Woman mauled to death by dogs. A victim of Nanny state and Ovine culture

victim of dogs

Thirty-one year-old Chloe Mathewson died after being attacked by two dogs at Redvale in the early hours of Friday morning.
Read more about it here:

My thoughts.
This is a horrific tragedy.
So very sad.

Yet Just imagine if it was both legal and routine in our country for woman to carry a small pistol?
She would probably still be alive.
Some may argue she is a victim of too much liberty (in respect to Dog ownership)
Others (like myself) can apprehend she is in fact a victim of Nanny state legalism which not only has disarmed us all and left us defenceless against criminals and wild animals, but also has generated such a sheepish culture where the very idea of carrying a weapon for personal defence is considered to be virtually a deviant mentality.

Thus it is also a great tragedy to grasp just how far Socialism has institutionalised our population.
The very idea of being Self reliant and bearing the means of self defense are completely alien concepts.
(I’ll probably recieve hate mail for making ‘political capital’ out of this tragedy.)

156828_462619617149013_882171957_n

This entry was posted in Christian Libertarianism, Constitution, Easy Listening, Guns, Indoctrination, Nanny State, Self reliance, Sheeple, Slavery, Uncategorized, Zombies. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Woman mauled to death by dogs. A victim of Nanny state and Ovine culture

  1. reed says:

    Bovine = cattle
    Ovine = sheep
    šŸ™‚

  2. Tim says:

    I already got that one Reed! Cheers!

  3. Tim says:

    your fast Bro!
    I actually hit pubblish before i was finnished!
    Then I checked out the Ovine thing!
    Glad to see you got my Back though!

  4. Richard says:

    Yet Just imagine if it was both legal and routine in our country for woman to carry a small pistol?
    She would probably still be alive.

    But just imagine if it was illegal to own Rottweilers.
    She would probably still be alive.

  5. Tim says:

    I did make that point in the post as the rationale of a particular mentality Richard.
    (Google Dog ban)
    I take it you are playing Devils advocate (as Usual :-))
    Are you suggesting it would be better to extend the Nannyism Richard rather than roll it back? Would not the ban on Rottweilers still leave us exposed to attacks from other breeds? or are you suggesting a ban on all dogs?
    Do you believe… like socialists do in respect to Guns… that only the Police should have dogs capable of ‘downing’ an human?
    Of course that sort of approach would be greeted with enthusiasm from the Police/ state whom tend to support laws which render us more defenseless, and thereby shift the balance of power even more in their own favour.
    That would eliminate Pig hunting dogs, and dogs families and old people use for companionship and to defend themselves and their property.
    When horrific attacks like this happen those who call for bans must ignore the great service such dogs provide in home security and they must also discount any idea that these dogs definitely save more lives than they take… ie the risk/ benefit ratio is vastly in favour of allowing people to own such animals. These attacks are very rare, yet these dogs protect the well being of thousands from criminal activities…every night and every day. The owners of the dogs in this case will rightly face prosecution and their level of culpability ought to be reflected in any sentence they receive. If the sentence is adequate then this ought to be a lesson to all such dog owners of the serious consequences of owning dangerous dogs, or neglecting to keep them from harming the public.
    It is frightening to know this sort of thing could happen to anyone at any time, and thus I sincerely believe we should carry some means of self defense at all times.
    It is also true that most of us have been confronted by nasty looking dogs at the fence/ gate of someoneā€™s property.
    Enter at own risk.

  6. Richard says:

    Business as usual, Tim. šŸ˜‰

    But this is an unusual case, there’s a lot to “read between the lines” … why would her family mention her “serious addictions” in a press statement?

    Enter at own risk.

    My understanding is that she was trying to leave the property, not enter it … or maybe she was just dancing in the garden in the middle of the night … as you do.

  7. reed says:

    Exodus 21:28-32
    ā€œIf an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him. Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule. If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

  8. First off I would like to say superb blog! I had a quick question which I’d like to ask if you do not mind. I was curious to know how you center yourself and clear your head prior to writing. I’ve had a tough time clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out there. I truly do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually wasted just trying to figure out how to begin. Any suggestions or hints? Appreciate it!Orange Roofing Contractors, 1010 N. Batavia St., #F2, Orange, CA 92867 – (714) 770-8684

  9. Tim says:

    ^^^^Spam attack Richard!

  10. Im obliged for the post.Really thank you! Much obliged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *