Mathew McConaughay has something to add.

[2WheelGnnr]

Matthew McConaughey: There's a difference between gun control and gun responsibility

I'm from Uvalde, Texas. The debate about gun control has delivered nothing but status quo.

www.yahoo.com

He state the S.C. Shooter got his firearm with NO BGC cuz of a technicality? isnt a BGC needed in all states and instances????

I like his take. We have find a way to exist "together".

 

[Blimey]

Both "sides" on this issue are not honest. We already know the left's side. Here's my criticism of the right:

• Refuse to believe any statistics that contradict the "more guns to more people never has a negative outcome" mantra, which is the foundation of many on this very forum. These same people, however, would have no problem appreciating how, for example, an 18 year old given a new sports car would be at a higher likelihood of an accident than the same person given a camry. It's also in gross, glaringly obvious contradiction to the experience of every other western nation's exposure to mass shootings.
• Adamant refusal to acknowledge that there is a seeming contradiction between the 2nd amendment's "not infringed" and the fact that anybody reading this who's daughter was just threatened by her ex-boyfriend would not be happy with him still having access to his firearms
• When the gun grabbers get an inch on this they go for a mile. But, without accepting that any changes should happen, the hardcore gun advocates are putting themselves into a weak, ultimately unwinnable position. We know gun-licensed individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Perhaps an ar15 requires a license, in which case the person who is almost certainly safe with guns can get one and the nut jobs like the recent mass murderers can't.

 

[Dr. Evil]

We need to institute a national waiting period for assault rifles.

This is where he lost me. I really wish people chose their words very carefully especially those that espouse to support the 2nd Amendment. The firearms that are owned by many law abiding gun owners ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES. Every time you refer to them as such you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[Phazer]

I'm concerned that the Left has been so damn successful at taking over, and controlling, the language.

An "assault rifle" is a real thing. It is a rifle with select fire capability that uses an intermediate grade caliber (between a pistol and a full machine gun).

The term "assault weapon" is a fabricated, Liberal focus-tested, work of fiction. When the anti-2A forces sought to ban semiautomatic rifles, they asked people if they were in favor of such a ban. Most people apparently told them, "Ummm...if it isn't a machine gun, what's the problem?" That was not what the Left wanted to hear. They sought to ban evil black rifles. So, they concocted the term "assault weapon." Such a term just sounds so damn ominous that it appropriately scared people while it actually meant nothing.

The Left has now made "assault weapon" synonymous with "assault rifle." With that editorial slight of hand, they are now able to write legislation that seeks to ban "semiautomatic assault-style weapons." Again, an academically dishonest term that also sounds ominous while demonizing all semiautomatic firearms.

Now, for the Left's crowning achievement, they ONLY want to ban "weapons of war." Seriously? Weapons of war? Any object that a human can use to harm another human is a de facto "weapon of war"...hands, feet, knifes, rocks, sticks, clubs, axes, chains, bows, oil, water, cars, trucks, bombs, planes, guns, etc.

Someone on our side of our inept government, that understands the constitution, MUST at some point explain to the uneducated that the founding authors of the United States Constitution were afraid of standing armies controlled by a centralized government and that those founders INTENDED for private citizens to have "weapons of war" in order to keep their government in check. THIS concept has been lost.

 

[C3D]

He is known to be good looking but dumb, so I’m not interested in his views.

 

[Phazer]

He is known to be good looking but dumb, so I’m not interested in his views.

What? You're not interested in the political views of someone who reads others' creative writing for a living?

 

[tirwin1]

This is a better option:

Biden Can Act on Guns without Congress, and Should | National Review

By following up on a gun sale that shouldn’t have gone through, we have the opportunity to both take the gun away and arrest the offender.

www.nationalreview.com

More proof the new legislation is just political posturing.

 

[Jmac00]

I use to like this guy, now hes just another left talking point celebrity.

He literally hit on every point the anti-gun groups want passed. His 'beliefs' are NOT my beliefs. Hes a celebrity talking head, and will be treated as such ~~~ignored

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Both "sides" on this issue are not honest. We already know the left's side. Here's my criticism of the right:

• Refuse to believe any statistics that contradict the "more guns to more people never has a negative outcome" mantra, which is the foundation of many on this very forum. These same people, however, would have no problem appreciating how, for example, an 18 year old given a new sports car would be at a higher likelihood of an accident than the same person given a camry. It's also in gross, glaringly obvious contradiction to the experience of every other western nation's exposure to mass shootings.
• Adamant refusal to acknowledge that there is a seeming contradiction between the 2nd amendment's "not infringed" and the fact that anybody reading this who's daughter was just threatened by her ex-boyfriend would not be happy with him still having access to his firearms
• When the gun grabbers get an inch on this they go for a mile. But, without accepting that any changes should happen, the hardcore gun advocates are putting themselves into a weak, ultimately unwinnable position. We know gun-licensed individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Perhaps an ar15 requires a license, in which case the person who is almost certainly safe with guns can get one and the nut jobs like the recent mass murderers can't.

