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

[woodwork201]

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.

You're really unbelievable. It's not about you, it's about your ideas. You keep posting really stupid shit and doing it in the public square, and don't want to hear any challenge to your ideas.

You suggest that guns that are accurate should be regulated more tightly than guns that shoot wild. You suggest that guns that are safe and reliable, easy to maintain, should be regulated more than guns that are not reliable, unsafe, difficult to maintain. You suggested that every single rifle in the country should be regulated. All handguns should be regulated because they're light and maneuverable.

Do you even read the crap you post?

And you might be right. Yours and McConaughey's ideas might become law. Is that supposed to end the debate here? Are you suggesting that USMB is not a place to talk about ideas but, instead, it's a place of compliance, where people come to agree with the government?

Don't debate on USMB, folks. The policy of white6 is keep your mouth shut, follow along, obey, comply, and if you don't like it, write your congressman but, whatever you do, don't disagree with white6 or there will be consequences...

 

[woodwork201]

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.

Again, let me respond to your words, as I have done in every post - and I would respond the same to anyone who posted the words you write.

First off, you have not answered my questions. I provided a list of the features of an AR-15 that you said cause you to want it to be more regulated - not the pistol grip, not the flash hider, not the removable magazine - oh, wait - yes on the removable magazine, but, mostly, the sporting features that make people want the AR-15 as a modern sporting rifle. Mind you, this was a list derived from your very own words. So I asked you to respond with how you would regulate those features..

For instance, how would you regulate the accuracy of a rifle so that it's less accurate? How would you regulate ammunition that is too light weight? And, really important question, how would you regulate the reliability and safety out of an AR - because you stated explicitly that an AR-15 requires more regulation because it's too reliable and too safe. So, go up to the list of the features you said you want regulated and tell us all how you would regulate them.

Next, your comment above that it doesn't matter what I write here because the laws are going to happen anyway. Just please never mention support for the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment again. You clearly do not support either. You're supporting violating the Constitution because the majority want it violated. You seem not to understand that the reason the Founders created a constitutional republic, and why they despised democracy, is that the majority cannot vote to take away the rights of the minority. No, you can't pass a law bringing back slavery. Sorry about that.

And you assume that you alone are entitled to the last word. You could let it go but you won'r. So if you suggest more unconstitutional rules or laws, I'll respond.

 

[White 6]

Again, let me respond to your words, as I have done in every post - and I would respond the same to anyone who posted the words you write.

First off, you have not answered my questions. I provided a list of the features of an AR-15 that you said cause you to want it to be more regulated - not the pistol grip, not the flash hider, not the removable magazine - oh, wait - yes on the removable magazine, but, mostly, the sporting features that make people want the AR-15 as a modern sporting rifle. Mind you, this was a list derived from your very own words. So I asked you to respond with how you would regulate those features..

For instance, how would you regulate the accuracy of a rifle so that it's less accurate? How would you regulate ammunition that is too light weight? And, really important question, how would you regulate the reliability and safety out of an AR - because you stated explicitly that an AR-15 requires more regulation because it's too reliable and too safe. So, go up to the list of the features you said you want regulated and tell us all how you would regulate them.

Next, your comment above that it doesn't matter what I write here because the laws are going to happen anyway. Just please never mention support for the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment again. You clearly do not support either. You're supporting violating the Constitution because the majority want it violated. You seem not to understand that the reason the Founders created a constitutional republic, and why they despised democracy, is that the majority cannot vote to take away the rights of the minority. No, you can't pass a law bringing back slavery. Sorry about that.

And you assume that you alone are entitled to the last word. You could let it go but you won'r. So if you suggest more unconstitutional rules or laws, I'll respond.

Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest Woodwork. Sometimes you get the answer you want and sometimes you don't. Maybe it was a cleansing experience, maybe not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Under such provisions AR 15s would still be legal to own – including with a collapsible stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, and 30-round detachable magazine.

They would simply be subject to registration and training requirements – all of which are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate or infringe upon the Second Amendment.

I oppose such provisions as they manifest an undue burden – I was responding to the OP with regard to his post concerning what measures might be taken to address mass shootings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The Heller III provisions also represent measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

Citizens would still be allowed to possess AR and AK platform firearms with 30-round magazines, and AR 10s, HK 91s, and FALs with 20 round magazines with no magazine capacity restrictions.

Again, I oppose such provisions because they manifest as an undue burden and excess government overreach – but it does illustrate that steps can be taken having nothing to do with ‘banning’ or ‘confiscating’ firearms.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

They labeled parents who showed up at school board meeting DOMESTIC TERRORIST
What could possibly go wrong with Red flag laws .....

Thier is no compromise except stop prescribing ssris
Out law those