Apparently Matthew McConaughey would be a popular contender against Governor Abbot (R-TX) in the upcoming gubernatorial race, but people who have a soft spot for the “nice guy” need to realize that McConaughey might not be so good for the freedom Texas prides itself on.
According to a new Dallas Morning News poll, cited by The Hill, “45% percent of registered voters in the state said they would likely support the actor if he ran for governor.” That’s opposed to the only 33% polled who claimed they would support Abbott’s re-election. The scary thing about his popularity is that if he won, he wouldn’t support the Second amendment. Despite the nice guy appeal, Governor McConaughey would also fall right in line with Dems’ gun control ambitions.
As conservative radio host and former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch reminded everyone on Twitter on April 18, “McConaughey supports a semi-auto ban and cites criminal acts as ‘loopholes’ in the law.” Yeah, when that’s the case, you don’t want McConaughey to be your governor, well unless you hate the Second Amendment.
Loesch paired her remark with footage of McConaughey speaking at a “March for Our Lives” rally from 2018. In that speech, McConaughey stated, “Let’s ban the assault weapons for civilians. This is a no-brainer. And to my friends out there that are responsible owners of these recreational assault weapons that they use for recreation, please let’s just take one for the team and set it down.”
Ah, the typical argument for an assault weapons ban that the left loves to use. Reason.com wrote that there is “no agreed upon definition of an assault weapon.” As proof that an assault weapons ban is dumb, the outlet cited how the ‘94 U.S. “assault weapons ban” banned one rifle based on its cosmetic attachments, while another gun – with different cosmetics but the same functionality – wasn’t banned. Any “assault weapons” ban would be confusing and end up targeting common weapons that are responsible for the least amount of gun-related crimes in the country.
Unless McConaughey was referencing handguns, when he meant “assault weapons,” then he’s wrong. For example, handguns were used in 17 times the number of homicides than rifles did in 2017. Then again, maybe he meant handguns, but then our point is, why be so vague with the terms? It’s confusing for everyone.
At the speech McConaughey also added, “Let’s better regulate the background checks that are already in place and close the loopholes that exist in those background checks.” Though what are those loopholes in background checks? Does that simply refer to background checks that aren’t enforced? In that case, that’s called an illegal gun sale, not a loophole.
In a statement provided to NewsBusters, Loesch summed up McConaughey’s misguided stance on guns: “Any call for a ban on ‘assault weapons’ is nothing more than a call to ban the most commonly-owned semi-auto rifles responsible for the least amount of crimes. As far as loopholes, it’s just common sense to accurately state the law as is. If someone is a prohibited possessor and they carry a gun, that’s not a ‘loophole,’ it’s a criminal act.”
Of course Loesch knows the stats and McConaughey does not. If he wants to govern the Lone Star state, he’s got a lot to learn.