I'll bite.

1. This is your criticism of the right but still sounds like the left to me. More cars to more people can have a negative outcome. More swimming pools to more people can have a negative outcome. More #2 pencils to more people can have a negative outcome. What's your point? Hopefully you can draw the parallels. Also, we don't give a shit about the experience of other western nations exposure to mass shootings. We are here in America, living in America. It's tiring hearing what other nations do. Do they care about our way of doing things? Do they care to implement those things?

2. You're correct. We wouldn't be happy about the boyfriend still having access to guns after threats. But we also wouldn't be happy about them having access to knives, bats, maces or shuriken. Again what's your point? I'll again hopefully let you draw some parallels. Basically what it sounds like you're saying here is you're in favor of red flag type laws. The ability to strip ones rights on the mere word of another. It should be obvious why no one on this type of forum would support it.

3. Again you're correct. "Gun-licensed" individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Another license isn't going to change that. It's not going to make us follow the law even more better. And it won't make the people that get guns without the hoops we go through more illegaler. It's shocking that you would think people that don't even agree with handgun licensing can be persuaded to need licensing for long guns. It's also shocking that you would even humor needing a license for a right. Ultimately, all your points reek of classic leftist nonsensical logic and would do nothing but once again punish the law abiding while still doing nothing to punish the very people that won't follow your proposed solutions in the first place.

 

[FRANKIE]

Funny
That don’t sound like White Boy Rick’s father talkin’ lol!


Mr. McConaughay Is definitely out of character here

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Both "sides" on this issue are not honest. We already know the left's side. Here's my criticism of the right:

• Refuse to believe any statistics that contradict the "more guns to more people never has a negative outcome" mantra, which is the foundation of many on this very forum. These same people, however, would have no problem appreciating how, for example, an 18 year old given a new sports car would be at a higher likelihood of an accident than the same person given a camry. It's also in gross, glaringly obvious contradiction to the experience of every other western nation's exposure to mass shootings.
• Adamant refusal to acknowledge that there is a seeming contradiction between the 2nd amendment's "not infringed" and the fact that anybody reading this who's daughter was just threatened by her ex-boyfriend would not be happy with him still having access to his firearms
• When the gun grabbers get an inch on this they go for a mile. But, without accepting that any changes should happen, the hardcore gun advocates are putting themselves into a weak, ultimately unwinnable position. We know gun-licensed individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Perhaps an ar15 requires a license, in which case the person who is almost certainly safe with guns can get one and the nut jobs like the recent mass murderers can't.

 

[libertysnake]

Both "sides" on this issue are not honest. We already know the left's side. Here's my criticism of the right:

• Refuse to believe any statistics that contradict the "more guns to more people never has a negative outcome" mantra, which is the foundation of many on this very forum. These same people, however, would have no problem appreciating how, for example, an 18 year old given a new sports car would be at a higher likelihood of an accident than the same person given a camry. It's also in gross, glaringly obvious contradiction to the experience of every other western nation's exposure to mass shootings.
• Adamant refusal to acknowledge that there is a seeming contradiction between the 2nd amendment's "not infringed" and the fact that anybody reading this who's daughter was just threatened by her ex-boyfriend would not be happy with him still having access to his firearms
• When the gun grabbers get an inch on this they go for a mile. But, without accepting that any changes should happen, the hardcore gun advocates are putting themselves into a weak, ultimately unwinnable position. We know gun-licensed individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Perhaps an ar15 requires a license, in which case the person who is almost certainly safe with guns can get one and the nut jobs like the recent mass murderers can't.

The problem is I have nothing else to give these people. They've already made it, or just made it, extremely difficult to even buy a firearm in NY, if not impossible, due to the exceptional circumstances in this state.

I'm reasonable about sensible things to be done, but most of what has been done has restricted good owners more than it has hampered criminals.

We have two options left with this state. Fight, or leave. The status quo is unacceptable. My line has been crossed.

 

[Modean]

Both "sides" on this issue are not honest. We already know the left's side. Here's my criticism of the right:

• Refuse to believe any statistics that contradict the "more guns to more people never has a negative outcome" mantra, which is the foundation of many on this very forum. These same people, however, would have no problem appreciating how, for example, an 18 year old given a new sports car would be at a higher likelihood of an accident than the same person given a camry. It's also in gross, glaringly obvious contradiction to the experience of every other western nation's exposure to mass shootings.
• Adamant refusal to acknowledge that there is a seeming contradiction between the 2nd amendment's "not infringed" and the fact that anybody reading this who's daughter was just threatened by her ex-boyfriend would not be happy with him still having access to his firearms
• When the gun grabbers get an inch on this they go for a mile. But, without accepting that any changes should happen, the hardcore gun advocates are putting themselves into a weak, ultimately unwinnable position. We know gun-licensed individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Perhaps an ar15 requires a license, in which case the person who is almost certainly safe with guns can get one and the nut jobs like the recent mass murderers can't.

