First Amendment: The right to own a pet?

Indeed I believe it was Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #17 that posed the question:

"Were it not that we are afforded such freedom from the tyranny attacking the fundamental right to associate with our trusted companions, those non-human animals that reside within our homes and hearts, would this experiment of national governance through a democratic process not survive?"

* * * *

Study: Few Americans Know 1st Amendment


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Freedom-Poll.html?ex=1141880400&en=9bfbc046d19f3e90&ei=5070&emc=eta1

CHICAGO (AP) -- Americans apparently know more about ''The Simpsons'' than they do about the First Amendment.

Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey.

<snip>

It also showed that people misidentified First Amendment rights. About one in five people thought the right to own a pet was protected, and 38 percent said they believed the right against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment was a First Amendment right, the survey found.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. Nothing ensures happiness than a warm puppy!

not to mention that protects fido's right to chase after a stick as well. . . .

**ducking**

The only "maternal" instincts I possess are firmly committed to the safety, well-being, and happiness of my "little 4-legged girl." And, Lordy, I could surely be like a bear guarding her den, in that respect!

bear cub. nice and succulent...

"hunting" skills, I likely will shoot just like our Vice President. In the face, shoulder, chest, breast, bud! Don't even try!

the best part...mmm.. roasted leg...it's like a hillbilly easter!

you do know you need help, don't you, northzax? LOL

I'll be better soon.

:D

A warm puppy... a soft kitty... a steadfast horse... a cute rabbit or guinie pig... the right to specifically own them may not be in the Constitution because that "right", as a part of some folks happiness, was considered "self evident". B-)

Fortunately, the characters of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion actually had redeeming qualities and noble characteristics . . .

Bush would have made war with Tick-Tock . . .

that demonstrates why it should not be a right to own a pet. Refering to the thread about the two teenagers who used a three week old puppy as a football. It died. They should never have the right to own a pet. Sorry.

Edited to add link to the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x547512

:scared: