If you didn't catch Matthew Mcconaughey from the White House breifing room, live, You need to

[White 6]

Country has gone to hell. As a kid we carried guns to through the neighborhood on the way to the gullies to target shoot. Nobody cares.

Good ole days..................now everyone pisses themselves.......even over a dang BB gun.

I was all over the place with a BB gun, though I was out in the county, even then, though a built-up area with a school, 2 churches and 3 country grocery stores within walking or biking distance. Later on 77 acres way out in the country, small game hunting with dad, and or friends with shotguns and or .22s. Times are different. Cities small and larger are different. People raise their kids different. Today's kids are different. Schools and teachers were different and would still beat your butt with a paddle if they thought you deserved it and make sure your parents knew, so you probably go another one at home. Nobody settled score with guns. All adults knew us, our parents and other adults also didn't mind telling any kid what to not do again, expecting to be obeyed and would call our parents if needed. This permissive, touchy-feely, esteem centered generation is ruining kids and society.

 

[candycorn]

And thank you for showing us how you plan to use mental health as a weapon.......

Wow, you don't think perpetually angry folks (like yourself by the way) should be barred from buying guns?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wow, you don't think perpetually angry folks (like yourself by the way) should be barred from buying guns?

No because that would mean all liberals would be banned from buying them and that simply wouldn't be fair to one entire political party.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

How do you tie it to first amendment rights on the press, as you stated?

The point is to force those who pretend gun control is about saving lives to vote on suppressing the first amendment as well, in other words would you vote for the same gun control to save lives if it also suppressed a freed press [and freedom of speech]?

 

[candycorn]

No because that would mean all liberals would be banned from buying them and that simply wouldn't be fair to one entire political party.

Nobody is angrier than the average republican.

 

[woodwork201]

I cannot post the video, not out yet, but it will undoubtedly be available later. No matter what side of the gun debate, or what party you belong to, or like me, not a party member, you need to see his presentation, on the Uvalde shooting and his plea for reforms to stop this ongoing carnage across our country.

As a gun owner, raised with guns, trained to be responsible with weapons by my own dad, I can say I support his message of being able to advance legislation that will move us forward and indeed make the 2nd amendment even more relevant, than we are being sold by both sides of the political divide. Saying the 2nd amendment is paramount to considerations of protecting our kids, our schools, our churches, our public spaces, must take precedence. To do otherwise, out of hand, as usual is bullshit.
View attachment 655065Watch live: Actor Matthew McConaughey joins White House press briefing on guns

I watched McConaughey's attack on America from the Whitehouse briefing room. Amazing that we've opened up that space to political advertising idiots.

McConaughey spewed a bunch of nonsense that can't be supported with logic or facts. Realizing that his call for a total ban on black semi-automatic rifles wasn't going to happen, he went along with Biden to push for an incremental step towards it. Not a single thing that McConaughey proposed at Biden's behest would have changed the outcome of any of the recent shootings.

If you want to propose something that would have made a difference, we could talk about it and even consider it. Maybe there's a constitutional amendment (that's required to change gun rights) that would be worth it to stop shootings and, if you could come up with a proposal that would actually make a difference, we could talk about it and consider it. But you only show your contempt for the Constitution you once swore to defend when you back unconstitutional changes that don't even effect the crimes that you pretend the proposals are supposed to help.

Granted, I would almost certainly disagree and fight you on any infringement to the right to keep and bear arms, even by constitutional amendment, but maybe you can surprise us with something that might really make a difference.

 

[White 6]

The point is to force those who pretend gun control is about saving lives to vote on suppressing the first amendment as well, in other words would you vote for the same gun control to save lives if it also suppressed a freed press [and freedom of speech]?

I do not see how that relates. We had basically the same dictionaries most of our history, printing presses also. Guns have certainly changed, as well as population density in most places. How does the 1st amendment relate to your views on gun control?
I assure you, I'd rather be talked at and hit, then shot at and missed.

 

[woodwork201]

The debate and appropriate application of regulation, does not take place, as it is cut off by the supposed supremacy of the 2nd amendment, as if doing anything negates it, but it doesn't and never did. What we are paying for in carnage has to be addressed. We are electing representatives to do something, yet they are stymied at even having the conversation. McConaughey is correct. Responsible gun owners are closer together on knowing something must be done than we are being told and sold by media, the loudmouths and the NRA. It is not a partisan issue it is literally, day by day becoming and has become a survival issue, honest middle of the road loyal Americans want addressed.

But you only get concerned when people are shot with a black rifle. You don't care that every single weekend far more people are shot in Chicago and babies are dying, and you're dead silent. You don't give a shit about lives, you don't give a shit about children's lives. You only care about undoing the Constitution you once swore to uphold and defend. In my opinion, you're an enemy of the state.

