She apparently thinks an AR-15 takes a .50 caliber round…
The spread of misinformation surrounding firearms is astonishing – especially when looking at a recent video where U.S. Representative Jackson Lee of Texas described the frightening experience she had holding an AR-15.
The level of ignorance is mind-blowing.
I’ve held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I had it,” she said as she talked about her new gun storage bill. “It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, a .50-caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the streets,” she said.
.50 caliber rounds in an AR? Not a chance.
For those that are less familiar on the terminology between different caliber rounds, take a quick look at the photo below, comparing the size of a .50 cal round versus a .223, the primary ammunition used in the semi-automatic rifle.
Notice that the .50 caliber is under the “Typical Ammunition for Vehicle-Mounted Military Weapons” category, while the much, much smaller .223 and 7.62 rounds are traditionally utilized for semi-automatic rifles.
Also, we’re not sure what Rep. Lee is storing in her theoretical boxes, but the average weapon she’s referring to weighs about six to seven pounds… and that’s with a filled 30-round magazine.
Lee’s ridiculous remarks were called out on social media.
You need to learn what you are talking about before you open your mouth.
On the left is a .223 or NATO 5.56 round for an AR-15 and on the right is a .50 cal. pic.twitter.com/UIpoSevNcZ
— David F. (@1HoustonAtheist) September 22, 2019
50 Cal ? This is the famous Sheila Jackson Lee. She thought our Constitution was 400 years old, referred to herself on the House floor as a freed slave and asked NASA if the Hubbel telescope could get a pic of where Neil Armstrong walked on MARS. She is ridiculous https://t.co/3DIIUrAGIb
— Hailey’s Hut (@hailey_hut) September 22, 2019
Lee isn’t the only progressive leader pushing for gun control despite a very obvious lack of knowledge about the subject.
New York Democrat Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington made a statement about exploding rounds and heat-seeking projectiles.
Try not to laugh.
“But some of these bullets as you saw have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat-seeking device, so you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you could cook it at the same time,” Assemblywoman Eddington reportedly said.
U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy recently admitted to Tucker Carlson that she didn’t know what the “barrel shroud” segment of her “assault weapons” bill was about.
“I believe it’s the shoulder thing that goes up,” McCarthy said when she was backed into a corner.
These examples aren’t funny. They’re honestly scary.
These are elected leaders who are making decisions on behalf of every day Americans. How can you attack something when you very clearly know absolutely nothing about it?
Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.
This misinformation spreads across social media platforms and leads to statements like this one:
“Here is the thing… I don’t think you could even eat the meat of an animal killed with a semi automatic weapon. It would be so full of shrapnel,” said a Texas mom on Twitter.
Below is the full statement made to the press by Representative Lee. It’s tough to watch, but you should make sure to get through the whole thing.
She might want to reevaluate her statements about what it means to be an American after sitting down with a copy of the United States Constitution.
“I hope there will be members that are Republicans and Democrats that will be Americans when it goes to the floor of the house, and they’ll vote on behalf of the American people,” she said.
She also went on to say that more than Americans support gun buyback programs and that 80 percent of people support Red Flag laws. Let’s dive into that a little bit more.
Imagine for a second trying to open up Facebook in the morning, and instead getting a message that you were in Facebook jail. Why? Because someone reported you for something “offensive”… that wasn’t even offensive.
And instead of getting to plead your case, show the lunacy of their fake claim and still keep using your Facebook account… you get slapped with a 30-day ban.
Welcome to Red Flag laws. Only instead of Facebook jail, you lose the ability to defend yourself and your family.
“We must make sure that those judged to pose great risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said after the Dayton and El Paso tragedies.
What the President is referring to are “Red Flag Laws,” also known as Extreme Risk Protective Orders (ERPO).
While on paper, these laws may seem to do good and save lives, we have already seen one incident where people have lost their lives due to “red flag” laws. And as ERPO laws become more common, we must believe that more people, both cops and civilians are in harm’s way.
In November of 2018, Anne Arundel County police officers arrived at the home of Gary Willis, 61, to serve an ERPO order. Officers say that Willis answered the door, at 5 am, holding a handgun. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun.
One of the officers tried to take the gun from Willis, but instead Willis fired the gun. The second officer fired a gun, striking Willis. He died at the scene. It was never made clear who had called police concerning Willis, or what threat he allegedly bore.
According to CBS News, these laws allow courts to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. Depending on the state, ERPO laws allow family members and law enforcement to ask a state court judge to issue an order that confiscates the guns of an individual who they believe poses a threat to their safety.
ERPO petitioners must present evidence to the court on why the individual poses a threat to others, as well as to himself or herself.
— Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) September 18, 2019
But what does that evidence look like? Is it as simple as “I heard them say XYZ…?”
The following states have enacted ERPO legislation: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Hawaii and Nevada have passed the legislation, but it does not go into effect until January 1, 2020. Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania are considering enacting ERPO legislation.
Connecticut claims that since enacting this law, suicides have dropped 14 percent in the past 20 years.
Of these states, 13 allow the petitions to be initiated by family or household members. Connecticut on the other hand, will only allow petitions from one state attorney or any two police officers. New York and Hawaii allow them to be filed by teachers or school administrators.
All these states allow removal of firearms ex parte, or without notice to the individual. The duration of the ex parte varies by state. California allows up to 21 days before a hearing is held. New York requires a hearing to be held with in 6 days.
House Democrats refuse red flag measure that would issue red flag on anyone whose name is in a gang database — using the exact same argument GOP used against “no fly” lists. Democrats are afraid it would be abused!
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 17, 2019
The final order, after the hearing, varies as well, lasting anywhere from 6 months to indefinitely. New Jersey finals orders are indefinite, unless the gun owner proves at a hearing that they are no longer a threat.
But what if they never were a threat? What happens in those circumstances where you have a co-worker trying to get back at someone? What about the wife who is angry at her husband? In the states where just about anyone can file the petition, what stops these from being filed simply because of a grudge?
At the initial hearing, it is up to the gun owner to prove he or she is not a threat. This is a further departure from due process.
Do Americans really support these measures? Or is this a new way to infringe on the rights of legal gun-owning citizens?
For exclusive video content inside the world of law enforcement, emergency responders and veterans, check out our brand new video streaming platform.