New Mexico House Rejects Mandate on Owners of Dangerous Dogs

March 16, 2009

  • March 16, 2009 at 1:29 am
    Fido says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Great idea! Instead of doing something to prevent the problem, let’s just make sure there are deep pockets for when the inevitable occurs and some child gets mauled.
    Idiots.

  • March 16, 2009 at 1:33 am
    Snoop Dawg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What insurance company is going to write liability insurance on a know dangerous dog. UH NO ONE.

  • March 16, 2009 at 1:36 am
    Democrat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A new insurance company will be formed, run on taxpayer money, so that we can all subsidize the bad habits of a few people. Hey wait, that sounds familiar, don’t we already have one of those??

  • March 16, 2009 at 2:50 am
    Trixsie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Oh, goodie. My crack-dealing owner doesn’t have to trouble himself with my propensity to bite the neighbors anymore.

  • March 16, 2009 at 4:30 am
    Emperor Bush says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes we do and I stared it with my main man, Gestapo Chief Cheney.

  • March 16, 2009 at 5:01 am
    Brokette says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Emperor, shouldn’t you tell the truth and state “as mandated by Congress”? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are toast!! The Dumbocrats are goin’ down, baby!!

  • March 16, 2009 at 5:19 am
    Gina says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How did this bill decide what a dangerous dog is? Did the dog have to have bitten someone already? Or was it a breed ban, like no more pit bulls or something? Sounds sketchy…
    http://blog.insweb.com/2009/01/ban_dog_breed_stop_dog_bites.html



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*