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

[miketx]

All gun banners talk like him. They never will specifically state their plan.

See? No answer.

 

[White 6]

If you don't mean ban, then what, exactly, do you mean by regulation? And what exactly are the specific type characteristics of the AR that you find offensive or more dangerous?

Is it the pistol grip? Maybe the barrel shroud? How about the threaded barrel? Or the flash suppressor? Because those are the characteristics used to define an assault weapon in the original assault weapons ban and the current one passed by the House this year.

You tell us which characteristics make the AR special so that it needs regulated.

Moving the legal age to 21, same as handguns under federal law is not a ban for the vast majority, certainly no you or I, is just one example of a regulatory change.
I like my AR. None of it's characteristics are offensive to me, and also take for granted all weapons are inherently dangerous to a degree, depending on handling and other things. That said, if you are asking what make it suitable for civilian offensive tactics and maneuver, light weight, high capacity, ease of operation, almost idiot proof maintenance and dependability, (kind of an amazing platform of readily interchangeable parts, regardless of manufacture or origin, a perfected design) highly accurate even with little training, lightweight ammo of comparatively high muzzle velocity compared to average handguns, enhancing lethality, and enabling operator to carry more ammo easier to facilitate and attack on an objective(s), very minimal (almost instant) reload time. The only reason I would not consider it an actual assault weapon, is my previous life, training people with assault weapons and a preference in assault weapons to those that did permit fully auto function, as sometimes being able to spray, might mean not having to pray. Not, that I avoid praying, but I don't like to need his undivided attention.
I have no problem with the grip. The vented barrel shroud is welcomed by anybody that has seared their flesh or steamed their fingers changing a smoking .50 barrel in the rain using mitt with higher moisture content in the mitt than expected after momentarily laying exposed to rain while preparing to change out. If you haven't had the experience, I can't recommend it. It is somewhat unimportant to the civilian "assault weapon" debate, as we have yet to hear of one of these nut ball carrying or changing out a barrel during an engagement. I have no problem with rifled barrels, having never fired a weapon without rifling. Mine's a 1:7 twist in a heavy Chrome Molly Vanadium steel 18" barrel, chosen for absolute strength tolerance, longer serviceability life, ease of cleaning ability (overall, best I could find when I selected). Flash suppressor came with the barrel, no big deal to me.
Does that answer your question?

 

[woodwork201]

Moving the legal age to 21, same as handguns under federal law is not a ban for the vast majority, certainly no you or I, is just one example of a regulatory change.
I like my AR. None of it's characteristics are offensive to me, and also take for granted all weapons are inherently dangerous to a degree, depending on handling and other things. That said, if you are asking what make it suitable for civilian offensive tactics and maneuver, light weight, high capacity, ease of operation, almost idiot proof maintenance and dependability, (kind of an amazing platform of readily interchangeable parts, regardless of manufacture or origin, a perfected design) highly accurate even with little training, lightweight ammo of comparatively high muzzle velocity compared to average handguns, enhancing lethality, and enabling operator to carry more ammo easier to facilitate and attack on an objective(s), very minimal (almost instant) reload time. The only reason I would not consider it an actual assault weapon, is my previous life, training people with assault weapons and a preference in assault weapons to those that did permit fully auto function, as sometimes being able to spray, might mean not having to pray. Not, that I avoid praying, but I don't like to need his undivided attention.
I have no problem with the grip. The vented barrel shroud is welcomed by anybody that has seared their flesh or steamed their fingers changing a smoking .50 barrel in the rain using mitt with higher moisture content in the mitt than expected after momentarily laying exposed to rain while preparing to change out. If you haven't had the experience, I can't recommend it. It is somewhat unimportant to the civilian "assault weapon" debate, as we have yet to hear of one of these nut ball carrying or changing out a barrel during an engagement. I have no problem with rifled barrels, having never fired a weapon without rifling. Mine's a 1:7 twist in a heavy Chrome Molly Vanadium steel 18" barrel, chosen for absolute strength tolerance, longer serviceability life, ease of cleaning ability (overall, best I could find when I selected). Flash suppressor came with the barrel, no big deal to me.
Does that answer your question?

