A California pet shop and shelter is working to address wrong think.
“We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons,” Kim Sill, owner of the Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, wrote on the organization’s website. “If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you.”
While the Constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Kim Sill is of the opinion that doesn’t apply to assault weapons.
She has determined that in order for you to adopt (buy) an animal from them you must prove you are scared of firearms and hate them. You will be grilled in a long and detailed interview.
“If you forster for us and believe in guns, please bring our dogs and/or cats back” Kim said. Expressing her firmly held belief that guns are imaginary. And that you are unfit to be a pet owner if you believe in guns.
Being a member of the NRA will also disqualify you. Never mind that the no mass murder has been a member of the NRA nor has the NRA ever advocated for murder. And the NRA being the oldest civil rights organization, fighting to get blacks equal protection doesn’t count.
Comments
13 responses to “What about the little puppies?”
And they ascertain this information from people…how, exactly?
Seance?
So this is simply wholesale cost-free virtue-signalling.
QED
BTW, Thousand Oaks is in Ventura County. It’s a very pricey L.A. County-adjacent suburban neighborhood, plus consistently one of the Top Ten “Safest Cities In America” for as long as anyone has kept track.
I’m guessing that pet shop would like to change that.
You have to wonder how long before they experience a totally random BLM attack on their establishment, with no witnesses.
Might drive ’em right out of business there, and scuttling back to almost-no-gun-shops-within-city-limits Los Angeles.
Boo frickin’ hoo.
“BTW, Thousand Oaks is in Ventura County. It’s a very pricey L.A. County-adjacent suburban neighborhood, plus consistently one of the Top Ten “Safest Cities In America” for as long as anyone has kept track.
I’m guessing that pet shop would like to change that.”
.
No, the pet shop owner does not think anything will change if guns disappeared overnight. She is likely of the belief that raising minimum wage to $15/hr. will not cause prices to rise (and when they do it will be the greedy business owners who caused it) or that Russia is causing $10/gal gas, but that’s fine because everyone should be driving electric cars anyway.
.
The entire universe is a massive interconnected system, you cannot change one thing without impacting others. That is something leftists/liberals do not understand, and we get gun free paradises with high crime.
Reading their website, they insist on an hour long interview where you will be grilled on your beliefs about gun control and other liberal talking points. They also insist on inspecting your home to ensure that it is suitable, and if you rent, they will also interview your landlord. If you lie to them about your stance on guns and they find out, they claim that they will sue you for fraud. They are meddling, nosy cunts. I wouldn’t want to buy a dog collar from their store.
They are a 503(c) tax exempt organization. It is illegal under IRS regulations to engage in or advocate for a political cause as a tax exempt. Not that the IRS ever enforces the law against liberals. They are also getting killed on yelp. https://www.yelp.com/biz/shelter-hope-pet-shop-thousand-oaks
I suspect their monthly fire insurance premiums are about to exceed their annual income.
This is not a discussion. This is not an argument. This is a statement from one of the blog admins.
This sort of comment is not acceptable. The implication that part of this community would commit arson is not acceptable.
Don’t do it. We don’t allow physical threats, we don’t allow implied threats, we don’t bad mouth the community as a whole.
Part of this community???
Where in blistering Hell are you pulling that imaginary inference from?
I neither said that outright, nor implied that, unless you’re ascertaining that inference by seance.
If you’re butthurt by the reality that there are people out in the big wide world (which is what I did
say) who will likely do something illegal or immoral, that’s entirely your free choice.
Considering random incident-of-violence videos demonstrating exactly that phenomenon are
routinely posted here (I passed at least two such between today and this old post), that seems a little silly, but it’s your choice, and it’s a free country. You can be as silly as you’d like.
Saying what I said is not “being a dick”. It’s breathing oxygen, and having open eyes.
Why post the story at all, if you think everyone in Creation is just going to yawn and say “Tsk. Tsk.”?
Criminal and/or crazy people are absolutely going to make ridiculous threats, sure as the sun rises every morning.
That’s how we know they’re criminals and crazies.
Insurance agents and companies are going to note those realities when assessing policy premiums.
It’s what they do.
That is exactly what I said: no more, and no less.
So now noting the obvious, that 2+2=4 is “unacceptable”?
Noted, Mr. O’Brien. Big Brother is watching.
(George Orwell would like you to call his office.)
I’m not advocating for any such illegal response.
I’m certainly not going to do it myself, nor would I advise nor incite anyone else to do so.
(And unlike 98% of the nonsense covered here, that shop is actually well within a tank of gas from
where I’m sitting. Just like it is for about 25,000,000 other people.)
Saying “X is likely to happen, because human nature” is a simple statement of reality.
To suggest that observing the facts of actual human nature in the real world, and stating
those realities is “unacceptable”, is quite simply asinine.
Do what you like with this comment, and the original one.
But don’t put words in my mouth nor impute motives to me based solely on someone’s wildest imagination, and absolutely nothing I said nor implied.
That’s what ABCNNBCBS are for.
But if you – or anyone else – seriously think no one is going to do any such thing as what I suggested will happen, I’d love to hear an exposition of the thinking behind that opinion.
No, really.
OK, you ranted here and ranted in your blog against us.
Satisfied?
Now go suck on your binkie till you chill.
A great tip for the future calmness of your inner soul: Stop reading this blog.
Subject is closed.
Simple solution…ignore this place and go somewhere else. If I you walk in unawares, and they ask questions you don’t want to answer, tell them you’ll rescue a dog at a shelter that prioritizes the animal over politics. Enough people do that, and they’ll change or deal with the consequences. Their choice, but also mine. There are plenty of shelters that need folks to adopt.
Does that mean they won’t accept gun dogs or can gun dogs only be fostered to people to do anything but what they instinctively want to do?
Well, if they want to discriminate against potential customers, I’m sure that there’s a gun-owning lawyer in the area up for a bit of pro bono casework.
“We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons[.]”
Well, guess that means I can still shop at this store. I do not believe that the Second Amendment gives me the right to buy arms. Nor do I believe the First Amendment gives me the right to speak freely or practice any religion I chose… In fact, there isn’t a single gorram line in the entire United States Constitution or Bill of Rights that gives anyone any rights at all.
No matter how fancy the calligraphy, no government charter can ever give (nor remove) an inherent human right.
My thoughts exactly. The 2nd Amendment “gives” me nothing. I have the rights to buy, own, and use so-called “assault weapons” (can the store owners even define that?), completely independent of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I have those rights because I am human and have the natural right to defend my self, my family, my community, and my nation, using whatever tools I deem necessary and helpful to that cause. Not because some words written in cursive on a parchment say so.
–
The Founders agreed: any implication that the government can grant rights carries an implication that the government can also remove rights. That was anathema to the concept of a free and independent populace, and the Founders were very careful to avoid any such language.
I’ve tried adopting pets from some of these rescue organizations. I found the interviews, and home inspections, totally inappropiate on some. You shouldn’t need a CPS style inspection to adopt a cat.
I’ve had exactly two go well for dogs. First one, I had no dog. And adopting an adult one that was from an awful puppy mill/ dog hoarder would’ve been a huge mistake. They figured that out. All they wanted was to see my place, and ask me questions about how I’d handle the dog – where to put the crate, how would I deal with this or that. It was the right result as this was an Irish Wolfhound rescue and I was clueless.
Second one was easier. I already had a big dog, that I had put a ton of effort training. They sized up my operation and decided it was OK. They asked a minimum of questions. It helped that the female dog we were adopting was enfatuated with our big guy.
My first stop would be a county shelter, not a nitwit lib place. In affluent counties like around here, your average idiot surrenders absolutely stunning dogs and cats. They ask practically nothing.