Let humans and animals coexist
Issue date: 6/23/08 Section: Opinions
There has never been compromise within the sights of the National Rifle Association and the environment.
The National Park Service may be altering its regulations, which would permit visitors to carry loaded weapons, obviously encouraged by the NRA.
Needless to say, animal rights activists and environmental advocates are uniting in discontent to oppose this legislation.
More specifically, U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, is contesting this proposal at the national level.
According to the Humane Society of the United States Web site, "A change in the law will ensure that poachers … gain a significant advantage over law enforcement in their grisly underground operations."
In response, the NRA has posted a rebuttal on its Web site to the accusations made by environmentally friendly groups such as the Humane Society, which asserts that "the right to self-defense should not end simply because one crosses an invisible boundary line and enters a national park or wildlife refuge."
Perhaps this so-called invisible line is the boundary that separates the protection of wildlife from the unethical poaching of defenseless animals. If poachers are allowed to be armed in a setting of vulnerable animals, then there might as well be free range killing for every other species.
In 1987, Florida adopted a "shall issue" law. Currently 36 states have "shall issue" laws, which require carry permits to be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature, according to the NRA fact sheet.
In an effort to justify their position, the NRA has offered its members key points to aid them in "combating this effort." Most notable is key point No. 4, which reads, "Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1948. Forty-eight states now have laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws."
If we are alluding to the change in state laws to justify our argument, then why not reference the animal liberation movement, which has significantly changed to defend the rights of animals.
The National Park Service may be altering its regulations, which would permit visitors to carry loaded weapons, obviously encouraged by the NRA.
Needless to say, animal rights activists and environmental advocates are uniting in discontent to oppose this legislation.
More specifically, U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, is contesting this proposal at the national level.
According to the Humane Society of the United States Web site, "A change in the law will ensure that poachers … gain a significant advantage over law enforcement in their grisly underground operations."
In response, the NRA has posted a rebuttal on its Web site to the accusations made by environmentally friendly groups such as the Humane Society, which asserts that "the right to self-defense should not end simply because one crosses an invisible boundary line and enters a national park or wildlife refuge."
Perhaps this so-called invisible line is the boundary that separates the protection of wildlife from the unethical poaching of defenseless animals. If poachers are allowed to be armed in a setting of vulnerable animals, then there might as well be free range killing for every other species.
In 1987, Florida adopted a "shall issue" law. Currently 36 states have "shall issue" laws, which require carry permits to be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature, according to the NRA fact sheet.
In an effort to justify their position, the NRA has offered its members key points to aid them in "combating this effort." Most notable is key point No. 4, which reads, "Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1948. Forty-eight states now have laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws."
If we are alluding to the change in state laws to justify our argument, then why not reference the animal liberation movement, which has significantly changed to defend the rights of animals.