So, in addition to those criteria and physical traits that cause Nancy Pelosi to want to ban AR-15s, you want to add, only for regulation, mind you, any of the following characteristics as well:

• any gun that is easy to maneuver,
• light weight,
• easy to operate,
• easy to maintain and keep operating safely and dependably,
• accurate and hits the target aimed at instead of some nearby person,
• uses lightweight ammo (maybe only 50-caliber should be allowed for civilians),
• high muzzle velocity compared to handguns
• easy to reload

So, to meet your criteria, we need more regulations on any gun with the features as follows:

• any gun that is easy to maneuver (all handguns? Any gun with a barrel shorter than what? Would you prefer something around 30 inches? )
• light weight (You're another one of those lefties who hate women, no guns that a woman can easily carry?)
• easy to operate, (any semi-automatic or revolver, handgun or long gun, is easy to operate. So what you're really saying is to regulate anything other than a bolt action or a single action?)
• easy to maintain and keep operating safely and dependably, (Yes, we don't want guns that go bang when we pull the trigger; some bad guy might get hurt.)
• accurate and hits the target aimed at instead of some nearby person, (Yes, let';s have more innocent bystanders killed. Definitely a civilian gun must not be accurate)
• uses lightweight ammo (maybe only 50-caliber should be allowed for civilians), (So far, the only gun that meets all of the requirements above, including this one, is the 50 cal BMG. If that's what you and the government want me to have, I'll trade all of my ARs one-for-one, for new Barretts.)
• high muzzle velocity compared to handguns (So you're suggesting regulating 100 per cent of rifles. They all have high muzzle velocity compared to handguns)
• easy to reload (so you're proposing that all guns with a removable magazine and any revolver with a speedloader be regulated. Got it)
• Oh, I almost forgot - high capacity (any gun with over 10 rounds capacity?)

Wow! I think we'd be better off with Nancy Pelosi's restrictions than we'd be with yours. You're one hard-core gun controller.

 

[White 6]

So, in addition to those criteria and physical traits that cause Nancy Pelosi to want to ban AR-15s, you want to add, only for regulation, mind you, any of the following characteristics as well:

• any gun that is easy to maneuver,
• light weight,
• easy to operate,
• easy to maintain and keep operating safely and dependably,
• accurate and hits the target aimed at instead of some nearby person,
• uses lightweight ammo (maybe only 50-caliber should be allowed for civilians),
• high muzzle velocity compared to handguns
• easy to reload

So, to meet your criteria, we need more regulations as follows:

• any gun that is easy to maneuver (all handguns? Any gun with a barrel shorter than what? Would you prefer something around 30 inches? )
• light weight (You're another one of those lefties who hate women, no guns that a woman can easily carry?)
• easy to operate, (any semi-automatic or revolver, handgun or long gun, is easy to operate. So what you're really saying is to regulate anything other than a bolt action or a single action?)
• easy to maintain and keep operating safely and dependably, (Yes, we don't want guns that go bang when we pull the trigger; some bad guy might get hurt.)
• accurate and hits the target aimed at instead of some nearby person, (Yes, let';s have more innocent bystanders killed. Definitely a civilian gun must not be accurate)
• uses lightweight ammo (maybe only 50-caliber should be allowed for civilians), (So far, the only gun that meets all of the requirements above, including this one, is the 50 cal BMG. If that's what you and the government want me to have, I'll trade all of my ARs one-for-one, for new Barretts.)
• high muzzle velocity compared to handguns (So you're suggesting regulating 100 per cent of rifles. They all have high muzzle velocity compared to handguns)
• easy to reload (so you're proposing that all guns with a removable magazine and any revolver with a speedloader be regulated. Got it)
• Oh, I almost forgot - high capacity (any gun with over 10 rounds capacity?)

Wow! I think we'd be better off with Nancy Pelosi's restrictions than we'd be with yours. You're one hard-core gun controller.

Not supporting a ban and have state so repeatedly.

 

[woodwork201]

Not supporting a ban and have state so repeatedly.

I did not mention a ban. You said regulate. I said regulate. You want to regulate virtually every gun in existence. You make Pelosi sound like an NRA board member.

 

[White 6]

I did not mention a ban. You said regulate. I said regulate. You want to regulate virtually every gun in existence. You make Pelosi sound like an NRA board member.

Oh, I'm sorry. It sounded quite a bit like you were lumping me in with a Nancy Pelosi gun ban. Did you misspeak? I don't think you and I are communicating yet, again.

 

[woodwork201]

Oh, I'm sorry. It sounded quite a bit like you were lumping me in with a Nancy Pelosi gun ban. Did you misspeak? I don't think you and I are communicating yet, again.

