San Francisco Pet Ban: Richard Gere disagrees

The nanny state strikes again.

Sucks to be an owner of a pet store, but the city can't your need to make a living temper some commission's sense of self-satisfaction. Same kind of fucktarded "reasoning" that has people going after gun retailers for the actions of individual consumers.

Ah, CA liberal reasoning: "I don't like it; ban it."

Also, "I don't mind imposing this on the lowly unwashed, because I'm rich enough that it won't inconvenience me in the slightest."

If Richard Gere were willing to stand on a street corner giving out baggies to those lazy fucks who don't clean up after their dogs, this might be noteworthy.

Otherwise, it's just funny imagining the struggle in Jamey's mind.

As if it's impossible to go after negligent pet owners.

The problem is, there might be enough of them to vote someone else into power, whereas the pet store owners are hopelessly outnumbered.

It isn't. There are fines, big ones. However, there's seldom enough manpower to police the bastids. And it's the rich bitches with the designer dogs who are too delicate to pick up poop, even with a plastic bag. They're hardly going to vote for more revenue to hire people to police them.

Then maybe the pet store owners should police the streets for dog poop.

Another thing, I don't know if it's a state-wide issue, but in SoCal, at least, pet owners can legally bring their freakin' dogs everywhere - malls, restaurants, supermarkets, etc. Most states have laws against any but service dogs in retail spaces. Maybe if San Francisco enforced those laws, people with allergies would be less likely to want to ban dogs entirely.

I blame Paris Hilton myself.

So punishing the actual crime would cost everyone whereas banning pet sales only costs the pet store owners.

Not remotely their responsibility, any more than it is for a car salesman to make sure you drive safely, or the gun dealer to keep you from shooting the dumb broad on a cell phone who cut you off in rush hour traffic.

That's the secondhand smoke thing all over again. Stay home in your oxygen tent if the owner of a private establishment isn't attentive enough to your delicate health needs.

Let's be clear: I'm not defending this, but I also don't think it's going to pass. It's a scare tactic designed precisely to get celebrities like Gere involved in some Be Green: Clean Up After Your Dog campaign.

What amuses me is Jamey's moral struggle: Hate San Francisco, hate Gere, whose side do I take here?

As if this Epic Struggle impacts him in Podunk in any way other than his own need to play nanny.

What amuses me is your consistency in finding an excuse to type my name, and the circumlocutions you'll go through to make it sound as though you've got a legitimate point to make in doing so.

But more to the point, why do you hate SF and Gere?

You do realize that Richard Gere isn't actually quoted as being opposed to this policy in the article. It's just a dig at Richard Gere's supposed penchant for putting small furry things like gerbils in his ass. If this passes, he couldn't buy new gerbils in town.

SF needs to go back to doing what it does best:

Having fabulous parades!

If they ban pet sales, where will Richard Gere get his gerbils?

So the fin trade continues in San Francisco.



Someday folks will be shocked, and probably more than a little bit disgusted that on this day we all turned a blind eye to goldfish slavery in the bay area.

Can't they just give the unwanted animals to PETA so PETA can kill them?

It's what PETA does best.

Link

:RIP: freedom, you were great while you lasted. Then liberals came along and you died. We miss you.

Let's not start in with that shit. Conservatives also have little regard for individual freedom. The two sides just fight over who gets to make our decisions for us.

Agreed. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle the curtailment comes. Both brands are equally bad, and contribute to the "slippery slope" effect.

If you outlaw gerbils, only criminals will have gerbils.

Also, what's so special about fish?

Nothing, that's why they don't care if they end up in the hands of irresponsible owners. Oh and also, it's a completely frivolous proposal made by morons.

Ah. I think I see. There aren't enough police resources to enforce existing laws, right? And if they make new laws, then...

OK. This is where I get lost. People will just obey the new laws and there will be no need for any enforcement? Or somehow law enforcement that is already stretched thin will figure out ways to be more efficient because of the increased workload.

It's gotta suck to be Richard Gere. I mean, the whole gerbil thing is almost certainly false. And who knows, maybe the guy really, really likes gerbils. But, because of an urban legend and his celebrity, he can never ever buy a gerbil.

That said, he's in luck!

Fair enough. Liberals are just more apt to it. Then again, a true conservative would never do that. Perhaps the issue is we don't have any true conservatives.

Are pets to San Fran like guns to Chicago?

Except you're completely wrong? No one supports this and it has zero chance of becoming law and instead it is just something put forward by PETA types.

Why does Wordforge just love these no consequence gestures from groups with like 4 members? Worse, you folks routinely pretend as if they're main stream and represent "the left" which is completely false. It's just one big circle jerk around here and while I like to jerk off as much as the next man but you folks do it so often you must be getting chaffed by now.

wait...what? G just spent half this thread trolling Jamey because she didn't get the joke in the thread title and didn't actually read the OP?

that's classic, I don't care who's side you're normally on.

As for the ban - perhaps they could settle for a waiting period and a background check before one is allowed to buy a pet?



Seriously - if it's a poop problem only, then why not just ban pooping pets from the city property - not that this too wouldn't be an obvious over-reach but it would seem to be a more straight-forward approach to the poop situation, since this law doesn't prevent anyone from buying a dog in Oakland who craps in SF.

While I think this law is ridiculous, I do have issues with importing non-native species like pythons, boa constrictors, and iguanas. Florida has an ecological nightmare going on as the result of pet owners letting these animals loose in a near tropical zone in which they can thrive. I hear some of the snakes they're finding in the Everglades are pretty impressive.

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy describes San Francisco Liberals as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes."

The leftism of the Bay has now gone full circle and reached the hate stage. I love my cats and they are my friends and like part of the family. Everybody should able to enjoy that. There should be laws against people treating animals like shit, not about being able to have one. Maybe they should ban queers because we all know that they all end up dying of aids in the hospital Same exact logic going on there.

No it's not the same logic at all.

No part of this idea that I can see bans the owning of any specific animal. It seems crafted to try and reduce the incidents of people walking past a pet store in a mall and buying a cute little puppy or kitten on impulse without thinking about the fact it will grow up some day.

Disagree with legislation going as far as this, but I would never buy a pet from a store like that. Either get your animals from a reputable breeder (ie one is interested in making sure their animals go to a good home) or adopt one from a shelter. When we are ready to get a dog it will be the shelter route for us.