Hypothetical reasoning, the second amendment and the soda creek grizzly bear attack
In February of 2010, ABC News published an article regarding the 2009 enacted right to carry law in National Parks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article struck a tone straight out of a Brady campaign spot. A mosaic of Chicken Little ‘sky is falling’ was painted in broad strokes and platitudes. All in response to a common sense measured signed into law by president Obama allowing citizens to carry a concealed firearm in the nation’s National Parks.
It’s a song and dance that we on the right have grown to be accustomed with concerning second amendment rights and the press. Virulent anti-gun groups and mainstream press outlets essentially spout the same talking points. We expect this, we accept this.
The 2009 ABC news report pointed to the possibility of “tourists surrounded by other tourists carrying shotguns or rifles.” The reader was told of “loaded guns” appearing everywhere in the nation’s National Parks. And ABC iced the cake, with the cherry-picked Chief of National Park Services Retirees accounting a dubious possible scenario of “somebody hiking and fire(ing) at a bear, wounding it, and therefore making it a greater threat.”
Moments like this are teachable. Liberals love to go down the subjunctive mood route and justify positions within theoretical conditions. But those theoretical positions always fit the progressive mold and worldview. And as any student of history and logic knows there are always two sides to the hypothetical reasoning coin.
Therefore, I can add that if even one of the victims of Yellowstone/Soda Creek Campground grizzly attack had a concealed permit, and had been armed, the outcome early Wednesday morning may have been quite different.
And the anti-second amendment crowd will never admit that.
Tim Daniel is a small business owner and entrepreneur who currently lives in San Diego, California with his wife and lovely cat. He is editor in chief of the southern California-based Left Coast Rebel blog.