Secession  by Tom Reynolds

There is a movement to divide New York State into three “sub-states” in order to free most of the state from the oppression of rule by NY City liberals, who hate the 2^nd Amendment.  There are other possible approaches, too.

Deep Blue states are often pictured as being completely made up of left-wing Democrats instead of just being dominated by left wing Democrats.  As in New York State and others, there tends to be a sizable portion of the state that believes in traditional conservative American / non-liberal values, such as the right to “keep and bear arms”.  Oregon is one such state with that split personality.

Oregon’s population is centered along the northwest coast.  The rest of the state is primarily rural and the large population of urban areas along the coast dominate Oregon’s politics.  Of course, those dominant population centers are heavily liberal Democrat, which sounds a lot like New York State.  Several counties in southern and western Oregon have grown tired of the liberal dominated status quo and are trying to do something about it; they have started a movement to secede from Oregon and join Idaho.  Idaho’s values more closely align with those of the seceding counties. 

Changing states would be a very technical process – and very political.  The counties would have to vote for the change as well as the legislatures of both Oregon and Idaho and the federal legislatures in D.C.  And politicians have been known to vote for their own benefit rather than their constituents’ benefit. 

Which raises an interesting possibility in New York State.  The southern tier counties from Tioga to Chautauqua (and maybe Broome) would seem to be prime candidates to move from New York to Pennsylvania.  There are probably several counties north of them, in the Finger Lakes region in particular, that might also join in such a movement.  What might be some of the issues?

Psychologically, it might be difficult for some people to think of changing their address from NY to PA.  Disturbing the status quo is, for some people, disturbing.

Pennsylvania is not as reliably conservative as Idaho and it has heavily Democrat population centers at both ends of the state.  Those centers would not like seeing their power diminished by conservative voters joining Pennsylvania.

Conservative counties in NY that are not leaving might not want to see other conservative counties leave.  It would leave them even more under the thumb of NY City. 

It would diminish NY’s overall representation in Congress and increase Pennsylvania’s but probably not, of itself, change the overall breakdown between Republicans and Democrats in the House.  Pennsylvania’s one Democrat Senator would not like it. 

New York is a reliably deep blue state while Pennsylvania is a battleground state.  After this move, New York would be virtually ignored in Presidential elections while Pennsylvania would get even more attention – and more federal “goodies” to entice its vote.

Hydro fracking is legal In Pennsylvania and most of these NY counties are sitting on an ocean of natural gas.  The economies of these counties would jump after this move and Pennsylvania would see a boost in its tax revenues.  There would be no loss in revenue to NY since there is no revenue from hydrofracking. 

Gun owners will love Pennsylvania’s gun laws as compared to NY’s. 

The Republican Party controls both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature, but not as overwhelmingly as the Democrats control New York.  This move would probably add to the Republican majority.  Pennsylvania’s governor is a Democrat so they have split government. 

Grocery stores in Pennsylvania still use plastic bags.  (That got my vote!)

In summary, there is an alternative besides Divide NY and the status quo.  Each of you must decide which, if any, you prefer and if it has a greater possibility of succeeding.  But the important thing to remember is that we have possibilities.

Tomorrow, we will discuss another alternative.

Anti 2A bills in New York State  by Tom Reynolds

Every year, legislators draft bills that have little or no chance of becoming laws, but the legislator wants to send a message to some part of their voting constituency.  In the past, SCOPE has not been concerned about many past proposed bills but since the Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the governorship, we cannot take anything for granted.  We are seeing at both the national and state level how radical some politicians have become and the NY legislatures are no exceptions.

The anti-2^nd Amendment politicians in NY State have been busy putting forth bills.  So many, that we have not had a chance to write in detail about many of them.  However, you need to know what is “out there”, even if only a summary.

Below is a list of bills in the New York Senate and Assembly.  An “A” in the bill number indicates an Assembly bill and an “S” indicates a Senate bill.  Since a bill must pass in both the Senate and Assembly, those with both an “A” and an “S” are the most dangerous since “companion” bills have been proposed in both houses.  These are shown in the first group. 

The second group (with only an “A”) are Assembly only bills and the third group (with only an “S”) are Senate only bills.  These may eventually get a companion bill but not as of this writing. 

Bills go through committees and we show you which committees to which the bills are currently referred.  There is also a short description of each bill under the bill number. 

SCOPE encourages you to contact your legislators about those bills with both an “A” and “S”.  (And others if you are so motivated.)

