truedetective-105b1

“What interests me is how quickly it got pushed into the social consciousness. We were all fine with it since the 1930s, and all of a sudden we go, ‘No, gotta change it’? It seems like when the first levee breaks, everybody gets on board. I know a lot of Native Americans don’t have a problem with it, but they’re not going to say, ‘No, we really want the name.’ That’s not how they’re going to use their pulpit. It’s like my feeling about gun control: ‘I get it. You have the right to have guns. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places.'” – Matthew McConaughey quoted in Matthew McConaughey Wusses Out on Gun Rights and Redskins Name [via newsbusters.org]

92 Responses to Quote of the Day: Matthew McConaughey on Redskins and Gun Control

  1. “What interests me is how quickly it got pushed into the social consciousness. We were all fine with it since the 1776s, and all of a sudden we go, ‘No, gotta change it’? It seems like when the first levee breaks, everybody gets on board.”

    Funny how the same defense works for both issues. Leave Holly Weird out of it, those people are so disconnected from the real world that there’s no coming back. If I want to know about Actors’ rights or how to audition for a role, I’ll ask Matthew McConaughey. When I want an answer on gun rights, I will ask a gun rights advocate from any number of pro-2A gun rights advocacy groups. When I want to know if Native Americans are angry about a football team’s name, I’ll ask a Native American.

    SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. PERIOD.

  2. Maybe he’s just mad because he’s had to “forget his right” to keep and bear arms based on his documented history of drug use. I’m sure that puts him on a prohibited persons list somewhere…

  3. Considering he’s just another Hollywood hypocrite.
    Who has made his living using guns in movies.
    He should stick to what he knows.
    Running around in a dress for a living, and keep his opinions to himself.

  4. Lets just forget about all the rights we don’t like. There are too many people abusing their right to free speech so lets not let anyone talk other than state sanctioned media sources. It’s for the good of us all comrades.

  5. One could read that statement as either supporting or detracting, it’s more muddled than a properly executed mojito.

    Read it in the right tone and inflection? It honestly looks more pro-gun than anti.

    • Here’s the quote ” ‘I get it. You have the right to have guns. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places.'”. What part of that can be interpreted as pro-gun?

      • IF he’s poking at the gun-control crowd jumping on the gun-control bandwagon, then MAYBE 16V could be correct.

        But Matthew certainly didn’t make it easy to clearly understand what the hell he’s talking about…

      • I agree with 16V that the quote is vague in as pro or against 2A. I would like to see the complete interview to decide one way or another. Too many times we have see partial quotes from someone that portrait something completely different from its original intent. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I can hear the complete unedited interview.

      • I had the same reaction. This is a Rorschach test of a statement, and actually kind of brilliant. He didn’t say he was for or against the Redskins name, or gun control. But people could read it either way, depending on how they feel, so he escapes a loaded question without taking a side.

      • @ 16V

        Yep.

        When I read it, it sounded like sarcasm. Then I noticed at the bottom that the original article was titled “Matthew M. wusses out on gun control.”

        That confused me. I thought he was saying there is nothing wrong with the name Redskins (1st amendment right), just like there’s nothing wrong with using a firearm safely on your range (2nd amendment right), BUT (and here’s the sarcasm) everybody’s on a bandwagon, so why not just ditch all our rights?

        … so that’s why it sounded to me like a pro-1+2 amendment quote.

        BUT hell, since we all hate his quote, I guess he’s just a left coast idiot that spent too much time in Austin, TX, right? (… that was sarcasm. That last sentence.)

      • Sorry to be late, busier day than I thought…

        Notice how the quote starts, “I find it interesting…” this is how most folks would start one of those comments where they kick stuff around in the hypothetical. Regardless of their personal belief.

        The whole quote (as we see it anyhow) is a very detached almost 3rd person kind of analysis. He’s putting out the argument that some have, without actually claiming it as his own, or stating a contrary position.

        Try this on for size –

        “I remember when I was in HS in the early 80s and every kid had a rifle and/or shotty in the truck/car. They were all loaded, and generally the windows were rolled down and the doors unlocked. Nobody thought anything odd about it. Now, because of a few well publicized school shootings, we believe that chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun is an indicator of violence.”

        Personally, I feel the same way Stewie Griffin does about Mr. McConaughey’s ‘acting talent’. But I can’t find anything in his quote that defines him as anti-gun. Slippery enough to deal with Holly-weasels? Yup. Anti-gun? Nothing in this interview proves that.

      • “I was giving incoherent statements with random analogies way before I was getting payed to.” The fact that Mcdouchebag is on the anti-gun bandwagon feels me with hope for the future of gun rights.

    • That is precisely the problem. Actors like politicians talking out of the left and right side of their mouths. Attempting to please all while accomplishing exactly the opposite. Better to seem an idiot via silence than to run one’s blowhole and remove any doubt……that however is too high an expectation.

