I think just about everyone expected the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to become a partisan sh*tshow. We all saw it coming and there wasn’t a damn thing we could do about it except pop all the popcorn and dig in. After all, the left is outraged that Trump exercised his constitutional authority to fulfill a constitutional duty and make a nomination. They’re outraged that the Senate who refused to seat the nominee of a term-limited and thus outgoing president won’t do the same thing to a president that’s campaigning for a second term.

So, they were going to make it stupid, which is why Barrett has gotten some of the questions she’s gotten.

Sen. Lindsay Graham asked one, probably to make a broader point in an attempt to help Barrett, that still makes me shake my head. He asked her if she could fairly decide Second Amendment cases while owning a gun.

Of course, she said she could and would, which is what you’d expect her to say.

However, over at Reason, they’ve got some interesting thoughts on the aftermath.

CNN highlighted that exchange in a headline and tweet, noting that “Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights.” The Independent also considered the point noteworthy: “Nominee owns a gun, but says she would rule ‘fairly’ on gun control cases.” So did Fox News: “Barrett admits to owning a gun, says she can set aside beliefs to rule on 2nd Amendment fairly.”

As the Fox News example suggests, this framing is probably not simply a matter of anti-gun bias. But it does suggest that, more than a decade after the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, that right is still treated as “second-class” in the press as well as the courts.

…

The doubt implied by these headlines goes even further, suggesting that a judge’s rulings are suspect when they involve constitutional rights she herself has exercised. If that standard were applied consistently, no one would be left to enforce those rights.

I, of course, agree.

Yet I’m going to take things a step further. If, as the media appears to suggest above, owning a gun automatically makes your opinions on the Second Amendment suspect, then there are a couple of Democrats they need to stop listening to on guns.

Dianne Feinstein famously carries a firearm regularly despite the anti-gun jihad she’s waged for years. Since she owns a gun, the incredulous media should probably start ignoring the California Democrat’s views on firearms.

The same can be said for Gabby Giffords, the former representative who was shot by a deranged individual and became an gun control crusader. Giffords has admitted to owning guns recently, meaning she still has them after having been shot. As a gun owner, based on the headlines, it seems the media would do well to completely ignore everything she says. That probably extends to the group she founded and her new Gun Owners for Safety group.

After all, they own guns. Can you really trust that they’ll treat guns fairly?

Honestly, this is the dumbest approach the media has yet taken. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if they ignored these two women, but because they babble nonsense when it comes to the Second Amendment, not because they own guns.

Owning a firearm doesn’t make what you’re saying more or less important. It doesn’t suggest your views on rights are somehow compromised. Frankly, the line of questioning was a softball and should never have made the headlines, yet it did.

And the mainstream media wonders why people don’t take them seriously anymore.