Illustrating their extreme ignorance

Via Jacob Parajecki‏ @Jacob_Parajecki:

TrumpRevolverEjectsBrass

The text is in error. It’s a rare cartoonist which makes laws. And there is no :allowing” required for a cartoonist to make a fool of themselves.

However, I would agree that those who make this gross of mistake regarding their subject matter should be shamed and then ignored.

3 thoughts on “Illustrating their extreme ignorance

  1. It’s an incomplete sentence because the “when” is not resolved. So, the author doesn’t understand the language and thinks cartoonists make laws? That seems a bit worse than the cartoonist depicting brass ejection from a revolver.

    I have a double action revolver that’s designed to eject spent cases from a single-action-style loading port via gas pressure directed thereinto from the cylinder gap. It’s a workable system and more than one gun designer has played with it, but it still leaves the last empty to be ejected manually. If the gun has the single-action-style ejector rod and loading port, otherwise requiring the shooter to rotate the cylinder to eject each case one by one, the gas ejection is of some benefit, but if it’s a tip-out cylinder the gas ejection is of no benefit whatever and could be cited as a detriment. I’ve seen it on both.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the cartoonist would have been aware of any such things. If it weren’t for the little whisp of smoke apparently coming from it, he could argue that the falling case was dislodged from the shooter’s pocket while he fired the gun.

    The person who criticized him, on the other hand, seems unable to form a proper sentence. Which is worse when it comes to laws and the principles, doctrines, goals and assumptions behind them; a lack of technical knowledge of specific gun actions, or an apparent inability to understand one’s own words?

    Which affliction is more indicative of sloppy thinking in general?

    Laws, by the way, typically exist in the form of sentences. Some parable about a beam on one person’s eye and a mote in another’s, or about the blind leading the blind, comes to mind at this point.

    OK; I’ll defend both of them. The “When” at the beginning of the sentence could be in response to an assumed question, such as “When do leftists make fools of themselves?” or “When is it OK to criticize leftists’ grasp of reality?” etc. Maybe.

  2. Pingback: SayUncle » It’s willful

Comments are closed.