| Author | Post |
|---|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1454 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 01:37 am |
|
Are quotes from a founding father on the defense of liberty allowed?
Patrick Henry is spot on for the past, present, and future.
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect EVERYONE who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
It is natural to man to indulge in the illusion of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of the siren, till she transforms us into beasts
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 12:01 am |
|
Hubabuau –
OK, no Constitution…
Just how many instances of animal hoarding have we experienced in Apache Junction???
|
hubabuau
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
| I didn't know that each statement on this forum moved into a constitutional debate. I thought this was a place for friendly exchanges of ideas and open discussions that each could share. My apologies. I will let you dominate and control the discussions with your chatter.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 06:41 pm |
|
hubabuau wrote:
Thats some upset/angry words about a simple statement. Thought this was a friendly place not where you get beatup about something you say.
Which of my words were angry???
I did not beat you up – I attempted to provide counter arguments to your statements – feel free to counter my arguments.
hubabuau wrote:
No wonder people dont get involved. They don't want every thing they say to be used against them.
That is the risk we take for making public statements – we have our positions debated.
hubabuau wrote:
Or have the constitution thrown in their face.
Yup, that pesky Constitution… how does it seem to find its way into a conversation about government in America!?!?!?! Just when is someone going to shred that “piece of paper” anyway??? What a nuisance it makes!!!
(Ya, that last paragraph was sarcasm – and ya, sarcasm is not really appropriate in a debate; but since when do Americans criticize the existence of their Constitution???)
|
hubabuau
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 06:19 pm |
|
| Thats some upset/angry words about a simple statement. Thought this was a friendly place not where you get beatup about something you say. No wonder people dont get involved. They don't want every thing they say to be used against them. Or have the constitution thrown in their face.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 04:56 pm |
|
hubabuau wrote:
The number of dogs or animals is a problem now. Look at the stories of people hoarding animals. Its disgusting. If you have nothing to hide what is the problem? I think will help prevent people from having 5 then 10 then 20 then 100 animals. Some people just dont know how to stop.
What is the problem???
How about the potential violation of the Fourth Amendment???
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is it reasonable for an official of the government to “inspect” my property because I might be an animal lover and chose to have six animals??? If I have not been accused of abusing or mistreating my animals, how is this violation of my privacy reasonable???
hubabuau wrote:
I dont know what the we tend to want less government is all about. That is not my thoughts. I think we need some type of restrictions or laws that protect people like me from well i guess people like you.
What if I felt that we needed more laws and restrictions to protect people like me from… well… I guess… people like you???
My opinion… I believe the more laws and restrictions government creates the less capable citizens are at governing themselves. A morally responsible and properly educated society would live well abiding by a minimum of laws.
Crafting more and more laws is like downing more and more aspirin to relieve the headache caused by a tumor of the brain – we’re simply trying to control the symptoms of our society’s problems rather than attacking the disease.
|
hubabuau
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 25th, 2008 02:07 pm |
|
The number of dogs or animals is a problem now. Look at the stories of people hoarding animals. Its disgusting. If you have nothing to hide what is the problem? I think will help prevent people from having 5 then 10 then 20 then 100 animals. Some people just dont know how to stop.
I dont know what the we tend to want less government is all about. That is not my thoughts. I think we need some type of restrictions or laws that protect people like me from well i guess people like you.
And that Wilson guy on council should be in the recall. He is a lame duck. He is there to vote the way that Severs tells him to. He doesnt have a mind of his own. He is a follower not a leader.
Last edited on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 02:23 pm by hubabuau
|
Fedupwithcrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 11:31 am |
|
| Grrrr, I have to work on Tuesday night. Maybe I can get my roommate to go to the meeting. I certainly hope that they don't pass this on this weeks agenda.
|
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
| Next Tuesday is the meeting. 7 pm
|
nicotaijulo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 07:27 pm |
|
Hello .....
Would someone PLEASE post the day and time of this meeting !!!
I know it's on a Tuesday but when I called City Hall NOBODY seemed to know ANYTHING ! But with those people that seems to be S.O.P.
They are such MORONS !!!
