Shannon Watts gets a little unhinged when it comes to guns. We all know that. She sees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms as something that should pretty much be abolished, and anyone who disagrees with her is a target of her scorn…when they’re not being blocked on Twitter, at least.

With the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, she has yet another excuse to spew her bile all over social media. In the process, she may have made a bit of a slip-up.

Judge Kavanaugh has applied an extreme and dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment when determining whether a law is constitutional, one that does not take into account a law’s impact on public safety. https://t.co/xCEKwUQT7m

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) July 10, 2018

Wait, is she saying that constitutionality isn’t the most important thing when determining if a law is constitutional? The purpose of the Supreme Court isn’t to determine if a law has any impact on public safety, public annoyance, or safety dancing for that matter. Its entire purpose is to determine if a law is constitutional.

But if gun control is constitutional–which anti-gunners have repeatedly maintained–then why should the Court take into account a law’s supposed impact on public safety? (It’s not a benefit to public safety either, but that’s another topic entirely.)

Is Watts tacitly admitting that gun control laws aren’t constitutional? It sure looks like it.

She adds this tweet:

President Trump vowed he’d never let the @NRA down, and with the Kavanaugh pick, he chose someone whose judicial record demonstrates a dangerous view of the Second Amendment that elevates gun rights over public safety. The Senate should vote down this nomination.#ScotusPick

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) July 10, 2018

She’s lamenting that Kavanaugh places “gun rights over public safety.”

Keep in mind that “safety” is often an argument used to curtail people’s rights. It’s why those who are assaulting freedom of speech are claiming that words make people unsafe. You have to present safety concerns before people will ever think about curtailing an individual’s rights. Watts expressly calls them “gun rights,” meaning our right to keep and bear arms.

Coupled with her earlier comments, it sure looks like Watts understands that what she is working for is the unconstitutional curtailment of our Second Amendment rights.

In other words, she is a fascist wannabe dictator who envisions a world where everyone is under the government’s bootheel and screws those annoying little rights we used to have.

Even she has to understand that when you justify curtailing one right, you lay the groundwork for the curtailment of every right we Americans hold dear. That’s why I tend to be rather absolutist when it comes to those rights, all of them.

She has the right to espouse any nonsense she wants to spew, but that doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day, she’s an aspiring tyrant who wants to destroy our rights to create her version of a Utopia.

The scary thing is with these tweets, it sounds more and more like she knows she is.

Is she really just some well-meaning do-gooder who doesn’t recognize that she’s trying to do something blatantly unconstitutional? Or does she know exactly what she’s trying to accomplish and what kind of impact it’ll have on the American landscape?

I’m still leaning toward clueless myself, but these tweets make it a little bit more difficult to accept, even for me.

So, which is it, Shannon? The world would like to know.