The slippery slope argument

I'll preface by stating that I am not advocating ANY gun bans. Anyone who has seen my posts today should see all I am advocating is conversations about the subject.

With that said, I am continually bombarded with the 'slippery slope' argument any time i speak about ANY restrictions whatsoever on guns. I have posed this question to many who use that argument, and have yet to receive an answer, so I thought I would post it as a thread to see if anyone will actually respond:

How many handguns were banned last time we had assault rifle bans? How many door to door seizures took place? How many shotguns were outlawed?

The argument is that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile. Where was that mile, last time assault weapons were banned? Why would you think it would be different this time?

Looking for real, honest answers, from both sides. I want to hear what people think.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


If they start taking some, they will use it as a foothold to start taking more in the future. Warming the frog so to speak.

If they ban the AR's... will they not have to go door to door to round them up?

I know you say that they haven't yet, but I would rather not give them the option to start, either.

Slippery slope you say?

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

If they start taking some, they will use it as a foothold to start taking more in the future. Warming the frog so to speak.

If they ban the AR's... will they not have to go door to door to round them up?

I know you say that they haven't yet, but I would rather not give them the option to start, either.

Slippery slope you say?

So why didnt they do it during the last assault weapon ban? Did the slippery slope not exist 20 years ago?

In fairness, I'll tell you where the inch to a mile came from. It came, at least in my mind, in California. I lived there to see the start of the ban by incremental law. One thing at a time. One bit by bit step. Now? They don't even have a gun BAN list. They have an "approved" list. If your gun isn't specifically APPROVED...it is by default, banned. That is no joke, it's how their system works. You can literally find yourself with the same make, model and caliber as one on the California State list and because the FINISH is different, yours is a criminal offense to own in their state while the other one isn't. It's THAT bad.

All this..started from a school yard shooting in Stockton, California. Another massacre of children and so it begins again. The tyranny over the many by the few and always 'For the children...'.

Well, for the children would have had LESS gun laws, not more. Less to allow teachers at that school to carry a personally permitted and legally owned weapon to put that animal down cold where he stood. I understand he shot up two different groups of children in two different locations. A Classroom and a Bathroom. Okay, he moved between places. Wouldn't that have been nice to see a school employee have put a bullet in his head between spots? Half the kids would have lived and only had to worry about closing their eyes for the half the killer DID get. As it is...He killed all he did.

Well... It is a slippery slope because the Anti-Gun freaks have made it one, once before and in another state they swore it would never happen in. In fact, they also made a gun registry they swore with a straight face would never be used to confiscate weapons. They lied.... outright lied. Now the registry for weapons is absolutely a tool to insure compliance with their laughably draconian gun laws .....while they continue to sport some of the highest crime rates in the Western World. Yeah... Slippery Slopes right into nightmare.

[color=dodgerblue]The FOUNDERS of this great country included an AMENDMENT in our Bill Of Rights that give us citizens the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. PERIOD.

For those who disagree with our FORE-FATHERS WHO FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

TWO CHOICES: SHUT UP, OR LEAVE AS YOU ARE ACTUALLY A TRAITOR ANYWAYS.

Period.

End of discussion.

Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

If they start taking some, they will use it as a foothold to start taking more in the future. Warming the frog so to speak.

If they ban the AR's... will they not have to go door to door to round them up?

I know you say that they haven't yet, but I would rather not give them the option to start, either.

Slippery slope you say?

OP, Why do you keep asking this same question?

Just because the Govt has not gone around en masse rounding up guns in the recent past doesn't mean they can't or won't.

I agree with the quoted poster in that I do not want to give them the option to start.

Plus, I'm not just giving over a constitutional right because you're scared of a crazy guy with a gun...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well stated argument. And I agree with most of what you say. I've lived there. It's a joke. I had to leave most of my guns in Oregon when I did. I hated not having them.

The one counter I would have for that argument, though, is that it is on a state level. I am all for states rights, so its hard for me to say they shouldn't be allowed to do as they see fit.

reply to post by oper8zhin


You're grouping me in sub the wrong crowd bud, I'm a proud gun owner. I never spoke of banning guns. However, the "my way or get out" argument is not going to cut it. You are goingto be forced to have the discussion. You better come up with a better answer than that.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Theoretically, he has the conversation stopper. Whether it is practical or not is a different question, but theoretically it is the ultimate answer, until that amendment is changed..

In my opinion all these threads and all of our posts are a huge waste of time. This is a subject that most of us have already made our mind up about, and those aren't going to change. All we are doing is yelling at each other and trying to say the same thing louder then the opponent. I'm so tired of it already. When it comes down to it, whether we agree or disagree isn't going to change the governments acts. They either are, or they aren't. If they think they can, they will.

reply to post by captaintyinknots
The State's rights argument is an outstanding point too. Aside from the outright ban, which the 2009 heller case made impossible anyway, I suppose this really ought to be a state's rights thing. Who am I to say in Missouri that California SHOULD have the same open gun laws we have here? I don't live there now, so in fairness, I have no place to say that. Nor do they, about me.

If it remains on a state level, It's up to each state and only themselves to blame if it goes too far. That I can't argue. It's taking the California or Illinois attitudes to the national level I can't stomach.

* sorry OP, I hadn't flagged sooner. I'm getting forgetful at times. Your thread does raise an important part of the discussion.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The State's rights argument is an outstanding point too. Aside from the outright ban, which the 2009 heller case made impossible anyway, I suppose this really ought to be a state's rights thing. Who am I to say in Missouri that California SHOULD have the same open gun laws we have here? I don't live there now, so in fairness, I have no place to say that. Nor do they, about me.

If it remains on a state level, It's up to each state and only themselves to blame if it goes too far. That I can't argue. It's taking the California or Illinois attitudes to the national level I can't stomach.

* sorry OP, I hadn't flagged sooner. I'm getting forgetful at times. Your thread does raise an important part of the discussion.

edit on 16-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Thank you. My whole point with this thread is to make the point that there have been weapons bans before-and they DID NOT make a move to ban all weapons. Yet the argument is that if they ban one, they'll eventually ban all. Well history shows differently.