digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Public comment extended for national parks gun rule change |

citizen-times.com — The change proposed by the US Department of the Interior would allow people to bring guns into national parks and wildlife refuges in states where these weapons are permitted in state parks.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Kent4jmj, on 07/12/2008, -1/+53with pleasure.
  • MoniqueMoniCat, on 07/12/2008, -22/+6i have no idea why people would need to bring guns in a wildlife refuge. i support the right to bear arms, but not to go into wildlife refuges with guns, that's one of the reasons we have wildlife in a refuge: to protect them from sick human beings with guns out to kill them.
    • flip2trip, on 07/12/2008, -2/+33It would still be illegal to kill animals on a wildlife refuge. Law abiding gun owners don't break laws, your argument is weak. I have heard stories where bears have attacked people in wildlife refuges, I'll bet they would have loved to have had a gun handy in that situation.
    • GWBARNHOUSE, on 07/12/2008, -1/+33Why indeed? Why would you carry a weapon anywhere or everywhere? In case you don't know, for personal protection. Guarantee that I wont be subject to harm from criminals anywhere and everywhere and there any need for Permit to Carry.
    • zugzug01, on 07/12/2008, -1/+26This is a sample of the flawed logic that has suppressed the our second amendment rights for so long. The warped belief that if you are in possession of a firearm, you're going to kill all God's furry creatures ... because you're sick.

      An additional point on the creation of Wildlife Refuges. It more of habitat thing. Use a little common sense.
    • DanThePainter, on 07/12/2008, -2/+16MoniqueMoniCat; >> i have no idea.....>>

      You could have ended your commentary there.
    • Navigator7, on 07/12/2008, -2/+11@ MoniqueMoniCat,

      You wrote: "i have no idea why people would need to bring guns in a wildlife refuge."

      It's an ideology like yours that enslaves man!
      Its liberalism run amuck and ultimately called socialism. Socialism has a ratcheting effect capable of criminalizing any thought, ideology or action of the people.:

      There are those who don't understand why I need a big ass pick up truck?
      (Big vehicle owners are being criminalized by liberalism currently)

      Some don't understand why I need recreation property?
      (The Liberal left believes the affluent don't know what to do with their money so it should be divided amongst the have-nots)

      Why must I smoke cigarettes?
      (Only the liberal Left cares so much about my life that it must incrementally criminalize my behavior for my own good)

      People don't really need liquor?
      (Prohibition....now that was a fun liberal time!)

      Why must I believe in offshore drilling?
      (The liberals have all but outlawed the practice to the detriment of our country and the world)

      I don't believe in global warming.......
      (Like gun control ... Liberalism is working wonders on this front too!)

      Hmmm.... What about a law requiring possession of a weapon? That would drive liberals out of the friggen skins!


    • KMye, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3Trying going Denali or other Alaskan parks. I see people have already made some bear & arms jokes below, so I'll leave that be... Of course, their being illegal doesn't stop a lot of reasonable people from bringing in a good handgun anyway.
  • flip2trip, on 07/12/2008, -0/+52There should be NO restrictions on law abiding citizens to carry their weapons in public parks, national parks or even public streets.
  • Kent4jmj, on 07/12/2008, -0/+53"I would like to add my voice to those advocating for the legal carry of guns in our Nation's State Parks. Citizens
    who legally acquire permits to carry guns are exercising their Second Amendment Right.

    The objective verifiable evidence is overwhelming that gun free zones are hazardous to law abiding citizens due to
    their inability to protect themselves from violent criminals.

    People who go to the trouble of legally owning a gun are known to be the some of the safest and responsible
    people there are.

    Limiting a Right recognized and affirmed by the Constitution should only be done under the gravest of
    circumstances if at all. Law abiding citizens should be given the widest possible leeway to exercise their Rights. It
    should be remembered that a Right is something inherent to the citizens of the United States they are not
    privileges. Privileges can be given and taken away by those in power but not a Right. The Right to carry and bear
    arms is not a privilege but a Right, therefor I believe that many of our legal decisions are in conflict with the
    Constitution. We must remember that the Constitution is the Highest Law of the Land.

    I believe the reasoning behind the ideas that our Second Amendment Right should be severely limited to be wrong.
    The arguments limiting the 2nd Amendment would never have been accepted by our Founding Fathers.

    Thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts on this matter."

  • Stevanoski, on 07/12/2008, -1/+45Look at the national crime statistics. The National Parks are close to the top. Any Nat. Park I've visited has sign after sign in the parking lot warning of the criminals on the prowl. On hikes with family I've wished for a firearm several times after meeting thugs on the path. Anyone with personal knowldge of physical combat know it is only in the movies one person defeats two or more in the real world, unless you get lucky.
  • BECoole, on 07/12/2008, -0/+34I'm generally law abiding and I'm licensed to carry concealed.
    But when it comes to my safety, the safety of my family, and the safety of innocent people around me, I ignore any laws that might endanger them.
    • TYRONEBR549, on 07/12/2008, -0/+15here here
    • KJeffV, on 07/12/2008, -0/+17I agree: In any case, CCW contains the word "concealed." If a licensee carries "concealed," NO ONE except f/the carrier knows, excepting in areas w/detectors. I would choose to defend my fam 1st also, only later in court—if it happened—to use the "Paul Reubens Defense" . . . "IIIIII'mmm sorrry!"
    • Erich100, on 07/12/2008, -0/+9That's the type of thought we Americans need to have more of.
      Just because it's the law does not make it right or moral.
    • knucklebusted, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7As another CCW holder, I too believe that the possession of a concealed weapon should not be banned in any place that is not a controlled space such as an airport or court house.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/12/2008, -0/+29This is very interesting news. I hope it's implemented!! However I hope the backlash doesn't result in a group that will start the push for a right to arm bears.

    /rimshot
  • MarkEarhart, on 07/12/2008, -0/+29Well how generous of them. Who owns the parks? What does the second amendment say? "SHALL NOT be INFRINGED!!!" To say that I am damned sick and tired of presumptuous government at all levels telling me what guns I can and can't own, that I need a permit to carry one, and where I am allowed to carry one would be the greatest understatement since Columbus sailed the ocean blue. If you are an American citizen (which I am), you own the ***** park!!! What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand? There is no Constitutional room for any question or debate on this, as the second amendment, part of the "supreme law of the land", very clearly gives us all the right to bear arms. The second amendment is our permit. If anyone has a problem with that move to China, I'm sure you'd love it there.
    • Stevanoski, on 07/12/2008, -0/+15@MarkEarhart "Who owns the parks? "

      Under Clinton the Nat Park.s began closing off more and more parts of the parks to the public. I live near several nat. parks. Some of my favorite swimming holes are now only available to Park Rangers and their "friends". In our life time we may see where only those with the Rangers or a certified environmentalist maybe the only ones who get to use our parks. The rest of us can view them but will not be able to enter them.
      • lodibug3, on 07/12/2008, -0/+6And for that matter... the Constitution does not allow the gov't to own land in the first place...!
    • elleigh2, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Amen!
  • LegendAdds, on 07/12/2008, -0/+22All it is is a provision to allow people to bring the guns they already have licenses for into state parks and wildlife refuges.

    It is a safe and legal thing for a law-abiding registered licensed gun owner to take their firearm(s) into a park and hunt in sanctioned zones. Far safer than unlicensed thugs carrying unregistered firearms in public.

    Once you look at the stats, you'll realize this should've been done years ago.
  • maxjames007, on 07/12/2008, -1/+12Interesting one and I enjoyed reading all your comments.

    J
  • wanderama, on 07/12/2008, -2/+12everybody load up!
  • PabloMac, on 07/12/2008, -0/+14Included in my comment:

    "The only legitimate violent use of a firearm is in defense of human life or limb. It is better to have and not need than to need and not have."
  • BillE3, on 07/12/2008, -0/+13As soon at the Eco-freaks can find a way to prohibit one group of people to the "National Parks", they will eventually seek to find other groups to prohibit. What it really comes down to is that they want to have exclusive access without encountering or sharing with any of the rest of us. Wildlife management in the National Parks recieves all of the funding from the law abiding hunters paying all of the various fees. The Eco-freaks do not even bother to donate to the wildlife management funds, they do donate to the groups opposing hunters and wildlife management.
  • Stevanoski, on 07/12/2008, -0/+11Clinton armed the Park Rangers. After that you saw an attitude change. No longer were they there to help and assist but now they were law enforcement. So of course their response to the public became less educator and guide to more of an attitude of is this person a threat.
  • aki009, on 07/12/2008, -0/+10So I presume _everyone_ here has made comments to the Feds on this topic, right? Just bitching and moaning about it here will not help the rule change to succeed. Follow the link in the article, and be ready to spend an hour finding all the various places where you can comment. Thoughtful comments should be long, but let me assist you in case you don't find the time to get poetic:

    """
    I am writing in support of the regulation change allowing the carry of concealed guns into National Parks with a concealed carry permit for the state the National Park is in. I have a concealed carry permit in my state and I feel unsafe entering National Parks because of the worryingly high crime statistics in those parks, and the fact that I am unable to carry my gun as I would in state parks.

    Based on my personal experience and the experiences of my home state with law abiding members of the public carrying concealed guns with a permit, I believe that the proposed regulation change will lead to greatly improved safety for National Park visitors with lower crime rates.

    Respectfully submitted,
    [Name]
    [Home Town, Home State]
    """

    Anonymous comments are not as effective as real ones. I strongly recommend making comments with your real name.
  • Stevanoski, on 07/12/2008, -1/+10The scariest situation, involving the government, I was ever in was a fourth of July when Clinton was Pres. Took kids out to a gravel pit to set off fireworks. Heard the SUV's coming, engines gunning, doors slam, one SUV drives into the gravel pit. 4 men, on foot, come around the back side of the pit and are pointing guns at me, wife and two boys, aged 5 and 3, (one aiming at each person.)

    They said we were on BLM land and it was illegal to set off fireworks. I said "fine, but why are you pointing guns at us". You could see 3 of the men lower their pistols with sheepish looks on their faces. But the one drawing a bead on me barked "we are training our men". They loaded up and took off in a cloud of dust.

    That is what government employee's are like when Democrats rule.
    • aki009, on 07/12/2008, -0/+8I wish I could digg this twice.
    • elleigh2, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4Unbelievable! Makes me want to go out a get a gun!
    • ReidFleming, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Are you serious? People are people and you trying to divide them based which political party they support is small-minded. I am a democrat. I hunt. I own several guns. I belong to the NRA. I come from a family of hunters and shooters -- all democrats. Because there's a Democrat in the White House, you somehow believe that instantaneously turns the public servants of this country into assholes? Or is it just Clinton?
      • Stevanoski, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Reid, I believe it was Clinton. Re: Waco/Ruby Ridge/FBI files of opponents being examined/etc. But all of the Democrat's leadership backed him as did the MSM so it is hard for me to decide.
  • LonewackoDotCom, on 07/12/2008, -1/+3Does anyone have a current list of crimes by park? I suspect that most crimes are limited to a few parks.
  • BillE3, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1All the parks in the west I have visited now have signs warning to lock car and be wary of crime. Criminals have learned that the park rangers are few and far between with response times over an hour. Same reason they go out to the rural areas to commit so much crime. You don't hear about that because no one really cares if some poor farmer gets jacked.
  • legolas68, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1When the criminal doesn't know if his target can legally pack heat he will move on to a target he knows cannot legally pack heat. I say make it legal everywhere and watch the crime rate drop like a rock in the US and go to the moon in Canada.

    Comment to DOI submitted btw.
  • farmerjohn48pan, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Call me silly but when I enter an area that contains "wildlife" I find it prudent to carry a firearm. Of coarse that could apply to any city too couldn't it?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.