“In a sobering reminder that bears are the bosses of the backcountry, one person was killed and two others injured in a bear attack Wednesday at the heavily occupied Soda Butte campground just outside Yellowstone National Park.”

Would the bears have been able to attack and take a life had anyone in the campground been armed?

But as FoxNews noted “Republicans receive the majority of the organizations endorsements and money,” but over the past 10 years, “the NRA has dramatically increased funding for Democratic candidates” as well. The news site included a quote from University of New Hampshire Professor of Politics Andrew Smith, on the issue of why Democrats moved away from a strong anti-gun stance:

“I think it started with the 1994 elections where a lot of Democrats believe it was the NRA involvement in that election which caused the Democrats to lose the House and the Senate. So they backed off that issue.”

The article notes that many anti-gun Democrats in office are upset that they don’t vote for anti-gun measures, but even this story misses the underlining point. The issue of being pro- or anti-gun isn’t drawn on party lines. There are Republicans who are anti-gun and there are Democrats who are pro-gun.

But the bigger issue that the liberal media, as well as many anti-gun zealots, just can’t understand is that clearly people in this country believe it is that important of an issue. Gun rights seem up to be up there with jobs, health care and the other issues on the table. The irony is that it is the few anti-gun zealots who wish to take the Second Amendment rights of the masses, and then get mad when they fall out of power.

So this isn’t about the NRA having some special power or doing some political voodoo. This is about America really believing in the Second Amendment. Now if those in the minority could just live with that fact we could actually move on to other business.

“I have a 9-month-old daughter, and her dad and I have split up.  He has a .45 and he owns rifles that he uses to go hunting.  He keeps the rifles in his gun safe but has his .45 sitting in a drawer right next to the baby’s crib.”

Yes, on the surface this sounds like a bad idea. But what isn’t asked is whether the crib is next to the father’s bed as well. If that is the case it could be for a reason: Is the neighborhood safe, has the house been broken into in the past, etc.? All these are factors to why the father may want a gun at close hand, especially to protect his daughter.

The follow-up answer also has some nice bias:

“Whether this is illegal depends on two points: Is the gun licensed? Does it have a safety latch?”

If the father in question has a gun safe, goes hunting and the wife knows this is a “.45″ than we’ll have to assume the gun is legally owned and licensed. Obviously we can’t be sure, but the sound of the question implies the father knows something about guns. But this is a nice twist by the writer of the answer, throwing in a suggestion to readers that “yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and you know guns aren’t legally owned if not licensed.” Time and time again the mainstream media loves to note the legality of firearms, but this is because we believe the MSM would like all guns to be illegal… at least in the hands of private citizens.

To the next point: what is a safety latch on a gun? Does this mean a “safety?” The answer further includes a quote from Massachusetts’s law on how a gun must be properly stored, as to give ammo to the mother a way to get her ex in trouble for having such a vial item as a “gun.” It all fits together so well that it almost makes us wonder about the very question. Couldn’t be a set up, could it?

One part that the media has addressed is this tidbit from the TV station:

“California law defines a school zone to be anywhere within 1,000 feet of the campus. The truck was parked within that zone.”

Would this mean that students, or anyone with a firearm has to avoid driving down the same street of a school? What would happen if Tudesko, or any other student, happened to live on the same street as the school? Would this law still apply? Surely this law must affect some firearms owners!

“Gary Tudesko, 16, was expelled from Willows High School in November after a dog detected the guns in his pickup truck on Oct. 26, according to a news release by the National Rifle Association. Tudesko told school officials he’d gone on an early morning duck-hunting trip before school that morning and believed the guns would not be a problem if he parked off campus.”

A hearing is scheduled for this week, and we hope that the school does the right thing. While school shootings aren’t something to be taken lightly, we feel that law-abiding citizens (even those in high school) shouldn’t be punished because of other’s actions.

The story quotes Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, with this passage:

“Vice, who works for a group that works to strengthen gun laws, said the NRA spent substantial resources last year ‘trying to convince the public that President Obama would take their guns away.’”

First, has the NRA really done anything wrong? There is a legitimate concern here, and few in the mainstream media will admit that the NRA’s efforts may have convinced Obama and the liberals in power to keep their hands off our guns. But then the piece adds this passage:

“Vice said no one is arguing that guns should be taken away.”

Then how do you explain that Vice works for a group that would strengthen gun laws? Strengthen them by how exactly? Aren’t these means to “strengthen” the laws eventually going to make it harder for people to buy and sell guns? That seems like the first step to taking them away to us.