    • It’s like my feeling about gun control: “I get it. You have the right to have guns. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places.”

      The quotation marks indicate McConaughey is quoting gun control advocates, and the context bears this out. Just before, he says (inelegantly) that there are many Indians who are fine with the Redskins name, but are shamed out of speaking out in favor of it, and also that “activists” just jump on any trendy bandwagon that rolls up to their door, even if the logic doesn’t hold up. By referring to “pleasure” and safety, I get the feeling he understands guns. I’m giving him the benefit of a doubt. His Oscar “controversy” shows he is fine being on the “wrong” side of issues.

      • I think Rockurota has it figured out. Why would M McC even introduce gun control to reinforce his stance on the Redskins issue unless he was pro-gun? He’s raising a second ridiculous argument (the argument of the gun control crowd) to illustrate a first ridiculous argument.

        The article needs a colon and a single quote mark after he says “Look, I get it,” because everything that follows is him quoting the illogical position of someone with whom he disagrees.

      • I was wondering how many comments I was going to have to scroll through till I found someone who didn’t go all knee-jerk and actually paid attention to what he said. Thanks Rokurota, you saved my mouse wheel.

    • Yeah, I’m with you, 16v. Generally, only the most out-of-control gun-grabber (think DiFi) will actually come right out and say “it’s your right, but we want to take that right away.” I mean, they at least want to say either that “you really don’t have such a ‘right’, the 2A has been misinterpreted” or that “we really don’t want to take away your right, we just want reasonable parameters on it”. Without more context, the quote has a whiff of reductio ad absurdum to me.

    • It is a hard read on his stance. To me it sounds like it’s dripping with sarcasm as well; however sarcasm does not translate that well to written media.

      Hard to tell. I would want more evidence of his stance before I made my mind up; however I was never one to care what a celebrity thinks, most of them are full of shit or just flat out insane outside of their movies.

    • Absolutely, I think he was being a bit sarcastic and it was a jab at the gun control goof balls, hopping on the band wagon.

      I have actually met this man, he is a dyed in the wool Texan… and I have a VERY hard time believing he is anti-gun.

    • You know, I was reading his quote, scratching my head as well.

      If you infer that he is comparing the absurdity of jumping on the anti-Redskins name bandwagon to the absurdity of just “forgetting” about natural rights, then the statement actually transforms into a fairly cogent argument against infringing on the right to keep and bear arms on the premise that guns end up in the hands of criminals: nevermind all of the bona fide reasons to exercise the right, or its unalienable nature, or all of the benefits it provides; let’s forget about the right because some small minority abuses it. Such an argument is absurd on its face – just as the faux outrage over the name of a football team is absurd on its face.

  6. People’s fundamental misunderstanding of what a “right” means in the Constitution and why they are important is really startling and depressing. How something so positive, so unique, and so historically challenging to achieve could fall into such disrepair in the social consciousness is deeply saddening.

    • I talk to “furiners” often and am often struck by their idea of rights. Without exception they are always rights with exceptions. From the YouTube commenter who cheered us on our gun rights and declared that Cliven Bundy should have been put in prison for voicing his opinion on black Americans. In the same comment. Or the guy from the UK who insisted that they enjoy exactly the same free speech and that the constant subversive censorship by the government was a “reasonable” concession for the sake of safety. Safety from that horrible thing called knowledge.

  7. Odd. I pick up sarcasm in the quote. It comes across to me like this:

    The Redskins name was fine for decades but it became popular to think it’s wrong all of a sudden, Like gun rights. Guns are a right. They are fun but because someone may do something horrible it has become popular to hate guns.

    Maybe I read it wrong.

    • He has made it much clearer many times in many interviews, he is for anything that can be described as gun control, against private ownership of any guns whatsoever. In that light, I am pretty sure how to decipher this muddle of a statement.

    • This was originally brought to my attention by some anti-gun coworkers. They read it and and felt the sarcasm and saw it as pro gun. Sort of mocking them by saying it’s all of a sudden to ignore a right that we had no problem with for a very long time. Same as the redskin name was fine until it was fashionable to be against it.
      I looked around and found no other quotes by him regarding gun control.

  8. I think y’all are misreading his quote. He is being sarcastic/mocking saying that’s how gun control people/bandwagoneers think.

    At least that is how I am reading it.

    • That’s also how I read it… mainly when you take the whole quote and not just a part.
      I’m amazed to read some comment here. I mean: seriously? C’mon guys, be smarter than that!

  9. I think that this is a statement that did not translate well into the written word. With the right inflection, it is pro-2a, and I think (as does the press) that is how he meant it.

