Show off your pets thread

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

A bullet would be faster and more humane. The little guy is probably suffering horribly and won't make the winter anyway.

Yep, unless he's in a town that makes it a crime to discharge a gun. A local LEO would probably take care of it quickly, though. By now it has little to no chance of survival and is likely dangerous to curious kids or pets.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Atmo

Yep, unless he's in a town that makes it a crime to discharge a gun. A local LEO would probably take care of it quickly, though. By now it has little to no chance of survival and is likely dangerous to curious kids or pets.

It is Washington sate. Discharging a firearm in the city is probably required on at least a quarterly basis by ordnance.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Odds are they will just shoot it!

Brings to mind a back-in-the-day story.

I helped set up a toxicology lab in Redfield, Arkansas. It was staffed by a group of toxicologists from the company I worked for, Transgenic Sciences Inc.

The locals were a bit disturbed by the testing we were doing on various animals so we had to be careful how we got rid of a large gaze of raccoons that had "occupied" the lab while it was unoccupied for several years.

So, they called in Bubba, the local raccoon "relocator". One day I was taking a walk around the grounds when I saw Bubba loading up a bunch of caged raccoons that he had trapped.

I struck up a conversation with him and ask him where he relocated the raccoons to. I told him I wasn't one of those animal activists. He said the took them further out into the country and them let them out of the cages and shot them as they ran off - nobody around here wants a bunch of raccoons dumped off on their property.

THE END

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

It is Washington sate. Discharging a firearm in the city is probably required on at least a quarterly basis by ordnance.

Psst....

It doesn't count until gun ownership is required as it is in my neck of the woods.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms

[ScoobsMcGee]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Psst....

It doesn't count until gun ownership is required as it is in my neck of the woods.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms

Well, if the head of household is required to maintain a firearm, guess I won't be moving to Kennesaw then.

I don't think my cats can maintain firearms.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ScoobsMcGee

I don't think my cats can maintain firearms.

That's why cats always have staff.

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Psst....

It doesn't count until gun ownership is required as it is in my neck of the woods.

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms

Hmm, it's a little unclear but I'm not a lawyer. I could see how some citizens might take that as an emergency rule justifying "managing" city government overstepping it's authority.

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by ScoobsMcGee

Well, if the head of household is required to maintain a firearm, guess I won't be moving to Kennesaw then.

I don't think my cats can maintain firearms.

Dogs aren't any better.

https://nypost.com/2020/11/05/dog-sh...ed-in-trigger/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Atmo

Hmm, it's a little unclear but I'm not a lawyer. I could see how some citizens might take that as an emergency rule justifying "managing" city government overstepping it's authority.

This was passed in reaction to/protest of a different town that banned guns altogether in the 1980's (Morton Grove, Illinois). The Morton Grove law was later found unconstitutional but Kennesaw never changed theirs. The link I posted didn't include Subsection B).

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So basically, no one is really required to own a gun.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ScoobsMcGee

Well, if the head of household is required to maintain a firearm, guess I won't be moving to Kennesaw then.

I don't think my cats can maintain firearms.

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

So basically, no one is really required to own a gun.

I read Subsection B and had the same thought but for once restrained myself not wanting to insult an armed Georgian.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Atmo

I read Subsection B and had the same thought but for once restrained myself not wanting to insult an armed Georgian.

gotta be careful, i hear he knows bugs bunny.

[ChazzDiss]

Originally Posted by Copy

Here you go!

And they're even more adorable! Showed this to my wife, she can't help but giggle.

[Dadhawk]

Our two (well ones our granddog) just hanging out on a lazy day.