Anti 2A companies  by Tom Reynolds The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) did a study of businesses, or their CEO’s, that back gun control initiatives or have anti firearm policies.  SCOPE thought you might be interested in that list.  We are not calling for a boycott, just informing members of where their purchasing dollars may be going. CCRKBA is a west coast based organization that works to defend 2A.  CCRKBA only published the most general description of the criteria for being included on the list.  An internet search did not reveal any negative stories about the list.  SCOPE cannot verify the accuracy of the businesses on the list but a spot check did reveal some anti-gun bias in those companies we checked.  We also spot checked the list against another anti-gun list and the companies checked were on both lists.  We also recognized some of the larger companies that have a known anti 2A history.  What we suggest is that, if you do business with any of the companies on this list, you research further their 2A activities and then decide for yourself. Also remember that these seem to be American companies.  Many companies that are not on the list buy products from China and China is definitely NOT in favor of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

20/20 Vision A&M Records AlleyCorp Alphabet, Inc. Amalgamated Bank Ambition AMC Theatres AOL / Time Warner Ariel Investments LLC Artsy Ascend.io Aspiration AT&T Aura AutoZone Backpack Bad Robot Bain Capital Bank of America Beeswax Begin Betaworks Beyond Meat Bloomberg LP Bonusly Brat Brookfield Property Brud Bumble Burger King Cambly Catch & Release Cerebras Systems Chipotle Circle Medical ClassPass Clearbit Clever Clockwise CNN Color Genomics Comcast Conde Nast Costco Credit Karma Crunchbase Curalate Curtsy Dannon Delta Airlines DICK’S Sporting Goods Disney Company DoorDash Doxel, Inc. Ebay Ecolab Edelman Elektra Labs Emerson Collective Enterprise Eventbrite Farmstead Full Picture Fundera Gap, Inc. Gateway Computers GE GEICO Goat Group Golden Graphic Packaging Group Nine Media Gucci Guru Hallmark Cards Hard Rock Cafe Havas Group HBO Hint, Inc. HipDot Hooked Horizon Media Humbition Impossible Foods Interpublic Intuit JOOR Jumbo Privacy Kabbage Inc.Kadena Kanga| Knowable Lattice Levi Strauss  Lucent Technologies Lyft MetaProp.vc MetLife Microsoft Modern Fertility MongoDB Inc. MSNBC MTV Navient NBC Universal NCR Corp. Neighborland NewsCred Nextdoor NowThis Nurx Oaktree Capital Oberndorf Enterprises Oceans OfferUp Okta Omnicom Group Openpath Panera Bread Parabol Paravision Paypal Pinterest Plato Design Gap Inc. Gateway Computers GE GEICO Goat Group Golden Graphic Packaging Group Nine Media Gucci Guru Presto Prima Progressive Insurance Prologis Publicis Groupe Postmates Presto Prima Progressive Insurance Prologis Publicis Groupe Quartzy Reddit Ribbon Health Ro Roofstock Royal Caribbean Cruises RXR Realty Sara Lee SelfMade Shoptiques Inc. Showtime Cable Network Shutterstock Inc. Sidewalk Labs Sift Skillshare SkySafe Small Door SmartAsset Snapdocs, Inc. Solve.io Sonic Southwestern Bell Splash Square and Twitter Squarespace Standard Bots Subway Sundia Corporation Sunlight Health Superplastic SurveyMonkey SV Angel Symantec ThirdLove Thisopenspace inc. Thrive Capital Thrive Global ThunderCore Inc. Tillable Tinder TOMS Twilio Uber Uniform Teeth Viosera Therapeutics Virtual Kitchen Voxer Voyage Watsi WayUp Whalar Wizeline WPP X.ai, inc. Y Combinator Yelp Yum Brands Zola

The Smartest Person in the Room  by Tom Reynolds

What should we look for in political leaders?  Obviously, we want to vote for people who share our beliefs and values.  Unfortunately, no matter what you believe, probably half the country does not share your values.  How much should the candidate’s background affect your vote; some believe that an extensive background in government is good while others see it as a negative.  An Ivy League education seems to be in vogue but one writer spoke for millions of us when he said he, “…would rather be ruled by the first 200 people in the Boston telephone book that the Harvard faculty”.  We could go on but it should be apparent that there is wide disagreement on what we want in our politicians.  But there are some things upon which we should all agree and we only have to look at yesterday’s birthday to see who set that standard.