I just respond to what you say. But you're not denying the list of controls you support. That's good. Now that we're clear on your gun control views we can simply disagree.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actor Matthew McConaughey gives impassioned speech for gun reform in White House briefing

Actor Matthew McConaughey delivered an emotional White House appeal for gun regulations in the wake of last month's massacre in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas.

www.cnbc.com

He is talking for gun owners? No gun owner I ever listen to talk talks like this. Does he own a gun? When he starts talking about what the government is going to do about criminals and guns instead of hurting legal gun owners. Then maybe I will listen.

No one is advocating for ‘hurting’ legal gun owners.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Control supporter? Yes. Anti-2a, gun grabber. No. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Correct.

Advocating for firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures the Supreme Court has not struck down as un-Constitutional – is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment’; indeed, it’s being pro-Second Amendment because it conforms with Second Amendment case law.

And there’s no such thing as a ‘gun-grabber’ – that’s a ridiculous rightwing lie and demagoguery; no one advocates for ‘confiscating’ firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah? Like when he stated just recently that we just have to take one for the team and give up our rifles?

He sided with the gun grabbing democrats to give them an inch…..so they can take a mile once they exploit whatever they get now

This is a lie and fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

“gun grabbing democrats [sic]” is also a lie; Democrats do not advocate for ‘confiscating’ firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I disagree. Modern semi-automatics have become the weapon of choice. The few are making all owners and radical 2nd amendment supporter appear to be the same group, but they are not. Many of us would like to see something done, to stop the slaughter and feel regulation of the weapon of choice of recent years, should be on the table.

In Heller III the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the following provisions as being Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment:

The registration of long guns.

Requiring an individual to appear in person to register his firearms and be photographed and fingerprinted.

That fees associated with being photographed and fingerprinted are lawful.

And in order to register a firearm one must take a firearms safety and training course.

It’s possible that such requirements attached to possessing an AR 15 and similar designated weapons would have prevented the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, and such requirements would likely pass Constitutional muster.

Of course, there’s no political will for such legislation at the Federal level, no matter how Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

If they pass red flag laws any disagreement with the ruling narrative will get you disarmed .
Your neighbor will turn ya in for a Trump Flag


And YOU frigging senseless senile fucking boomers think the same people who weaponized the doj ,fbi,cdc,irs blah blah blah can be trusted with red flag laws ? just go back to watching wheel of fortune

I'd like to solve the puzzle pat......
We're all fucked
No going back
.No way out but through

Ding ding ding ding

 

[2aguy]

This is a lie and fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

“gun grabbing democrats [sic]” is also a lie; Democrats do not advocate for ‘confiscating’ firearms.

Yeah...they do.....as beto, biden and hilary have all stated...

 

[2aguy]

In Heller III the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the following provisions as being Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment:

The registration of long guns.

Requiring an individual to appear in person to register his firearms and be photographed and fingerprinted.

That fees associated with being photographed and fingerprinted are lawful.

And in order to register a firearm one must take a firearms safety and training course.

It’s possible that such requirements attached to possessing an AR 15 and similar designated weapons would have prevented the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, and such requirements would likely pass Constitutional muster.

Of course, there’s no political will for such legislation at the Federal level, no matter how Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

They did no such thing.....

The D.C. circuit court of appeals violated every aspect of Heller ....... and relied on the fact that the court was evenly divided, with neither side trusting Roberts ......so they could lie about Heller and do what they wanted without being bitch slapped by the Supreme Court...

Even in Haynes v United States, the ruling was that a criminal...with an illegal gun, could not be prosecuted for not registering his illegal gun because it violated his 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination....so, doofus...explain to us how it would then be Constitutional to require law abiding citizens to register their legal guns...without violating their 5th Amendment Rights...

YOu are such a doofus.

 

[White 6]

I just respond to what you say. But you're not denying the list of controls you support. That's good. Now that we're clear on your gun control views we can simply disagree.

I only deny the characterization as a ban or inference I am supporting what rational thinking, speaking people of good will identify as a ban, instead of simply regulation under all current supreme court rulings on applicability of regulations within the 2nd amendment. Until we both understand how regulation is looked at legally and officially in the highest court in the land, there can be no, understanding, only more unproductive haranguing on, ad infinitum.