Well, we have been “compromising” for a very long time. We never get anything in these compromises, we just get more taken from us.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

Both "sides" on this issue are not honest. We already know the left's side. Here's my criticism of the right:

• Refuse to believe any statistics that contradict the "more guns to more people never has a negative outcome" mantra, which is the foundation of many on this very forum. These same people, however, would have no problem appreciating how, for example, an 18 year old given a new sports car would be at a higher likelihood of an accident than the same person given a camry. It's also in gross, glaringly obvious contradiction to the experience of every other western nation's exposure to mass shootings.

"Shall" does not allow for discretion, or "balance". Laws matter. Supreme laws are superior to legislators. Full stop.

• Adamant refusal to acknowledge that there is a seeming contradiction between the 2nd amendment's "not infringed" and the fact that anybody reading this who's daughter was just threatened by her ex-boyfriend would not be happy with him still having access to his firearms

Adamant refusal to comprehend that there is no scenario where that ex-boyfriend doesn't retain full unfettered access to any gun or weapon of his choice after the state has "removed" his access.

"I have 10 guns. How many guns do I have after the State removes them? 37, because I lied about how many I had, and get 1 more for free with each kilo of heroin I buy."

• When the gun grabbers get an inch on this they go for a mile. But, without accepting that any changes should happen, the hardcore gun advocates are putting themselves into a weak, ultimately unwinnable position. We know gun-licensed individuals tend to commit very few crimes. Perhaps an ar15 requires a license, in which case the person who is almost certainly safe with guns can get one and the nut jobs like the recent mass murderers can't.

A right cannot lawfully be licensed.
Requiring someone to be adjudicated "innocent" is abhorrent.

Better idea that doesn't violate supreme laws of the land: If you'd fail a background check for a firearm, you don't belong out in public. At all.
Fixes most every problem you'd care to address.

Cheers!

 

[Dr. Evil]

I can't fucking believe this needs to be brought up again for some. Yeah, even if that was my kid in that school.

Cake And Compromise – Illustrated Guide To Gun Control – Everyday No Days Off

More gun control. Another classic example (like the medical profession) of treating the symptom without correcting the root cause/s. I missed the part about hiring ex military, LEO, etc. to be in schools. You know, the fact that they are soft.? Any mention about getting rid of gun free zones? You know, where evil people go because they know nobody will fight back? Sorry, not willing to give an inch because they really don't want to discuss fixing things. Their only answer is more laws to fuck law abiding citizens. Let's call a spade a spade. All those crying out about the carnage at the hands of evil people really only want one thing. They want to rid the planet of guns. That's it. No matter WHAT they say.

 

[jimc]

I'm pretty sure that most of the millions of gun owners ARE doing the right thing- NOT murdering people.

 

[Jmac00]

come on man, would more laws prevented these shootings,

Adam Lanza, known to law enforcement, they did nothing, until he killed his mom and a bunch of kids

Nick Cruz, very well known to LE, and the FBI, they did nothing until he shot up a school

Payton Gendron, posted he wanted to be a school shooter on social media, no one, not one person said anything, or did anything

Salvador Ramos, known violent person, to fellow classmates and posted on social media. he often killed animals. he was financially and emotionally bankrupt? How did he acquire $100,000 worth of equipment, including a new Pickup truck? not to mention the two firearms without any any income, whatsoever? who bought all that for him? How come NO ONE is asking these questions?

Why is no one talking about the massive amount of gang violence?
Chicago, so far this year, 240 shot & killed,
NYC, year to date (all) violent crime, 50,515, compared to 2021, up 38%
Philly, violent crime rates, year to date, as of June 5th, 2022, 218 shot & killed? and they're only half way thru the year?
L.A. ( just LA) violent crime for 2021, 30,078, and this year is on pace to surpass that number

The left needs to contribute violent gang shooting to mass shooting to keep their narrative going.

Why violent crime is up. Because people like Lori Lightfoot, and her prosecutors refuse to convict there voting base. Ya, sure they arrest a few, but most gun charges are dropped, convictions for violent crime are down? and I suspect these numbers are deflated, to improve tourism

Until politicians are willing to admit gun laws do not prevent crime, the law abiding will continue to have our rights removed little by little. While the criminal is happily going about their murder and mayhem, unabated.

One more thing, Up until the early 70's, there were a lot of insane asylum in America. But politicians shut them down and started to use the justice system to house the mental unfit, coincidence, I think not

 

[Dr. Evil]

I'm pretty sure that most of the millions of gun owners ARE doing the right thing- NOT murdering people.

You are correct sir.