  10. What is the obsession with with what celebrities think or say? Shame on TTAG for even quoting these people. Nearly all celebs have a conflict of interest, they serve a master who wants the public disarmed. Here’s a good article, along a somewhat different vein, but has some similiarity.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805638/Defiant-Fox-News-host-former-Victoria-s-Secret-model-defends-claim-hot-young-women-NOT-vote-allowed-juries-don-t-it.html

    • Celebrities hold power over public opinion. It’s important to know what sorts of ideas they’re pushing into the public eye because a lot of people believe and follow whatever his/her favorite actor says. If you want to know how to defend your own opinion and inspire others to feel similarly you need to know the “other’s” opinion and where it might be coming from

      • True Brando, but there is no doubt where celebs views stand. A least the vast majority who enjoy their position. They do their masters bidding, so it is more important to realize this than to get into the individual cells known as celebs who regurgitate their masters wishes.

    • I don’t recall his stance before this article and that’s all I can find on google right now. I could be wrong, but I think HandfulofSounds is right. I think he is speaking from a perspective of an Anti-gunner, but not necessarily his own point of view. It’s hard to tell outside of knowing his stance before the article.

    • If you really do know him, would you mind telling him how much we appreciate ANY sign of a pop culture figure being pro gun. From my perspective its not idolatry, but a chance at someone in a place of great exposure to help our cause. I feel like with his superstar status it wouldn’t really hurt his career at all if he did anything like that.

    • Yeah… apparently some people here have hard time to read and understand sarcasm!

      As soon they read “forget that right”, they don’t even keep reading and try to understand the point if making here mocking the anti-gun. Some people over here should calm down before to jump to conclusion.

  11. Sounds like a page right out of Obama’s play book to me.

    “But look, let’s forget that right.” is just a plain stupid thing to say. Those rights are just the thing that keeps us free. He should hope you guys in Texas are watching out for him. Cause I’m not sure I would anymore.

    Just like Bloomberg has armed guards, I wonder if they would protect that idiots life with their own. I’m not sure I would.

    Most of the mass killer crazies are anti-gun liberals, that vote for the anti-gun ticket, regardless of the damage to the country. Perhaps the Darwin awards will take care of them for us, but I think we are sliding backwards. Our challenge is not let them take us with them.

    Just watched another great movie about what it takes to be free. “All for Liberty” with Henry Felder in 1775 writing the Articles of Separation and his fight against the Imperialist Government and the Tories. I can only hope to emulate them when the time comes and push comes to shove!

  12. Oh, we’re just forgetting inconvenient rights now, are we? Well, at least that’s more expeditious than Obama’s means. He still employs a pen and a phone in order to carve up the Constitution.

  13. It sounds like he’s admitting his opinion on gun control is fickle and should be ignored if I read that right. Maybe he didn’t speak it right?

    • Some Hollywood actors have already publicly spoken about being pro-gun and have no problem getting work. They are in the minority but facts are still nice to work with.

    • Google for them.

      Clint Eastwood, Brad Pitt (he built a private range for Angelina as a wedding gift even), Joe Mantenga, DeNiro, and quite a few others are pro-2A, and still get work. Now, grant it, a lot of those actors are older, i.e. they made their money and don’t give a rat’s ass about what people think, but even younger pro-2A actors still get work. They might not be top earners but they still make bank compared to the average American. I’d rather make a million dollars a year and stick to my guns (figuratively and literally) than make 20 million and sell out. As a matter of fact, give me a million dollars and I’ll turn it into 20 million without compromising any of my core beliefs.

      • Hey pod DeNiro is only pro gun for himself. Pistol permit. He is a very left democrat who love him some odumbo. A gun for me but not for thee…

  14. Get high and say stupid s##t. A quick internet search reveals NOBODY knows what he means. To ME it sounds like “I support the 2A BUT”. Whatever…not a big fan of an actor with extremely limited range.

  15. What if I said, “I get it. You have the right to worship your God. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the solace/comfort you get safely in your church, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places.”

    McC is not a bright one.

  16. I read that as him basically mocking how the antis think. Kinda hard to interpret through a written quote though.

  17. I believe he could have stated this more clearly, but I see this as a pro-gun rights statement. Look at the statement in its entirety, and not just the portion dealing with gun control. He is critical of the people pushing to force the Redskins to change their name, and says that their argument is as illogical as the argument that we should ban guns because some people in some places use them improperly. He is arguing that the 2nd Amendment has worked since it was written, and we shouldn’t change it now because of a specific, but isolated incident.

    • It’s crazy to read comments here and to see how people don’t get sarcasm… I don’t know the guy, I don’t even really watch any of his movies or so… but it’s not hard to read the whole sarcasm in this speech, mocking the anti-guns that often say: “I get it. You have the right to have guns. But let’s forget this right”.

      What’s more important is what’s before and after this part of the speech. Showing how crazy it would just be to “give up” a right, just because it could happen to “be in the wrong hands”.

      To me, it’s definitely a pro-gun speech, saying he doesn’t want any change (such changing Redskins name, or changing the right of guns).

      But I speak sarcasm pretty fluently…

  18. I’m confused. Is he saying that he supports the name and gun rights by wondering how we were fine with “Redskins” and guns everywhere back then, but all of a sudden we’re not any more? Or is he saying that it’s amazing that we used to be okay without until we saw the “light” and now we’re pushing to change it?

  19. How’s about this. Since the media and pro sports are mostly actively anti gun we don’t support either. Unplug your tv. Buy used dvd’s so that the anti gun types see no benefit from them. It’s what I do.

    As for pro sports. I work for a living. Why should I pay my hard earned money to watch a millionaire play a game?

  20. I often wonder why anyone really cares what actors think or say ? What makes their opinions better or worse than anyone else’s ?

  21. Sure tricked me. Sounded like he was about to make the same argument for guns he dthe id for the Redskins… since it’s the same argument. Psych!

  22. Not a fan of his, but I don’t think it sounded anti at all, rather, it seemed steeped in sarcasm by explaining how one dumb argument is similar to another dumb argument. Don’t know what his stance is, but reading it thru, the context was meant more to be “hey idiot, don’t hop on the bandwagon for this one just like how the other idiots are hopping on the bandwagon for another issue as stupid as this is.”

  23. I hope Buick is targeting liberal anti-gunners with their McConaughay campaing because that the only folks they are goint to get if this keeps up.

  24. always thought he was PRO-gun… hm… sure that wasn’t a mistake by the ‘reporter’ who didn’t quite ‘get’ his rhetorical conversational style??

    who knows. either way. if true, disappointing. but long figured ‘celebs’ aren’t good for any political discourse, so would watch if ‘free’ on cable, but certainly not gonna go outta my way to pay for any of their work.

    besides, the likes of Jeremy Renner is a weird one. the idiot’s supposedly ‘pro-gun,’ was trained by James Yeager at Tactical Response for his Hurt Locker role, and supposedly still remain good friends with Jim, yet, the fucker goes and makes that moronic, knee-jerk emotive Bloompansyfuckberg’s “Demand a Plan” bullshit nonsense.

    never looked to Hollyweird for pro-gun champions, but, considering all aspects of politics involve ‘image-business’ at one level or another, it’d be still nice, nevertheless, to have an actual, unabashed PRE-constitutional universal human Natural Right of Self-Defense-aware, actor/actress, who really, really understands guns, from the NON-statist, natural rights/individual liberty/private-property perspective, where they’d be comfortable answering any ‘ambush’-celeb-whore-media asking them politically opportune push-poll-type questions, with an articulate principled narrative-rebuttal, whenever they’re asked about guns.

    But, of course, that’s probably ‘asking’ too much.

  25. Pretty sure he was being ironic there. Not very WELL, mind you. But the message as I see it… “Look at the all the sheep jumping on the bandwagon about the Redskins’ name. Nevermind it was fine for the last 80 years, now THIS year is when it became offensive, right? And guns. Nevermind the fact it’s a constitutionally-protected right, but now because 12 Monsanto Moms said we should just take them away, right?”

    Still. Not eloquent, not even clear what he’s trying to say.

    • It is eloquent… but it is also sarcasm.

      For exemple it would be the same as saying:

      “I know, we never jump from a plane without parachute. But apparently a group of people think parachutes aren’t any good for the planet. So yeah, I get it. You have a right to have a parachute. But let’s forget about that right. Let’s jump from a plane without parachute. And let’s see if it will be better for the planet”

      Would it mean he does believe in jumping without parachute? Of course not..

      I know, it’s not the best analogy but it’s a silly argument against silly persons that suddenly want to change a name or remove the gun right. That’s the whole point there.

  26. None of this is complicated these are our rights and it is the law, so if you have a problem with it you need to move some place that will suit your line of thinking…….don’t try to change us we’re happy…..idea, move to France.

  27. “But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places”

    Astounding logic /rolls eyes/

    So just because criminals abuse the 4th amendment to hide a person they kidnapped or murdered, that we should forget having the right to “unreasonable search and seizure” because aforementioned criminals are wrongly using it? For the public good?

    jesus christ on a banana tree, i hate celebrities.

  28. am i the only one on here that understands sarcasm, he is not saying lets get rid of the second amendment he’s using it as a comparison to the redskins and how dumb it is to jump on the liberal band wagon just because its the in thing to do . this is definitely pro gun comment you should go back and read his comment as though you are just hearing it for the first time and not jump to conclusion based on what someone else tells you he means.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *