The Right to Bear Dogs?

Once again I must be vague about a certain person, so as I don't get accused of something, or sued for lible. This certain person is a high profile lawyer who is challenging Ontario's pitbull ban in the courts on the grounds of it being unconstitutional. Now I've read through the constitution and I've come to the conclusion that this particular lawyer obviously needs to go back to law school, no, make that highschool. There is nowhere in the constitution that states that the rights of citizens to bear dogs will not be infringed upon. Nor does it say that a law must be specific in order to be constitutional. So lets examine the dog owner's (a Toronto woman) and her lawyer's case further.

Lets see, everybody has the right to life, liberty, and security according to the the Constitution's list of legal rights.
-Is her life being infringed upon? No. She certainly is not going to die because of the law, unless the dog decides otherwise.
-Must be her liberty then? No. It's not like she's still free free to own the dog, but she must muzzle it and is liable if it attacks somebody.
-What about her security? Well, she claims the dog is "friendly" so it's obviously not being kept as a guard dog.

Ok, so she has no case under legal rights, but what about other rights?
Is she being discriminated against? No. Keeping the dog is not part of her religion and this woman is hardly keeping it for political protest or to express a belief. It's just a pet.

Simple put, this woman and her certain lawyer have absolutely no case against the Ontario government on the grounds of constitutional violations. To even make that accusation is purely ludicrous and a mockery of core Canadian values.

It is rare that I ever agree with Big D's Liberals, but I do on this one. The fact is that pitbulls are dangerous dogs. People usually only get them because a certain body part happens to be smaller than most others, and a pitbull makes them look tough. Most people in that situation usually just buy an huge SUV, but unfortunatley there are many Canadians who are not blessed with an abundance of intellegence.
There have been numerous stories about the dogs mauling children, other pets, and people to death, and needing to be shot dead before they let go. The dogs are genetically bred to fight so pain is almost orgasmic to them. This is why they won't stop attacking even if you bash them with a shovel as hard as you can. The dogs serve no use as pets and are dangerous around children and other animals. It is also important to note that the law covers all breeds of dogs. Pitbulls are bared from being bred or sold, must be fixed, and must be muzzled while out in public. Owners may also be liable if the dog attacks someone. However, this liability applies to all breeds of dog. Banning pitbulls may be the old stone keeping tigers away though process, but it does seem to be working. Even if the drop in attacks is just a coincidence, it is still important to keep this breed of dog out of society for a simple reason. Society need not pay for a person's bad choice in pets. If they want to keep the dog so badly, just move to a place where they are still legal.

I just have one last comment for this woman and her certain lawyer. Have fun in court, though I suggest you both brush up on the fundamentals of Canadian law first. I guess for a man trying to be the white Johnny Cochran, if the muzzle doesn't fit, you must aquit.