with a stick, slapped it gently, and tugged it. They didn't even attempt to help the seal, they acted more concerned with their badly trained dog.

Nature

reply to post by Violater1


How in the World does a tug of war using a seal between a few people and a dog contribute to the madness of the political system? To be honest, I am having trouble relating a baby's death to the madness of politics as well.

A little out in left field here, aren't we?

reply to post by FidelityMusic


if they bystanders knew anything about that breed of dog they would have used the stick like a break stick(shove it in their jaws and ideally its wider then it is thick so when you rotate you can force the jaws off the animal) my pit tried to eat an elephant seal giving birth on a beach in ca took me 40 minutes to get him away from it (luckily he didnt get close otherwise hed be toast)

if your gonna walk your dog on a beach with out a leash make sure your the only ones their first and scout out for creatures

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Clueless on dogs and guns!?! How the Hell was this family anything in Arizona? Next you're going to tell me they hate pickups.

Also,"Gabrielle Giffords' dog has been involved in more crimes than my gun."


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Giffords should be heavily fined for not keeping his dog on a leash when out with it-what if it was a child that was attacked? As another member member stated-NATURE.The dog cannot be blamed certainly.It cannot tell it's owner:"Now remember that leash,seeing we're obviouly going for walkies-remember i just can't help myself,if i see another animal i may attck it mostly,it's just the way i was wired"

the lady playing tugowar with the dog is what killed the seal.
stupid people.

the dog had a collar on, use it, that's what it's for.

choker chains work really well in these kind of situations.
if you have a pit, or a german shepherd, and you don't have a choker chain on it at all times, you are a moron.

no you don't shoot the dog, because it attacked another "animal".
thats whats animals do, they kill animals, then eat them.

Originally posted by ttobban
reply to post by Violater1

 

How in the World does a tug of war using a seal between a few people and a dog contribute to the madness of the political system? To be honest, I am having trouble relating a baby's death to the madness of politics as well.

A little out in left field here, aren't we?

I find it ironic that a pro obama, anti gun supporter, violates the law by allowing his unleashed dog to attack a known federally protected baby animal. If you read some of the comments beneath this video, many are saying that they would have shot the dog.
The dog is dangerous and should have been either behind a fence or confined inside the house. What if this was a mother and child playing in the surf and this dog attacked them? Would somebody, reasonably shoot the dog?


Dogs are known to, unprovoked, attack on children.

And no mention of this on the MSM.
All right, let’s stretch this out (if that’s what you want to call it).
Now what if this were his son and his son attacked somebody. What if the person being assaulted had a gun and shot their attacker, saving their own life. Or would you rather call 911 and wait 15 minutes for the LEO’s to show up? But that would never happen right?

What if this mother had a gun and shot the assailants before they executed her baby?
Yes I find it ironic that he gets into the lime light by not being responsible for his Pit Bull.

reply to post by FidelityMusic

As distasteful as this sounds, if a bullmastiff or similar breed of dog latches on to something it shouldn't -

You just place your finger in its rectum. Gives it something else to concentrate on.

El Yucko! I know, but it could save the life of something that deserves to go the distance.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
first off while its sad this guys dog attacked an animal shooting the dog is not the answer and in my exprience shooting some ones dog is one easy way to make sure that bad things end up happening to the person who shot them(if some one shot my dog well for legal reasons i will just state it would be a long unpleasant experience for who ever did it)

Wow. An owner with a pit bull mentality.
Both should be outlawed and not allowed to run free.

reply to post by Violater1


Talk about a non-news story. The only reason we're hearing about it is because of who owns the dog.

Between the dog attack and the straw purchasing this family is starting to sound like good old American double-wide royalty.

reply to post by Violater1


All these what if and what should be scenarios... it's the very reason laws are made to begin with. Who is to say they are right to make a law what it is... who is to say I should decide what is right to make a law what it is... who is to say you are right to make a law what it is?

Just seems kind of ironic that some people think freedom gets to decide which laws are imposed on a mass of 300 million people. Forcing someone to get gun training... really? What if I choose my sword skills to your gun skills to battle with? I'd say freedom let's me decide for myself as to which way to protect myself and children.

Either way, I think worrying about ourselves, individually, should be the main focus. Call me lawless... call me free... call me an A-hole, I don't care. I don't want or need a law to decide what's right and wrong for myself... or you for that matter. I choose for my dog to live lawless as well, so you better watch out for a butt sniffing, vicious plant pisser in my neck of the woods as well as myself.

I'd shoot a dog who is unleashed and attacking me, my pets or even another innocent animal in a heat beat. Then I'd make sure the dog owners get arrested or fined to the hilt. I wont be worried about retribution from the dogs owners - he broke the leash law so he's a criminal - let him come threaten me, he'll get the same treatment the dog got.

Stupid people with dogs like pit bulls all too often train them to be violent animals and for some stupid reason think it's o.k. to let them run loose. Even if untrained a pit bull can snap and viciously attack someone. Those dogs are not as domesticated as others and IMO should not be allowed to be kept as pets, just like you cant keep an alligator as a pet.