13 Jul 08
I'm not sure how I feel about this. People have a right to take risks and do dangerous things. Is there a good reason for the law to step in?
The best argument for sending in the gunmen to forcibly shut these guys down is that the venemous snakes might escape and even start breeding. This could be handled with more oversight of the snake-handling though.
I can't stand it when the government sends gunmen to protect us from ourselves.
13 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree with ATY--I saw a documentary about them called Heaven Come Down, and they are twisted, mixed-up people with a lot more internal strife than I imagined, but freedom is something that must remain sacrosanct--even freedom to do something stupid and kill yourself.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. People have a right to take risks and do dangerous things. Is there a good reason for the law to step in?
The best argument for sending in the gunmen to forcibly shut these guys down is that the venemous snakes might escape and even start breeding. This could be handled with more oversight of the snake-handling though.
I can't stand it when the government sends gunmen to protect us from ourselves.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe Law jumped in because of the illegal buying and selling of the animals. It is the liberals that throw in the dangerous risk as being a reason to go in.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. People have a right to take risks and do dangerous things. Is there a good reason for the law to step in?
The best argument for sending in the gunmen to forcibly shut these guys down is that the venemous snakes might escape and even start breeding. This could be handled with more oversight of the snake-handling though.
I can't stand it when the government sends gunmen to protect us from ourselves.
I for one do not think that people should not be alowed these animals. However, they should be able to show that they can take care of them without the risk of harm to the amimal or to anyone else.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaDo you happen to know what law was invoked?
The Law jumped in because of the illegal buying and selling of the animals. It is the liberals that throw in the dangerous risk as being a reason to go in.
I for one do not think that people should not be alowed these animals. However, they should be able to show that they can take care of them without the risk of harm to the amimal or to anyone else.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaIt is the liberals that throw in the dangerous risk as being a reason to go in.
The Law jumped in because of the illegal buying and selling of the animals. It is the liberals that throw in the dangerous risk as being a reason to go in.
I for one do not think that people should not be alowed these animals. However, they should be able to show that they can take care of them without the risk of harm to the amimal or to anyone else.
I hope you don't mean this in a general sense. The Republicans (except my man Ron Paul) are very enthusiastic about the War on Drugs it seems.
13 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, not in general. I have met a few who were for our rights. And yes, I know that there are others who claim not to be liberal who want to take our rights away also.
[b]It is the liberals that throw in the dangerous risk as being a reason to go in.
I hope you don't mean this in a general sense. The Republicans (except my man Ron Paul) are very enthusiastic about the War on Drugs it seems.[/b]
Sorry if it seemed I was generalizing.
BTW, I am for Dr. Ron Paul's message too.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually this is about 13 miles from me. I knew some Coots in the next county so they may be related, but that's not saying much around here.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/13/snake.bust.ap/index.html
Kirksey, you know Reverend Coots?
I honestly can't figure out why it is illegal when more people die each year from lung cancer from smoking in the church parking lot than from handling snakes.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by kirksey957I agree with you on that one. 🙂
Actually this is about 13 miles from me. I knew some Coots in the next county so they may be related, but that's not saying much around here.
I honestly can't figure out why it is illegal when more people die each year from lung cancer from smoking in the church parking lot than from handling snakes.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI know this plumber who I'm pretty sure has been in his home. He said there were snakes everywhere throughout the house and he (Coots, if it is him) didn't seem to mind them much. They weren't in cages or aquariums or whatever the hell you keep a snake in. My plumber said "thank you very much; you can find more plumbers in the phone book."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/13/snake.bust.ap/index.html
Kirksey, you know Reverend Coots?
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by kirksey957I'm sure more people smoke than handle such snakes.
Actually this is about 13 miles from me. I knew some Coots in the next county so they may be related, but that's not saying much around here.
I honestly can't figure out why it is illegal when more people die each year from lung cancer from smoking in the church parking lot than from handling snakes.
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaThat one's protecting the native wildlife. A lot of those snakes weren't native. We only have four species of venemous snake in the US. In fact that one seems to allow for owning native wildlife if you get a permit. If that was invoked it means the guy simply wasn't following regulations. It doesn't say you can't have snakes in that law, unless I missed something. Did I?
Sorry, you are right, that is the wrong link. Here is the correct one.
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/301/002/081.htm
Kentucky also has a law against handling, however, I have not found that one as of yet.