Matthew McConaughey, the actor is from Uvalde, Texas, the most recent mass shooting. As he said in remarks at the White House press briefing:
And that is there that we met two of the grieving parents, Ryan and Jessica Ramirez. Their 10-year-old daughter, Alithia — she was one of the 19 children that were killed the day before.
He also talked about one of the teachers killed:
Because Irma was one of the teachers who was gunned down in the classroom, Joe, her husband, literally died of heartache the very next day when he had a heart attack. They never got to paint the back of the house, they never got to retire, and they never got to get that food truck together.
He is from the area and went with his wife to talk and do what he can for the families after the shooting. He is not merely some Hollywood actor (the "grandstanding" question was from a Newsmax reporter, showing again it would be helpful to know who asks questions) though this isn't the first time Matthew has spoken out about things.
There was some buzz about him running for office. He also probably is hoped to come off as more relatable as a local and gun owner. I think he did a good job, in heartbreaking terms personalizing the people and asking for something to be done. National movements include celebrity voices, especially when there is a firm connection to the issue at hand. Like here.
(His mom even taught children at a local school.)
The usual "I'm not against the Second Amendment" stuff was cited. Yes Loads of gun owners do not oppose the sort of things he cited, which basically [even if some are turned off by a few "both sides" noises mixed in] overlap with what President Biden raised in his recent remarks.
The House of Representatives has already passed key measures we need. Expanding background checks to cover nearly all gun sales, including at gun shows and online sales. Getting rid of the loophole that allows a gun sale to go through after three business days even if the background check has not been completed.
And the House is planning even more action next week. Safe storage requirements. The banning of high-cama- — -capacity magazines. Raising the age to buy an assault weapon to 21. Federal red-flag law. Codifying my ban on ghost guns that don’t have serial numbers and can’t be traced. And tougher laws to prevent gun trafficking and straw purchases.
This time, we have to take the time to do something. And this time, it’s time for the Senate to do something.
But, as we know, in order to do any- — get anything done in the Senate, we need a minimum of 10 Republican senators.
The House of Representatives (Democrats) passed the stuff. A majority in the Senate would pass most of that stuff. Manchin supports background checks and the 21 age. But, the talk is -- it's still open -- that much of this won't be passed. The bottom line is that "something" needs to be done.
A prime likely piece here is red flag laws, which is simply the sort of bare minimum thing that should be done. The basic idea here is that a process is set up where guns can be temporarily seized if certain specific people have evidence the people involved are a special risk. And, then they get a chance to challenge it. It's fine to support that, but it is a limited thing.
A basic thing that is warranted here is to draw a line at 21. There also should be some extended period before you can buy and obtain certain types of guns of mass destruction. Such guns generally shouldn't be easily obtained at all. It is dubious that the average person needs in their possession such weaponry.
But, at the very least, it should be a long process. The idea some 18 year old can quickly, on credit apparently, get such guns is ridiculous. A true honoring of the Second Amendment's "well-regulated" militia warrants careful, trained people here. Remember Rittenhouse, who is still out there trolling us on the usual suspect national media?
Again, there is a too flippant view -- as seen in part in free use of them in campaign advertising -- about guns in this country. The problem here is complex. Another basic issue is the whole stand your ground sort of law. Such laws open up a reckless view of gun use in public.
[Item on Twitter from Wednesday: #SCOTUS spokeswoman confirms that at "approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence. The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh. He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District."]
The ultimate problem is that we have too many guns in this country and are too free in their usage. At some point, that was liable to cause problems, especially in a country with various social problems. As people note, other countries have problems. Europe has had a range of complicated social problems in recent decades. We have a special problem with guns.
It seems hopeless to address the problem to the breadth it deserves for a range of reasons. This includes not "both sides do it," but so much of the blame on one side with that making it oh so hard on the other since it's hard for one side (which is not 100% united) to do anything by itself.
But, that's an old story. The government as a whole needs to act. I do not want merely "something" to be done. "Something" along the edges have been done. A red flag sort of law is that sort of thing. Some are like "it's something." An aspirin might help a bit, but the pain still lingers.
I also fear "something" can be counterproductive. Something is done and we move on. Something is done and the problem continues, and the usual suspects say "well we tried something." Something is done and it provides cover for the usual suspects, who are re-elected, even if they voted against even that little bit. We need to do something more.
Anyway, good job Matthew.