 

[White 6]

In Heller III the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the following provisions as being Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment:

The registration of long guns.

Requiring an individual to appear in person to register his firearms and be photographed and fingerprinted.

That fees associated with being photographed and fingerprinted are lawful.

And in order to register a firearm one must take a firearms safety and training course.

It’s possible that such requirements attached to possessing an AR 15 and similar designated weapons would have prevented the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, and such requirements would likely pass Constitutional muster.

Of course, there’s no political will for such legislation at the Federal level, no matter how Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Agreed, and I, too, support Heller, as ruled by DC Circuit.

 

[eagle1462010]

No one is advocating for ‘hurting’ legal gun owners.

BS

 

[2aguy]

No one is advocating for ‘hurting’ legal gun owners.

No? How about conservative Supreme Court Justices and their families? Seems like you guys are more than happy with violence against them..

 

[woodwork201]

I only deny the characterization as a ban or inference I am supporting what rational thinking, speaking people of good will identify as a ban, instead of simply regulation under all current supreme court rulings on applicability of regulations within the 2nd amendment. Until we both understand how regulation is looked at legally and officially in the highest court in the land, there can be no, understanding, only more unproductive haranguing on, ad infinitum.

So you support regulation without even knowing what regulations they might impose? I know, or at least I hope, you'll defend yourself by saying that you're just open to regulation and you have to wait to see what those regulations are. But when I asked you what regulation means to you, you refuse to answer.

So, again, here is your very own list of features that you said yourself that you want regulated. Please tell us what regulation for each one of those features you would have applied to a gun in order to prevent school or other mass shootings or gun crime in general.

• any gun that is easy to maneuver
• light weight
• easy to operate
• easy to maintain and keep operating safely and dependably
• accurate and hits the target aimed at
• uses lightweight ammo
• high muzzle velocity compared to handguns
• easy to reload

You said you want guns regulated based on these features. Now man up and say what regulations you want to see based on these features.

 

[White 6]

So you support regulation without even knowing what regulations they might impose? I know, or at least I hope, you'll defend yourself by saying that you're just open to regulation and you have to wait to see what those regulations are. But when I asked you what regulation means to you, you refuse to answer.

So, again, here is your very own list of features that you said yourself that you want regulated. Please tell us what regulation for each one of those features you would have applied to a gun in order to prevent school or other mass shootings or gun crime in general.

• any gun that is easy to maneuver
• light weight
• easy to operate
• easy to maintain and keep operating safely and dependably
• accurate and hits the target aimed at
• uses lightweight ammo
• high muzzle velocity compared to handguns
• easy to reload

You said you want guns regulated based on these features. Now man up and say what regulations you want to see based on these features.

Good grief, dude! This is a discussion thread, based on exposing the Matthew McConaughey White House Press Room presentation, and started, as that daytime presentation was ending, me bringing it to the message board's attention, that it was in important, impactful discussion, prompted by the tragic events of the town Mr. McConaughey grew up in.

As much as you would like to make the thread about me, or supposed support for a bill that wasn't out when the thread started, while Mr. McConaughey was speaking, and still isn't publicly, it is not what the thread is about. While I have answered many of your questions (not to your satisfaction, as you just have not liked them ever supported by normal gun owners) I am compelled to point out, McConaughey's presentation is out there. A gun owner, raised with guns himself, has brought to the forefront that there are many gun owners, (myself included, likewise raised with guns, even making part of my living professionally training with guns, and training people to use guns and various weapons systems) that support changing regulations, so that they might have more effect on the carnage, largely of late, being perpetrated, using the popular AR-15 platform. The need to better, more effectively regulate and change how we deal with the problem, instead of shouting down and ignoring until the next event is out there. Mr. McConaughey effectively put it out there, whether you approve of it being out there or not.

All your fervor to prevent, or attack is for naught. I hear there is bipartisan support of some plan out there, and it is going forward with full knowledge that there are many weapons owners that actually favor change, rather than staying on top dead center, while the carnage continues, with no effort to quell. Your tactic of attack has failed, not only here, but on the national stage, and Mr. McConaughey's speech was important in seizing the moment and moving the real national discussion forward, effectively. Just as the OPd thread moved the board discussion forward, like it or not, at this point, your time would be better spent in using what writing abilities you have to address your positions to your Congressmen or women representing your district and state in the House of Representative and the United States Senate, because the real debate is going forward without you.