Last edited on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 07:28 pm by nicotaijulo
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 01:46 pm |
|
| Good points indeed. Are you going to make the next city council meeting? It's next Tuesday. They will pass it, this Im sure of. We need to talk about this to them.
|
AndyP
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 04:42 am |
|
Microchipping carries some risk. When a person chooses to have their dog microchipped, they accept the risk. What about when microchipping is forced on them? Who assumes the risk? Is the city going to pay for complications that may result from the procedure? What if the dog IS already microchiped, but the scanner is not compatable? That happens. Should the dog be microchipped a second time at the expense of the owner? A microchip is good identification, but it's not foolproof. A properly fastened safety type collar and tag works also.
Anyone who learned about fallacies in high school can see the faulty logic in these new ordinances. A 3 dog limit? I understand people who have many dogs can be obnixious, but people with one obnoxious dog can be just as bad. If being bothersome is the problem, we need to address being bothersome. He can start by heftier fines for repeat offenders of noise and litter (dog poop) violations. We could even hold dog husbandry classes (like traffic ticket class) paid for by the fines. Thats doesnt mean everyone will learn something, but spending 8 hours in class is a productive punishment.
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 09:29 pm |
|
What really bothers me is that the council does not see what is clearly an invasion of privacy. All permit holders will have to let the officer into thier house " for an inspection." If u do not get the permit for the number of dogs u hold it will be a 1st class misdemeanor. Again our city is making good people without criminal records, criminals by passing these sorts of ordinances.
I'm also bothered by the "at large dogs" and the city inserting a chip in my dog before I can get it back. I was told by an officer even if you have tags and a license on a dog they will still insert a chip and you will still have to pay the fee. What ever happened to personal property? I mean, we would not allow them to do this to our childern, why is chipping a dog different. If you want it to be chipped go to a vet. I dont like to be forced into anything.
These ordinances have not been past yet. At the last city meeting the council gave another 30 days and will then again review it. SO get to the next meeting and start talking! I know I will.
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
What really bothers me is that the council does not see what is clearly an invasion of privacy. All permit holders will have to let the officer into thier house " for an inspection." If u do not get the permit for the number of dogs u hold it will be a 1st class misdemeanor. Again our city is making good people without criminal records, criminals by passing these sorts of ordinances.
I'm also bothered by the "at large dogs" and the city inserting a clip in my dog before I can get it back. I was told by an officer even if you have tags and a license on a dog they will still insert a chip and you will still have to pay the fee. What ever happened to personal property? I mean, we would not allow them to do this to our childern, why is chipping a dog different. If you want it to be chipped go to a vet. I dont like to be forced into anything.
These ordinances have not been past yet. At the last city meeting the council gave another 30 days and will then again review it. SO get to the next meeting and start talking! I know I will.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 07:42 pm |
|
oops.
Last edited on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 07:43 pm by ajBookchin
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 07:42 pm |
|
nicotaijulo wrote: Is it fair for me to endure this just because some people cannot take the time to properly train and care for thier animals?
No, that is not fair - however is it fair to restrict an animal lover who might have five dogs who never leaves thier waste in the yard, ensures their dogs are not barking; someone who in general is a good neighbor???
|
Nancy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 12:21 am |
|
| With all due respect, flyrep not all of Arizonans believe in less government. You might have phrased it better by saying that you believe in less government, I don't think you speak for everyone in Arizona. I would have no problem if Arizona resembled either of the two states (notice that I said "I", because I do not pretend to speak for all), both were great states to live in and I never had any problems there with their laws (and I had 3 dogs, the limit, in both states) or the government.
|
nicotaijulo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 05:59 pm |
|
With all due respect to all of you whom think that the new ordinance is a bad idea ; you are not considering ALL the factors. What about those of us who are your neighbors ? I live next door to someone who owns 3 very obnoxious dogs. These dogs make it impossible to enjoy my back yard. One in particular barks for HOURS on end! Then I also have to deal with the smell of feces,and the flies are out of control in the summer. I have tried talking to these people , writing letters and even calling the police. Is it fair for me to endure this just because some people cannot take the time to properly train and care for thier animals ? And just so you know, I AM an animal lover, with 1 dog, 3 indoor cats , a tortoise , and 2 ball pythons. But I unlike most, make sure my animals are not a burden on my neighbors !
