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.
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.
