Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Of course, I don't really believe that pets contribute to global warming; I would have to, first, believe in global warming. Also, this comes from a UCLA study. I am loathe to believe anything that comes out of most universities.

https://patch.com/california/hollywood/ ... study-says

One flaw in the study, that I noted, was that they attributed part of the problem to the meat in a cats or dogs diet.

But, here's the thing... most of the meat in their diet comes from animals slaughtered for human consumption. Scraps that are rejected for human consumption, end up in pet food. I have been to the plants. I doubt that they took this into consideration.

It might take a while, but they'll want to come for your pets, sooner or later.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I don't believe in man-made climate change or man-made global warming because the very people who "invented" the concept and force it down our throats day in and day out don't believe in it.

If they did, they wouldn't have several multi-acre estates around the world, being driven to the airport in their armored SUV's to burn thousands of gallons fuel to fly around the world DAILY to tell us we're polluting the earth because we aren't using cars powered by hazardous materials and our 1800 square foot home has central HVAC instead of opening a window.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The study also addresses fecal production as a pollutant. I guess bears are next on the list.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I was actually disappointed to learn that global warming was a hoax. The phrase puts visions of 12 month long summers in my head. Threatening me with global warming is much like threatening Brer Rabbit with a briar patch.

Oh, if I continue to drive my gas guzzling land yachts, the world will get hot? Awesome. Eating meat causes global warming? Let me get a second steak, then.

Of course, now they've move the goalposts, again. Now the threat is "Climate Change ". That's vague.

Also, if those idiots think that I am going to find a plant based diet to feed my dog, then they are loonier than Vermin Supreme. I'll continue feeding her meat, thank you.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Not a good idea to threaten my pets because that story will end with you waking up three hours later and wiping the blood from your head. I hope these dopes aren't that stupid?

Here's my thing... if people are so worried about "Climate Change"? Get themselves neutered. Have no babies, and then?

Kill themselves...

Oh Wait! A MAJORITY of the world thinks it's bullshittery, and a money-grabbing scheme! Oh Well! Guess they're gonna have to force regulations onto folks with scams.

Lol, Rev. It IS BS'ery and a money grabbing scheme. As Marc pointed out, above, the people that try to sell us this nonsense clearly don't believe it, themselves. Their actions demonstrate that.

It's also a control scheme. Invent a problem, demand government regulations to solve the problem.

This "pets help cause global warming" thing is going to be a hard sell, I think; at least as far as convincing folks that they need to get rid of them. Most of the people, that I have personally met, who buy into the hoax, are also pet owners. They will have an emotional conflict, but will end up not getting rid of their pets. In a couple of generations, when the Pre-K through 12 Indoctrination Centers have had a chance to drill the concept firmly in place, people will just stop keeping pets.

In the meantime, however, I DO think that a new tax on pets is possible, in the nearer future. The new tax, of course, will partially help to fund schools, like UCLA, in their quest to "combat climate change".

Actually, that's likely where this is going. A pet tax. That makes more sense than pet confiscation. Yeah, there are some animal rights activists that view the practice of keeping pets as a form of slavery, but the issue is never the issue. The issue is money and power.

UCLA just figured out how to get free money out of people keeping pets.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:The study also addresses fecal production as a pollutant. I guess bears are next on the list.

First they say: "Stop global warming to save the polar bears!"

Later: "Kill polar bears to stop global warming!"

Steve32 wrote:

WRW wrote:The study also addresses fecal production as a pollutant. I guess bears are next on the list.

First they say: "Stop global warming to save the polar bears!"

Later: "Kill polar bears to stop global warming!"

Well, it would save the seals...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]