Justice Jackson's Comment About Bump Stocks Just May Be the Most Ignorant Thing You've Ever Heard

b82ffe24 a062 4afa 8686 de2b2b23c9e9

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people on the left are so ignorant about guns. Yet, many of those same people endlessly expound on guns, despite their complete ignorance on the subject. We constantly hear them describing ordinary AR-15s as automatics or machine guns, or some other such nonsense. It never occurs to them that the problem, if there is one, isn’t the gun, but the person behind it. Somehow, it’s always the evil gun’s fault and that’s why they must be banned. 

However, when you’re on the Supreme Court, you would think that they would have a little more knowledge, particularly if they’re going to be considering a case involving guns, that they wouldn’t be making idiotic comments. But I guess that might be asking too much. Some of the justices and the government attorneys exhibited some real ignorance about guns on Wednesday during the oral arguments in the Garland v. Cargill bump stock ban case. 

I wrote in January about when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked some very intelligent questions in regard to the Colorado Trump ballot case and whether the officer provision of the 14th Amendment even applied to former President Donald Trump. I wondered if maybe I had been wrong in my assessment of her on some level. 

READ:  Listen to Justice Jackson’s Questioning About Whether the Officer Provision Even Applies to Trump

Unfortunately, on Wednesday, that momentary sense she seemed to have displayed in the ballot case was definitely lacking, and the woman who refused to answer what a woman was because she was “not a biologist” was back in full force. As our sister site PJ Media reported, Jackson joined with a government attorney in some truly silly remarks about bump stocks.

The government said that bump stocks let you shoot 600 times a second. 

Then Justice Jackson made it even worse, saying that they could allow you to shoot 800 times a second. 

You can hear her say it twice, including a “whatever,” showing she doesn’t even care about the accuracy of what she’s saying.  

She also had another problem with understanding. 

The ignorance is both truly funny but also incredibly sad at the same time. If you’re going to make such consequential decisions, understand what the heck you are talking about, at least a little bit, so then when you are asking questions you don’t sound so bad. And if you don’t know what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn’t be involved in making such decisions. 

Source link

About The Author

Scroll to Top