Supreme Court Justices were stumped by one simple fact about the bump stock that will affect millions of Americans

Photo by Joe Ravi, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Our Constitutional rights hang in the balance of just nine Americans. 

Unfortunately for us, some of the nine Supreme Court Justices aren’t that bright. 

And Supreme Court Justices were stumped by one simple fact about the bump stock that will affect millions of Americans.

Our leaders are idiots

We used to have scholars running this nation. 

John Adams is highly recognized as one of the best lawyers in American history.

Thomas Jefferson taught himself to be fluent and read four different languages by the time he entered adulthood. 

And who can forget the avid inventor Ben Franklin, who was recognized around the western world during the 18th century as being one of the smartest men alive. 

Well boy how times have changed. 

The intelligence of our national leaders is at the point where the United States could be a true representation of the cult classic movie Idiocracy. 

We have people running our nation who can’t tell us what the difference is between a boy and a girl. 

Unfortunately for America, one of those people who can’t pass elementary school science is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

Many of us will remember when Justice Jackson couldn’t define what a woman is during her confirmation hearing.

Yet she now sits on the United States Supreme Court and gets to determine what Constitutional rights apply to you. 

But what we saw this week during one of the biggest Second Amendment cases of our lifetime is that Justice Jackson isn’t the only one on the High Court who isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.  

SCOTUS: How does a gun work?

All three Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court struggled to understand the basic concepts of both a firearm and a bump stock. 

Garland v. Cargill has been sending shockwaves throughout the gun confiscation community.

The basis of the case questions the ability of the feds to expand the definition of “machine gun” through the Trump bump stock ban of 2017. 

A machine gun is defined as a weapon that “automatically” fires more than one round “by a single function of the trigger.”

Attorney Jonathan Mitchell provided oral arguments for Cargill in this case and in defense of gun owners across the nation who own a bump stock. 

The main issue Mitchell had throughout his argument was the inability of the Democrat Justices to understand how a firearm and a bump stock works. 

He had to deal with Justice Jackson, who was stating how a bump stock makes a firearm shoot off countless rounds with one trigger pull. 

Jonathan Mitchell properly responded by saying that “it’s factually incorrect to say that a function of the trigger automatically starts some chain reaction that propels multiple bullets from the gun. A function of the trigger fires one shot, then the shooter must take additional manual action.”

Next came Justice Kagan who blurted out that “I view myself as a good textualist. But textualism is not inconsistent with common sense. A weapon that fires a multitude of shots with a single human action, whether it’s a continuous pressure on a conventional machine gun, holding the trigger, or a continuous pressure on one of these devices on the barrel — I can’t understand how anybody could think those two things should be treated differently.”

It was a rough oral argument to listen to, as Mitchell had to explain countless times that a bump stock doesn’t turn a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.

You still have to pull the trigger each time to fire the gun. 

If Cargill goes against law-abiding gun owners, it’s not because bump stocks fall under the definition of a machine gun.

It’s because our Supreme Court is filled with idiots who can’t understand the basic concepts of a firearm. 

Patriot Political will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR