As we covered earlier, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Trump’s bumpstock ban. Given that this is a court with the same people on it that gave us NYSRPA v. Bruen, the anti-gun fake left is understandably not happy. They think they know how it’s going to go, and they don’t like it. At all.
But, as the old saying goes, sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder whether you’re stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. On Friday, many of the usual anti-gun suspects took the opportunity to do the latter.
Let’s start with Giffords . . .
Fully automatic firearms — and conversion devices — are already heavily regulated under federal law, with good reason.
Bump stocks pose a significant threat to public safety, and classifying them as machine guns is both common sense and constitutional.
— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) November 3, 2023
If the social media intern (or equally brain-dead higher-up) had written that Giffords wants bumpstocks to be banned, that would have been a truthful and accurate statement. But, when they tried to bring supporting facts into the debate, they proved that they don’t really have any.
Bumpstocks, of course, don’t convert firearms from semi-automatic to full-auto any more than a belt loop and a thumb does. They also haven’t had any measurable effect on public safety.
It’s high time we banned pants in this country. Who’s with me?
The oft-cited Las Vegas shooting is actually bad for the bump stock banners’ case. Most informed people will tell you that a bump stock makes a rifle harder to control. And if bump stocks were actually used in the Vegas shooting, they probably decreased the number of dead and injured by reducing the killer’s accuracy.
Sure, firearms aficionados at PolitiFact will tell you otherwise, but they’re asking you to believe a lawyer and a guy from BATFE.
Let’s turn now to the Governor of New York who doesn’t need proof to know that gun control works . . .
The Supreme Court just agreed to take up a case that would make deadly weapons even more deadly.
At a time when mass shootings continue to traumatize communities across the country, we cannot go backward.
I will never stop fighting to end gun violence & protect New Yorkers.
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) November 3, 2023
New York’s governor made some of the same mistakes as the gun control operation did. Go figure. Bump stocks are not only “more deadly.” And her promise to protect New Yorkers? I don’t think I need to explain why that’s laughable.
You can always rely on a politician from New Mexico be found leading the way…off a cliff.
Ban assault weapons.
— Rep. Melanie Stansbury (@Rep_Stansbury) November 3, 2023
The winner of the state’s heavily-gerrymandered first congressional district race decided to jump into the fray on this public issue with an entry that I’d classify as “not even wrong“. And by “not even wrong,” I don’t mean she’s right. I mean that she didn’t even make an argument to begin with. In scientific terms, we’re talking about non-falsifiability.
You literally can’t argue with her any more than you can argue with a potato in your kitchen because no argument was even attempted. This less-than-wrong response to the news from the Supreme Court fails to even earn a non-coveted participation trophy.
Then there are those who see some kind of numerological significance in the Court taking the case.
It’s tough to argue with that. Whatever that is.
I’m sure we can find lots of other fools making even bigger fools of themselves, but that’s probably not worth the effort. If you came across any more particularly “special” ones, be sure to share them in the comments.