Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

A slippery slope

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A slippery slope

    People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

    We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

    My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I

    Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

  • #2
    Guns are the great equalizer. I love them. Guns are why grandma can live alone and young college girls can take night classes across the campus. Know guns, know peace. No guns, no peace.

    Comment


    • GTRMAN
      GTRMAN commented
      Editing a comment

      Hoppy Shimko wrote:
      Guns are the great equalizer. I love them. Guns are why grandma can live alone and young college girls can take night classes across the campus. Know guns, know peace. No guns, no peace.

      Guns are merely a tool. Their effectiveness depends entirely on the person wielding them.


  • #3

    GTRMAN wrote:

    People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

    We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

    My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


    No,I just think some Gun owners are just plain Paranoid to the point they should not own guns.

     

    The fears are Not justified and the NRA type of thinking is insane IMO.

    Comment


    • GTRMAN
      GTRMAN commented
      Editing a comment

      Well we can see you are not only capable, but also willing to stereotype a very large segment of our society based you your subjective viewpoint. The word "prejudice"comes to mind. And that kind of mindset will not lead to productive dialogue.


    • GTRMAN
      GTRMAN commented
      Editing a comment

      Well we can see you are not only capable, but also willing to stereotype a very large segment of our society based you your subjective viewpoint. The word "prejudice"comes to mind. And that kind of mindset will not lead to productive dialogue.


      buckethead99 wrote:

      GTRMAN wrote:

      People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

      We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

      My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


      No,I just think some Gun owners are just plain Paranoid to the point they should not own guns.

       

      The fears are Not justified and the NRA type of thinking is insane IMO.


       


    • quickie1
      quickie1 commented
      Editing a comment

      buckethead99 wrote:

      GTRMAN wrote:

      People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

      We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

      My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


      No,I just think some Gun owners are just plain Paranoid to the point they should not own guns.

       

      The fears are Not justified and the NRA type of thinking is insane IMO.


      Exactly....but try telling that to them.


  • #4

    GTRMAN wrote:

    People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

    We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

    My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


    Legislative creep does seem to be the preferred method of protecting us from ourselves these days. Pass some minor legislation as a foothold and use its leverage to shift ever the center ever so slightly, leaving the electorate more agreeable for the next push. Seems disturbingly effective.




    While she's talking, I'll use my mind to think of other things. She can't stop my mind!

    Comment


    • #5

      GTRMAN wrote:

      People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

      We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

      My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


      Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun nuts who use the slippery slope argument to avoid discussion of gun control and oppose legislation before it's even been written or proposed.  And they're making responsible gun owners look bad.

      Comment


      • rbstern
        rbstern commented
        Editing a comment

        mdwagner73 wrote:

        Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun nuts who use the slippery slope argument to avoid discussion of gun control and oppose legislation before it's even been written or proposed.  And they're making responsible gun owners look bad.



        Unfortunatley, there isn't a great deal of rationality in the legislative process, so the avoidance mechanism is not an unreasonable response.

        A detailed review of the NFA of 1934, the GCA or 1968, plus the follow on acts and code, reveals a messy, irrational series of regulations that tend to punish honest, law abiding people, rather than aid in preventing criminal use of guns.  The enforcement for the past 80 years has also generally been aimed at the law-abiding.  Federal firearms laws are far more likely to put an honest citizen, guilty of nothing more than a minor tax or clerical error, in prison, than the guy who buys a gun in an alley from an illegal trafficker.

        You get bitten by enough dogs, you start to treat every dog as a villain.


      • GTRMAN
        GTRMAN commented
        Editing a comment

        Correct. Both sides have become very polarized and adversarial.


        mdwagner73 wrote:

        GTRMAN wrote:

        People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

        We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

        My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


        Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun nuts who use the slippery slope argument to avoid discussion of gun control and oppose legislation before it's even been written or proposed.  And they're making responsible gun owners look bad.


         


    • #6

      GTRMAN wrote:

      People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

      We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

      My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I



      Maybe you should find someone who actually believes that all firearms should be banned and take it up with them.

      Good luck with that.

      In the meantime, I see people in the UK with umbrellas all the time and I call bull**************** on your slippery slope argument.

      x

      Comment


      • GTRMAN
        GTRMAN commented
        Editing a comment

        People in the UK have been convicted for carrying a kubotan. Which is no more than a stick about 5 inches long and about an inch thick.


        slodge wrote:

        GTRMAN wrote:

        People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

        We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

        My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I



        Maybe you should find someone who actually believes that all firearms should be banned and take it up with them.

        Good luck with that.

        In the meantime, I see people in the UK with umbrellas all the time and I call bull**************** on your slippery slope argument.


         


    • #7
      Timkeys: True...but I believe the people have gotten used to using the law to carry out personal political agendas.

      Comment


      • TIMKEYS
        TIMKEYS commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Timkeys: True...but I believe the people have gotten used to using the law to carry out personal political agendas.

        The big gun problem is in big blue democrat cities that are filled with criminals who get guns through illegal means.   Liberals have no interest in you being able to protect yourself from this element of their voter base.  


    • #8

      In 1789 there was the simple musket, four shots in one minute. Today there is anything you can dream of. Sixty shots in one minute is nothing. Yep, what a slippery slope our gun development has been! Our laws have not kept pace.

      "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=4715

      Comment


      • #9

        GTRMAN wrote:

        People who believe firearms should be banned often call Gun-owners paranoid when we bring up the slippery slope argument in discussions of gun control. However, there is very good reason for us to be cautious. It is not uncommon or unheard of for governments to use modifications in the law or public policy to make headway for even greater control. There are many examples through history. When seatbelt legislation was initially passed here in MD, it could only be accomplished if the violation was made a secondary offense. Once that passed, it only took one more year to pass legislation to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense.

        We often use the UK as an example of gun control policy gone awry. In the UK, the government makes carrying just about anything which could be used as a weapon illegal. That even includes something as innocuous as small sticks.

        My pointis that gun - owners' fears in these matters are justified. That is why I think discretion should be used inpassing legislation.I


        Let's just regulate all guns in a similar way to Class III NFA firearms. That would solve a lot of our violence problems.


        TWO TERMS BITCHES! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        Comment


        • rbstern
          rbstern commented
          Editing a comment

          willhaven wrote:

          Let's just regulate all guns in a similar way to Class III NFA firearms. That would solve a lot of our violence problems.



          All it takes is a stack of papers, a $200 transfer fee, fingerprinting, background check, chief LEO signoff, and six months for the ATF to get to your applicaton.

          But that $125 squirrel rifle will be yours!



      Working...
      X