Apparently Matthew McConaughey would be a popular contender for Governor Abbot (R-TX) in the upcoming gubernatorial race, but for those with a soft spot for the “nice guy” you need to realize that McConaughey may not be all that good for freedom Texas is proud of itself.
According to a new Dallas Morning News poll quoted by The Hill, “45% of registered voters in the state said they would likely support the actor if he ran for governor.” This contrasts with just 33% of respondents who said they would support Abbott’s re-election. The scary thing about his popularity is that if he won, he would not support the second amendment. Despite the appeal to a nice guy, Governor McConaughey would also match Dems’ gun control ambitions.
As conservative radio host and former NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch reminded everyone on Twitter on April 18, “McConaughey supports a semi-automatic ban and calls criminal acts” loopholes “.” Yes, if that’s the case, you don’t want McConaughey to be your governor unless you hate the second amendment.
Recall that McConaughey supports a semi-automatic ban and calls criminal activity “loopholes”. https://t.co/CaV0F96c6Y pic.twitter.com/XY7CfXGL6V
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch), April 18, 2021
Loesch combined her comment with footage from McConaughey, who from 2018 spoke at a “March for Our Lives” rally. In that speech, McConaughey stated: “Let’s ban offensive weapons for civilians. This is a no-brainer. And to my friends out there who are responsible owners of those recreational attack weapons they use, please take one for the team and put it down. “
Ah, the typical argument for a ban on offensive weapons that the left likes to use. Reason.com wrote that there is “no agreed definition of an offensive weapon”. As evidence that a ban on offensive weapons is stupid, the outlet cited how the U.S. offensive weapons ban of 1994 banned one rifle because of its cosmetic attachments, while another weapon – with different cosmetics but the same functionality – was not banned . Any “offensive” weapon ban would be confusing and would target common weapons that are responsible for the fewest number of weapon-related crimes in the country.
If McConaughey was not referring to handguns when he meant “assault weapons” then he is wrong. For example, handguns were used in 17 times as many murders as rifles in 2017. On the other hand, he may mean handguns, but then our point is, why be so vague with the terms? It’s confusing for everyone.
In the speech, McConaughey also added, “Let’s better regulate the background checks we already have and fill in the loopholes that exist in those background checks.” But what are these background checks loopholes? Is this just referring to background checks that are not enforced? In this case one speaks of an illegal arms sale, not a loophole.
In a statement to Newsbusters, Loesch summed up McConaughey’s misguided stance on guns, saying, “Any call to ban ‘offensive weapons’ is nothing more than a call to ban the most commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, which are responsible for the least number of them Crime. With regard to loopholes, it is only common sense to accurately articulate the law as it is. If someone is a prohibited owner and carries a gun, that is not a loophole, it is a criminal offense. ”
Of course, Loesch and McConaughey don’t know the statistics. If he wants to rule the Lone Star state, he has to learn a lot.