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1454 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 02:51 am |
|
With respect Nancy, this is not Minnesota nor Colorado. We still tend to
believe in less government here, yet we find ourselves in a non-violent
civil war of sorts over property issues and others as well. This state may
soon resemble your former ones as far as laws are concerned.
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1454 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
So long as there is no probable cause that any of the living beings on the property
are in danger, it is no business of the government. The same goes for a property
with no health hazards. Ugly homes or so called tasteless decorations are also
the business of the property owners.
|
Nancy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 177 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 04:09 pm |
|
| When I moved to Arizona, I was really surprised that there were no ordinances on how many dogs you could have. Living in both Colorado and Minnesota, both cities that I lived in had a law that you could only have 3 dogs.
|
Fedupwithcrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
| Our yard is well kept, our dogs stay inside our fence. The neighbors can mind their own business, just like we do ours. NO ONE has the right to say how many pets homeowners have! You don't know me, and I don't know you; and with your attitude, I probably wouldn't have much to say to you if I did meet you. If we can put up with loud latino music playing at all hours of the day and night without complaint, then we can have our pets!
|
not a clone
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 10:12 am |
|
| Well to be real blunt, maybe you could move into the middle of one of any three or four junk yards in AJ, then you could have all the junk cars, and dogs you want! But maybe, just maybe your neighbors do not want the same lower standards, that the creation of laws prevent! Did you happen to think of that? Last edited on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 10:14 am by not a clone
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1454 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 01:20 am |
|
They have no right to inspect our homes without a warrant
and probable cause. Suspicion or "we do this for the children and animals"
does not cut it.
|
Fedupwithcrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
| So, when does the city council vote on it? I think the citizens should attend and make our voices known!
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15th, 2008 12:15 am |
|
| The city council votes on it. From what I understand this hasnt been passed yet. From Wilson who is on the council. May I add the only one that the recall atemps havent touched. This city is starting to really get me down.
|
anothertwocentsworth
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 06:03 pm |
|
how in the world can they mandate that? is there AJ police going door to door asking to see your dogs and counting heads?
I overheard the news last night that an elderly couple were hoarding dogs (like in the hundreds) now that I understand and see the logic of fines, but counting dogs, and to 3?
I would suggest that you go to council meetings and find out the rationale behind this. crazy.... glad I don't live in AJ, I would be fined up the wazoo! hahaha 
i live in QC and was told when I first came out to area, we could have horses, dogs cats but no pigs in my development! it is not a HOA (Thank goodness) but who makes these rules? The very people that should be public servants that instead think that they are royalty and that rules do not apply to them! off wtih their heads I say! 
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 02:19 pm |
|
What we really need is a rule to limit the number of kids anyone can have to three!!!
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 06:21 am |
|
| I had missed that in the paper. Thank you for bringing it up here. I was in SHOCK as I was reading about this. What in the world was city council thinking when they passed this! Now what can we do about it??? It's almost like I just what to give up and move out of this city.
|
Fedupwithcrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 12:35 am |
|
Well, first it was made into law that you can only have a certain number of vehicles in your yard and no weeds, now it's "you can only have three dogs". I chose to move to AJ because it was a nice, quiet place, now it's being turned into a HOA with all these new rules and regulations.
I personally think that neighbors should stay out of other people's business and just mind their own p's and q's! If me and my roommate choose to have more than three dogs that are kept in my fenced yard, stay out of my business!
And who chooses to make these laws anyway? Someone who sits behind a desk, drawing a paycheck, paid by MY taxes? Why don't they go out and get a REAL job, instead of bugging taxpayers who don't bother anyone? Better yet, why don't the busy body's of AJ who have nothing better to do than go around and see who has what, or who's not doing what, get a job. Maybe then they wouldn't have the time and energy to be bugging their neighbors. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that you can't set off your car alarm at certain times in order not to disturb anyone. Well, sorry for that, but some of us actually work, and work weird off hours, to pay for you to drive around all day and bother hard working taxpayers.
|
Current time is 07:50 am | |
|