 

[woodwork201]

I do not see how that relates. We had basically the same dictionaries most of our history, printing presses also. Guns have certainly changed, as well as population density in most places. How does the 1st amendment relate to your views on gun control?
I assure you, I'd rather be talked at and hit, then shot at and missed.

So you're OK with the government banning certain speech on the Internet?

 

[woodwork201]

Normally, I would agree, but not this time. He is from Uvalde, I am not, but it looks like he was brought up as I and I agree with his speech and chose to bring it to the message board for consideration.

What does the accident of his mother's failure to get an abortion, and where that accident occurred, have to do with his trustworthiness on the topic?

 

[White 6]

I watched McConaughey's attack on America from the Whitehouse briefing room. Amazing that we've opened up that space to political advertising idiots.

McConaughey spewed a bunch of nonsense that can't be supported with logic or facts. Realizing that his call for a total ban on black semi-automatic rifles wasn't going to happen, he went along with Biden to push for an incremental step towards it. Not a single thing that McConaughey proposed at Biden's behest would have changed the outcome of any of the recent shootings.

If you want to propose something that would have made a difference, we could talk about it and even consider it. Maybe there's a constitutional amendment (that's required to change gun rights) that would be worth it to stop shootings and, if you could come up with a proposal that would actually make a difference, we could talk about it and consider it. But you only show your contempt for the Constitution you once swore to defend when you back unconstitutional changes that don't even effect the crimes that you pretend the proposals are supposed to help.

Granted, I would almost certainly disagree and fight you on any infringement to the right to keep and bear arms, even by constitutional amendment, but maybe you can surprise us with something that might really make a difference.

Made sense to me. I would Not do a total ban on semi-automatics and don't think that is what will come aboutm but the regulation on ownership and use need to be tightened.

 

[White 6]

So you're OK with the government banning certain speech on the Internet?

I have not seen them do it.

 

[White 6]

What does the accident of his mother's failure to get an abortion, and where that accident occurred, have to do with his trustworthiness on the topic?

Sounded like something in passing, certainly not the main thrust of his presentation. Didn't he say something like, but that's a conversation for another time?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

How does the 1st amendment relate to your views on gun control?

As far as my point goes it matters not if it ties in, the question is, would you be willing to sacrifice the first amendment to get through gun control laws you believe would save lives?

I assure you, I'd rather be talked at and hit, then shot at and missed.

evidently that's an easier choice to make than the one I proposed

 

[White 6]

As far as my point goes it matters not if it ties in, the question is, would you be willing to sacrifice the first amendment to get through gun control laws you believe would save lives?


evidently that's an easier choice to make than the one I proposed

OK. I'll bite. The answer is no. I would not be willing to sacrifice the 1st to increase regulation of weapons.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

OK. I'll bite. The answer is no. I would not be willing to sacrifice the 1st to increase regulation of weapons.

even if it saved lives?
This wasn't a trick question! my intent was made clear but you kept ignoring it.

you keep leaving out the "saving lives" part which was my point [if you go back and re-read my earlier posts to you you'll see that was the point I was making and made in the last post you quoted from me above]... these gun control laws are not about saving lives, they are about disarming us while pretending otherwise.

the fact that you would not pass gun control laws if it meant sacrificing the first amendment to save those lives means you are in the same boat with those who would not sacrifice the second amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Wow, you don't think perpetually angry folks (like yourself by the way) should be barred from buying guns?

Angry? I’m never angry….you reek of fear and hate….

 

[White 6]

even if it saved lives?
This wasn't a trick question! my intent was made clear but you kept ignoring it.

you keep leaving out the "saving lives" part which was my point [if you go back and re-read my earlier posts to you you'll see that was the point I was making and made in the last post you quoted from me above]... these gun control laws are not about saving lives, they are about disarming us while pretending otherwise.

the fact that you would not pass gun control laws if it meant sacrificing the first amendment to save those lives means you are in the same boat with those who would not sacrifice the second amendment.

No. Not the same. Words and speech no matter how loud, unless convince people to violently attack (and we already have laws covering that) will not kill anybody. I can take down anything I aim at within 400 meters with my AR. You are throwing up a straw man.

 

[2aguy]

Made sense to me. I would do a total ban on semi-automatics and don't think that is what will come aboutm but the regulation on ownership and use need to be tightened.

Yeah, you are nuts….. after they get all the semi-auto rifles, then they will go after the semi-auto pistols next then the shotguns….using the same argument that they operate just like the rifles you let them ban….so we must ban all semi-auto guns….

Then they go after the bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns…since they actually are weapons of war….

 

[Frankeneinstein]

No. Not the same. Words and speech no matter how loud, unless convince people to violently attack (and we already have laws covering that) will not kill anybody. I can take down anything I aim at within 400 meters with my AR. You are throwing up a straw man.

well you've both confused and disregarded so many things here that it is hard to know where to start...the ^above^ is, as you claim, a "strawman" but not mine...
...Your above post could be 100% true or false and would not alter my point either way because it addresses nothing at all in my posts.