Historians tend to downplay George Washington’s intelligence because he did not have much formal education and he was surrounded by some other brilliant founders: Alexander Hamilton; Thomas Jefferson; John Marshall; to name a few.  But when decisions needed to be made, the person most trusted to make the right decision was George Washington.

So, was Washington really the smartest guy in the room or was it something else that made him special?

Certainly, intelligence is a factor, but there are lots of intelligent people.  Should we have political candidates take an IQ test and elect the highest scorer?  Adolph Hitler had a photographic memory and Napoleon Bonaparte was noted for his high intelligence.  Anyone want them for a President? 

What one does with their intelligence is more important.  What we should look for and demand in leadership is wisdom.

The dictionary describes wisdom as, “The soundness of action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge and good judgment”.   I would only amend that to say “the soundness of decision AND action”; sound decisions without proper follow up rarely succeed.  And bad decisions often get implemented to the detriment of society.  Washington made good decisions and then implemented them.

Wisdom is learned and not gifted at birth.  Washington was too ambitious as a young man but learned from his experiences and grew into wisdom.  By the time he emerged on center stage in 1775, he was ready.  That doesn’t mean he did not make mistakes – he did – but he didn’t make many.  For 22 years, from 1775 until 1797, he was at the center of leadership in America and faced more decisions of grave consequence than any other American in history.  No one else is even close.  He did not miss on many.

There are questions we should ask ourselves when deciding on our vote.  How many people look at candidates for office and ask, “Is this someone I want making life and death decisions?  Do they have the wisdom needed to make those decisions?”  If you can’t trust them with life and death decisions, should you trust them with the everyday decisions? 

We all recognize that U.S. Presidents send people off to war but often forget that Congress has to directly or indirectly approve that action; both Presidents and Congress make decisions that kill people and their implementation of those decisions dictate the length of the killing and the carnage involved.  Judges get nominated by the President and governors; judges make decisions over life and death, freedom or imprisonment.  When a pandemic or natural disaster hits, governors and mayors and county executives make life and death decisions; how many voters imagined a governor would be deciding the fate of nursing home residents? 

Washington was known for his emotions and temper but he kept them under control and let wisdom, not emotions, lead him to decisions.  Within a few years of Washington taking command of the Continental Army, it was obvious that he was the right man to make life and death decisions.

Another factor is the candidates’ lust for power.  Ambition is okay but ambition without ethics is a disaster.  Washington was one of the few people in world history to give up power willingly and he is the only one to give it up twice!  He didn’t need power to be complete but he was willing to assume power, when called by his country.  Beware of legislators hanging on to power in their 80’s and 90’s, their life is centered on personal power and not society’s needs.  

When a thirty-something congressperson decides they are qualified to be President, we should only laugh; they may have the right politics but the wisdom…doubtful.  Making good speeches is not wisdom.

It’s unfair to compare any potential political leader to Washington.  He was almost unique in the history of the world.  But his attributes are a good benchmark for comparison, while understanding that everyone will fall somewhat short.  Being the smartest person in the room is more than memorization and the ability to speak.  Wisdom and ethical ambition need to be present.

Happy late birthday, George.  And thanks for all you did.

Gun Control Evolution of Biden and the Dems  by Don Smith, Wayne County chapter Chairman

Early in his career Joe Biden said gun regulation was ineffective.  Biden and many Senate Democrats supported the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] of 1986, which curtailed government abuse, recognized that many gun control laws were ineffective and wanted laws to be aimed at criminals rather than law-abiding citizens.  This bill was made necessary because the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms used a previous strict Gun Control Act to impede lawful gun ownership. 

The Senate Congressional Record, July 9,1985 lays out the reasons for FOPA (p.18158):

• “The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] was conceived in the notion that law enforcement needed to be directed at the real criminal....” (emphasis added.)
  
  
• “The sponsors and proponents of the Gun Control Act of 1968 claimed that it would significantly reduce the rate of crime, particularly crimes involving the use of firearms. It has not. Instead, between 1967 and 1982, the national homicide and handgun-homicide rates rose 50 percent, while robbery rates and robberies involving the use of firearms have nearly tripled.”(emphasis added.)
  
