NRA Asked Anti-Gunners the Name of the SCOTUS Case They Were Protesting. Their Responses Are Amazing.

Posted: Dec 02, 2019 6:50 PM

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade. The case, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City, challenges the City's ban on carrying legal, locked and unloaded firearms outside of city limits. 

All eyes have been on this case because it's unclear whether or not the justices will make a decision in the case or drop it because of mootness. New York City knew their ban was wrong so they revoked it. Gun rights advocates, however, want the Supreme Court to rule in the case. Their concern is that if SCOTUS drops the case that the City can reimplement the ban. Out of that very concern, Chief Justice John Roberts quizzed the City's attorney on that issue, the Washington Times reported. 

Gun control has been a major issue in our country lately so it's no surprise that Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action volunteers – you know, the group funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the same guy that's running for president – decided to show up outside the Court with signs.

It's almost as though they were bussed in for the event, given signs and told to stand there and look angry. The National Rifle Association's social media team asked anti-gunners the name of the case and what the case was about and none of them seemed to know. Shocker, right?

"The name of the case, I don't know," one man said. "Actually, frankly speaking, I did not read. I was recruited here to represent my grandchildren."

Later in the video the same man is shown talking about the NRA.

"Demand action! Demand action for shutting down [the] NRA," he said. The man also suggested getting rid of the Second Amendment because "a gun for self-protection" is "not relevant at all" today. 

"We live in a civilized society and must protect the interest of everybody," he explained.

Another man seemed to think the case was about so-called "assault weapons."

"We want to ban 'assault weapons,'" he said. When asked how an "assault weapon" is defined, his response was even more facepalm worthy.

"Well, anything that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger," he responded. Based on that definition alone, all guns would be banned. 

It's amazing that these anti-gunners don't have a set of talking points to go off of. Many had pre-printed signs, embroidered hats and professionally made t-shirts. They're well-funded – thanks to Michael Bloomberg – and many of them are probably bussed in from other parts of the country. 

At least if you're going to protest, know what it is you're protesting. Don't make assumptions about what the case might be about.