The McConaughey Appeal
I missed the live performance, but people told me I needed to hear Matthew out. I did, and what follows is the result.
I did not see Matthew McConaughey’s speech, but I read the transcript because people are telling me his position was logical and should be considered – so I considered it, and I did so without bias hoping to find something revelatory and workable.
Here’s my “Reader’s Digest” version of what Matthew said, I broke it up into five components:
The setup
The emotional appeal
The false dichotomy
The proposal
The humble close
The setup:
Something is different this time. “We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before, a window where it seems like real change -- real change can happen.”
The parties “seem to at least be committed to sitting down and having a real conversation about a new and improved path forward”.
We need “to remind and inspire them that the American people will continue to drive forward the mission of keeping our children safe, because it's more than our right to do so, it's our responsibility to do so.”
The heart wrenching emotional appeal (which I believe to be sincere):
He was taught how to use a gun in Uvalde.
Children dying young at the hands of a criminal is sad and useless.
The people of Uvalde are heartbroken and “humble, hardworking people”.
The bodies of the kids were so mutilated by the .223 rounds, DNA identification was required.
Counselors are needed.
The parents “want to make their loss of life matter.”
The false dichotomy:
None of the people they talked to wanted to “give up their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
They do “want secure and safe schools, and we want gun laws that won't make it so easy for the bad guys to get these damn guns.”
“These regulations are not a step back; they’re a step forward for a civil society and -- and the Second Amendment.”
The proposal of the obvious:
“We need to invest in mental healthcare. We need safer schools. We need to restrain sensationalized media coverage. We need to restore our family values. We need to restore our American values. And we need responsible gun ownership -- responsible gun ownership.”
“We need background checks. We need to raise the minimum age to purchase an AR-15 rifle to 21. We need a waiting period for those rifles. We need red-flag laws and consequences for those who abuse them.”
The “Aw, shucks” humble close:
“Responsible gun owners are fed up with the Second Amendment being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals.”
“Look, is this a cure-all? Hell no.”
But “Enough with the counterpunching.”
First, let me state that I believe McConaughey is completely sincere and forthright in his positions, most of which reasonable people would find hard with which to disagree. It is a well-constructed persuasive speech (a type of speech, not necessarily meaning widely agreed with), so kudos go to whomever wrote it. If Matthew wrote it, he is a deeper thinker than I assumed – but he is an Oscar winning actor, so his ability to persuade is pretty much a career requirement.
But the whole “something has changed” beginning is an opinion, not a fact. I doubt anything has changed with the left’s unspoken desire (unless you are Beto O’Rourke) to completely erase private ownership of firearms and the Second Amendment. And while the right has accepted restrictions of all kinds since the National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968 and Biden’s self-vaunted “assault weapons” ban, the left has never wavered in their absolute objective to overturn the Second Amendment. The obvious concern with this situation is the same as every aspect of the left – give them an inch and they swing for the fences.
The emotional appeal segment is truly heart wrenching – how could it not be? Innocent children and their protector, the teacher, were brutally murdered and nobody came to save them.
The weakest part of the speech is the false dichotomy of “nobody WANTS to infringe on the Second Amendment but to have safe and secure schools, we must”. That’s simply not true.
His proposals are an amalgamation of facts, assumptions, and non sequitur. Who can argue with more investments in mental healthcare, safer schools, reducing sensationalized media coverage, restoring family or American values?
Those are things with which nobody disagrees, the argument is always over the "how".
Where he gets of the rails is the litany of proposed actions that would not prevent mass shootings. The first is a non sequitur. He says “we need responsible gun ownership” – well, it hasn’t been responsible, law-abiding gun owners committing these crimes. In the Uvalde situation, there were background checks. I understand the desire to raise the age to 21, but most school shooters steal weapons rather than buy them, so it doesn’t matter what age they are. Red flag laws are invitations for abuse and likely unconstitutional.
In the end, these proposals will only affect people who already obey the law.
The “Aw, shucks” close is simply McConaughey saying, “Please give up and agree with me, even though I’m not sure my proposals will actually work, because I’m from Uvalde, I’m a famous, beloved personality and gosh, you like me.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything new here other than talking points delivered by a successful, great looking actor dude from Texas (who is protected by private security when necessary).
This McConaughey shtick is so much hooey. I think in his mind he is likely sincere but he hasn't thought through/past his emotions. The Red Flag Laws, Background Checks wouldn't have made any difference in the Uvalde school shooting... the shooter was already on the FBI's ( who are too busy with frogmarching Peter Navarro and going after domestic terrorists like parents and Trump supporters) radar to actually do anything useful. Those things cited by McConaughey are the Left's dream list to keep lists of American citizen's with registered guns and be able to continue to ignore the overwhelming number of shootings/murders committed by gangbangers, criminals whose weapons of choice are anything unregistered and untraceable. Secondly, he, and the rest of the madding crowd were all gung ho about 40 Billion $$$ worth of javelins, stingers, Howitzers, weapons, ammo, HIMARs going to Ukrainian Nazis... a heck of a lot of security and metal detectors could be purchased for American schools for 40 Billion$, a far better and effective preventative than a useless background check!
Every classroom could be made safe, for example. Schools could have electronic locking doors in the event of any disturbance which shut down the school in sections. Shooters could be isolated and known where they are instantly. Taking a gun away from a law abiding person will NEVER have any effect on these shootings. Shooters are NOT LAW ABIDING.