1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Two Observations: "Slippery Slope" and "rKba"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by holdencm9, Jan 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. holdencm9

    holdencm9 Member

    Oct 25, 2011
    I just wanted to share two things I have noticed lately, as I read this message board and a slew of other websites' comment sections. These include Yahoo, MSN, and Slate comments that usually range from very anti-gun to extremely anti-gun.

    The first is the slippery slope argument. I often hear that the slippery slope argument is not valid because you can use it against anything. The slippery slope argument should not be considered and we should judge any proposed gun-control legislation on its own merits. They try to suck pro-gun individuals into concessions by saying "no one is coming to take your hunting rifles and guns for self-defense, but no one legitimately needs assault rifles" (notice how they are trying to define the terms of the argument as well). But the simple fact is, we have seen the slippery slope in action. First was NFA in the 1930's, then GCA in 1968. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the restrictions put in place, they illustrate that laws build upon one another. Another example of the slippery slope is the first AWB, followed by the proposed new AWB. The new AWB is extremely restrictive, even beyond what most of us ever expected. We often say that the last AWB was ineffective, why try again? But sometimes that works against us because the anti-gun mindset (if they even agree that it was ineffective in the first place) is that it was ineffective because it wasn't restrictive enough. So the inevitable next step is to make it more extreme. That is the slippery slope in action, folks. And if this new AWB were to pass, it is only a matter of time before revolvers and bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns are restricted/banned too.

    The second thing is that we need to remember the "K" in RKBA. I have probably seen this about a dozen times, someone write in comments that they are pro-2a and all for hunting and recreational shooting, but there is no reason to have guns in the home, especially the evil assault rifles. They should be locked up at the range. This is the classic bait-n-switch tactic. They make it seem like they are so sensible and middle-of-the road, and propose some random restriction...and a lot of fence-sitters might see this as a "reasonable" measure, especially since no one chimes in to refute the idea. Let's remember the 2nd Amendment says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To me, if something is locked up at the range 20 miles away, that is hardly "keeping" it, much less the logistical nightmare of THOUSANDS of guns being stored at a handful of ranges around town make that idea just dumb.

    Anyway, we often hear people say (and I am probably guilty too) that we have the right to bear arms. This is true. We also have the right to keep them, and I interpret that to be in the home.

    I am sure to some of you, this is probably preaching to the choir (and you want 5 minutes of your life back!) but I just thought I'd share these observations and get feedback. And you can point out these logical fallacies in debates you may encounter online, or elsewhere. I already know the pros and cons of debating antis online, but just remember: your words may not change the mind of the person you are debating, but for every person that posts a comment, there are 10 that read them and never post comments, and some of THOSE people may be affected, so stay logical and respectful. Take care folks.
  2. mokin

    mokin Member

    Jan 13, 2007
    Western Colorado
    Well said.
  3. Grassman

    Grassman Member

    Nov 25, 2008
    A complete disarmament of the people does not happen over night, it's a slow and methodical process.
  4. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Dec 17, 2012
    Very true, and all excellent points, especially the part about them defining the argument. When we let them do that, then we have lost. The terms of the 2nd Amendment argument were defined by the founders, there is no need to redefine them. "Keep" means just that, to keep, with you, in your control.

    Anti's especially like to use the "weapons of war" phrase to discount the "need" for such a "mean, nasty, offensive weapon" for civilian use. For many troops, the M4 carbine, upon which the AR-15 is made to somewhat resemble, is actually a personal defense weapon when in a combat zone. Of course it can be used offensively as well, just like any weapon can be, but the anti's argue that it has no defensive use. Not true, but they like to reframe the situation. We must call them out when we can.
  5. JERRY

    JERRY Member

    Jun 5, 2003
    incrementalism slow boils the frog.

    the more infringement on the RKBA the steeper the slippery slope gets.
  6. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Jun 18, 2011
    Slippery slope is real. It's the story of slowly building a fence around the spot where they feed the wild pigs.

    The antis have no reason to stop with what they like to call "reasonable restrictions." What they want is a complete ban of firearms, and they have learned that by creating itty-bitty reasonable restrictions one or two at a time they can gradually get closer and closer to that. Each little tax and each little regulation is nothing more than a step on a descending staircase that ends in absolute disarmament. Disarmament is the only way they can assure all-out control over the masses. All-out control is the antis' goal.

    Ironically, they've been duped. They don't realize that once the guns are gone from civilian hands, the government will be able to sweep in and take whatever else they want to take. That is the bottomless pit at the base of the slippery slope.
  7. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Jun 18, 2010
    We need to make sure that after these bills are done with (either way) we need to continue to be active and protecting our Rights and Freedoms. Even if we stop all the Bills cold (there are multiple) we can't just go back to merry way.

    We need to follow through and support the politicians that stand up for us or find an opponent of theirs to support if they don't stand up for us. And to continue donating to pro-gun organizations that are our front lines.

    We can't be blind sided by any more of this gun control crap every time some nut gets trigger happy.
  8. chucknbach

    chucknbach Member

    Apr 8, 2012
    Be sure to use the full anti name, AntiAmerican. The slippery slope doesn't end at the 2nd. At the bottom of the 2nd starts the landslide.
  9. mastiffhound

    mastiffhound Member

    Jun 6, 2011
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
    Gerald R. Ford

    Well the free cell phones, free money, foodstamp cards, section 8 housing are all examples of buying votes by giving things away. You don't have to work for any of these things at all. You just have to fill out some paperwork and it's yours.

    Now that they have given enough people what they wanted, they are going to tell you for the greater good we are now going to take just a few things that you have, well maybe a little more. Then a little more. Then whatever you have left.

    I think a slippery slope works just fine for an analogy. They won't throw us off the cliff, the people at the back of the line wouldn't stand for it when they hear the screams of the plummeting people. Most on the other hand will gladly line up for a fun sled ride down the hill. What they won't realize is at the end of the fun ride is a bottomless pit of despair.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  10. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Member

    Jan 6, 2011
    Hastings, Michigan
    Mastiff, a slight correction to your Jefferson quote. President Gerald Ford should be attributed to that quote.
    Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
    Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)
    Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
    "If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193"
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page