  
•  “It is important that we who are in the Senate in 1985 pause to remember why the founders of our country viewed the right to own guns as fundamental. Of course, they knew the importance of firearms for hunting-not just for sport but for suppling food for the family. They also knew that, in a largely frontier society, guns were vital for self-defense against common criminals who were a constant threat to the safety and survival of law-abiding citizens.” (emphasis added.)
  
  
•  “Today, these same arguments are presented in support of preserving the rights of gun ownership, and properly so as they are valid arguments. However, for the Founding Fathers, neither of these arguments was the overriding reason in favor of an armed citizenry. For them, the most important reason for gun ownership was political – that is, armed citizens constituted an effective hedge against tyrants." (emphasis added.)

Biden then flip-flopped in the late 1980s, with legislative efforts falsely claiming to address violent crime. He succeeded in 1994 with “the crime bill” passed by Congress. It banned large capacity magazines and “assault” weapons” (more properly called “Modern Sporting Rifles”).  It automatically expired in 2004 without a renewal vote.

Then-Rep. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, said in a statement that the ban "provided only the illusion of reducing gun violence, but it did real damage to our liberties."

          Sunday, February 14, 2021, marked three years since a former student opened fire on the campus of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people and injuring 15 others. In a statement on February 14, 2021, President Biden:

•     Hinted he would take executive action to attack guns
•     Urged Congress to step up the pace of authoring anti-gun legislation
•     And publicly called for a gun registry, as well as gun & magazine ban

    Biden issued the following statement on February 15, 2021:

          “This administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our street. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.”

          After the Parkland shooting, many students and family members called for stricter gun control laws. But not all of them. One of the exceptions was Andrew Pollack whose daughter Meadow was killed inside the school. He claimed the school’s liberal policies on student discipline had contributed to his daughter’s death.

     According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Pollack said:

•  “After my daughter’s murder, the media didn’t seem interested in the facts. So, I found them myself. I learned that gun control laws didn’t fail my daughter. People did.”  Pollack blamed “far-left Democrats in our school district” for adopting insufficiently harsh disciplinary measures to catch previous red flags about the gunman, a troubled former student.
  
  
• “I was just fine with the old approach to discipline and safety — it was called discipline and safety,” Pollack said, criticizing the school’s “restorative justice” policy. “But the Obama-Biden administration took Parkland’s bad policies and forced them into schools across America.” He praised President Trump for ending support for those policies and told listeners, “Their children’s safety depended on Trump being reelected.”     

“Pollack was angered by the media’s close focus on gun policy rather than on other factors leading up to the shooting.”

Pollack was also critical of the student activists who survived the massacre and then called for tighter gun control policies: “They just got famous off the death of these kids,” Pollack told The Times in 2019. “Their agenda was to get famous and spew more of their liberalism ways without looking at the facts.”

Reference Link: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-24/rnc-parkland-school-shooting-father-trump

Many of the “facts” referred to by Pollack can be found at the following reference link:https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201636649.html

NY A02175/S00065: Prohibiting the sale of Ammunition

Links to the Assembly & Senate full-text pages:  A02175 | S00065

Use the links below to contact your NYS Assembly Rep and your Senator:
NYS Assembly Member Directory | NYS Senate Member Directory

SCOPE Reply to Opinion Piece and Biden  by Tom Reynolds

Last week’s Finger Lakes Times contained an opinion piece by a representative of the League of Women Voters.  It listed their priorities and one of them was “Comprehensive Gun Reform”. 

On Valentine’s Day, President Biden sent a love letter to gun grabbers that repeated the usual radical plans to destroy the 2^nd Amendment.

SCOPE responded to the opinion piece, in 500 words below, and it would also apply to Biden’s latest misadventure.

Speaking for the League of Women Voters, Christine Hoffman stated that a League priority was to “End gun violence in America”.  SCOPE is a 2^nd Amendment defense organization and would agree with the goal but not with the method she suggests.  Most existing and proposed gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens, who are not the ones committing gun violence.  Until someone figures out how to get criminals to obey the law, their suggestion is equivalent to selling your car to stop your neighbor’s drunk driving.

Ms. Hoffman stated, “the nation needs and demands comprehensive gun reform”.  What nation?  She can’t be referring to the America that, in 2020, purchased record numbers of guns or for the record number of women who bought guns. They are hardly “demanding” more gun control.

Movies may romanticize 110 pound actresses beating up linebacker-size guys, but that is fantasy.  Women are at a significant physical strength disadvantage in assaults and carrying a firearm reduces or eliminates that disadvantage.   

Laws are meant to be enforced.  Yet, enacted laws against rioting, looting and arson in cities such as Seattle, Portland and San Francisco -and others - were not enforced. This led to more riots, arson and killing.  The same applies to guns.  There are already enough laws against the criminal use of guns; the problem is lack of enforcement.  We don’t need more laws that only impact law abiding citizens. 

In addition to allowing rioting to continue, NY State began releasing criminals without bail in 2020.  Assemblyman William Barclay recently posted some statistics for that year: Buffalo homicides up 36%; NY City homicides up 45%; Rochester homicides up 59%; Syracuse homicides up 55%.  Is it sensible to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves in a time of rising violent crime?

Ms. Hoffman repeats a common refrain about banning “Assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  There was a nationwide ban from 1994 to 2004; it was not renewed as it was ineffective.  The FBI’s statistics on murders in 2019 further prove this point: In NY State there was only 3 murders by rifles but 119 by knives and other cutting instruments and 44 by hands and fists.  Attacking “Assault weapons” may be good propaganda but they are not the problem.  

If all legal gun sales in the USA were stopped, would that end gun violence?  President Biden has opened our borders.  If sales were stopped in the U.S., might Mexican drug cartels take advantage of open borders to expand their smuggling operations to meet criminals’ demand for guns?  Is this addressed under the LWV’s fifth priority, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”?

Defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal gun use.  Examples of successful defensive gun use are easy to research on-line. 

When police are ten minutes away, a gun provides protection at 1500 feet per second.  A gun’s presence, alone, may deter criminals.

Ms. Hoffman she describes her recommendations as “common sense”.  As my dad would say, “sayin’ it don’t make it so”.

Some Impeachment Statistics  by Tom Reynolds

The 2nd Amendment protection to “keep and bear arms” is a key part of the Constitution.  But it’s more than just the Constitution that has made America great and held us together as a nation.  Our values, beliefs and traditions were as binding as the Constitution…until lately. One tradition, that the House and Senate used to believe in, was that the will of the voters must be respected and not overturned.  Because of that, Congress rarely took meaningful action to remove elected officials.  The statistics on impeachments, removals and non-seating reinforce that the will of the voters used to be respected.

In the entire history of the U.S.A., only one Senator and no Congresspersons have ever been impeached.  (The Senator was impeached in 1797, for Treason, but he was expelled before impeachment finished.)

Four Presidential impeachments have happened, including two to the same President.  Another President would probably have been impeached but he resigned first.

The House and Senate have other means of dealing with errant legislators that are similar to impeachment:

Five Congresspersons have been expelled, but three of those five were in 1861, for siding with the Confederacy.  The other two had to be convicted of felonies in courts of law before being expelled.

Fifteen Senators have been expelled, but fourteen of those were in 1861-2, for siding with the Confederacy.  The fifteenth was the one impeached in 1797 for treason, but expelled first.  Delete the Civil War and only two Congresspersons and one Senator have ever been expelled in the history of the USA.

The House has refused to seat four elected Congresspersons, including the same person twice. (He opposed WW1 but was elected again and was not seated, again.)

The Senate has never refused to seat a Senator.

Only two Congresspersons have ever been formally threatened with expulsion but never expelled.  One beat another Congressman with a cane and resigned before expulsion (but he was subsequently reelected and seated).  The second one resigned after the House ethics committee recommended his expulsion for bribery.

Seventeen other Senators have been formally threatened with expulsion but not expelled: Six resigned; nine were not expelled; one died; and one’s term expired.

Only thirty times in American history (excluding the Civil War) has Congress tried to impeach, expel or exclude legislators or Presidents. Of those, only sixteen were either convicted or resigned.  Does this demonstrate the high moral and ethical standards of our elected officials?  Or does it reflect the American tradition that the will of the voters is not to be overturned by the legislature except in extreme and rare circumstances?  That was the tradition until Pelosi became House Speaker.

Two of the four Presidential impeachments happened under Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker.  Think about that for a moment; in the history of the U.S.A, half of all Presidential impeachments have happened under Pelosi and it was the same President.  And if preliminary signs hold true, he will be acquitted both times.

There can be no doubt that the primary Democrat purpose behind this latest impeachment is to prevent Donald Trump from running again for President in 2024.  They believe that their political beliefs allow them to overturn even the potential will of the voters.    

Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic but, apparently, she has never heard of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  Senate Democrats forgot that rule, when they were in the Senate majority, when they did away with the filibuster for most presidential appointments.  Four years later, Republicans had regained the Senate majority and “did unto them”; the Republicans expanded the no-filibuster rule to include Supreme Court nominees.  This allowed them to approve three, pro-2A, Trump nominees.  Should Republicans regain control of the House (and Senate) in 2022, will we see a new round of “do unto them” impeachments?  Apparently, the Golden Rule has an addendum, “What goes around comes around”.

There can be no doubt that Pelosi, Schumer and their cronies are anti 2nd Amendment.  This should serve as a warning to all gun owners that nothing will stand in their way; certainly not the constitutional provision that Americans have the right to, “keep and bear arms” and not American traditions, beliefs and values. Pelosi and company seem intent on doing away with the Constitution, as it was written, and its associated values.  Freedom of Speech and the right to “Keep and bear arms” are at the top of their list.  Beware of those who see the Bill of Rights as only a piece of paper and disparage the beliefs that made us great. 

Note: To fill out the impeachment list: fourteen Federal Judges and one Supreme Court Judge and one Cabinet Secretary have also been impeached.

New York State Senate Bill S-1605 would require a mental health evaluation, every time, before a firearm could be purchased, disposed of or transferred. This would turn the 2nd Amendment from a right to a permission, at the discretion of unelected appointees.

This link will go to the full-text page for the bill:  S1605

We wrote about Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s proposed bill HR 127.  You may recall that this would: license firearms; require a mental health test; require purchasing an insurance policy for $800; ban sales to those under 21; ban 50 caliber ammunition and magazines of more than 10 rounds.  It is appropriate to review Jackson Lee’s personal expertise on firearms that allowed her to introduce this mammoth gun control bill.  (As well as her expertise on anything else.)

In a widely available video, she claims to have had an AR15 in her hands and “It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving.  And the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber.”  (As most SCOPE members probably know, a loaded AR-15 weighs about 7-9 pounds and does not fire .50 caliber rounds.  Do ten loaded moving boxes weigh less than a pound, each?)

After a November 2018 shooting in Thousand Oaks California, she said, ”…this is the 307th mass shooting event of the calendar year”.   (Per the FBI’s report on Active Shooter incidents, “The FBI has designated 27 shootings in 2018 as active shooter incidents.” The report defines an active shooter as, “… one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area”.) 

She has also said that each day, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually. (Ignoring that the majority of these are suicides and victims of drug gangs in our Democrat-controlled cities.)

In a speech before Congress on November 7, 2017, she assured Congress that mass shootings were not because of people with mental health problems but because of guns.  (Did the guns have mental health problems?  Why is her new bill HR127 requiring mental health exams for gun owners if it’s not a problem?)

She is widely reported as claiming that there have been zero mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years.  (What is the definition of “stopped”?  Stopped is not the same as “prevented”.  If someone shoots a potential mass shooter before they begin, technically a mass shooting never took place and one can’t definitively claim it was stopped - but it was definitely prevented.  But if a mass shooting is underway and then stopped by an armed civilian, technically the mass shooting was stopped and further loss of life was prevented; so, she is absolutely wrong.  The FBI has an extensive list of mass shootings that were underway but stopped by civilians.)

Jackson Lee has problems with more than just information on guns.  History seems to also be a significant challenge. 

In 2010, she said, “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South”.  (South Vietnam has not existed since 1975.) 

In March 2014, she said, “…how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a constitution…”  (This would date the Constitution – approved in 1789 - back to the Pilgrims.  How did George Washington – who was not born until 1732 – manage to become the 1^st President more than 100 years before he was born?)

In 1997, while on a trip to the Mars Pathfinder operations center in California, Jackson Lee asked, “Will the Mars rover be able to show the flag the astronauts planted there before”.  She was then a member of the House Science Committee. 

In 2010 Jackson Lee said that the Klansmen of the past are now Tea Party members. She then criticized Tea Partiers for saying “her braids in her hair were too tight”.  (Tea Partiers do have a way with words.)

While speaking at a memorial service for singer Michael Jackson, she held up a copy of her House Resolution 600, which she introduced to honor Michael Jackson. (Her resolution didn’t get enacted.  Few members of Congress were eager to mourn a man with a history of allegations of sexual predation on young boys.)

She is a 14 term Congresswoman from Houston, has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Yale and a law degree for the University of Virginia.  They must all be proud!