Napalm

Mott the Hoople said:
Agreed. The OP wasn't even arguing anti gun laws. It was merely pointing out that it would be possible to shift public sentiment so that extremist organizations like the NRA are rendered impotent. It's a rational argument on two counts. Public opinion can be shifted in such a maner and the NRA is an extremist organization. They weren't always but something went horribly wrong with the NRA in the late 70's, early 80's.
Click to expand...
you appear to be mentally challenged about two things. 1) the NRA is nowhere near 'extreme' (this is your own hatred and bigotry showing) and 2) who do you think helped engineer that clinton AWB? or the 86 FOPA????
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, that's not what you're advocating. What you are advocating is that the 2nd ammendment is of paramount significance and precedence in our constitution and that all other legal rights are subordinate to the second ammendment, including free speech apparently.

The slippery slope argument about gun laws is a brain dead argument for fanatics, extremist and others not capable of critical thought.
Click to expand...
you are being completely and willfully ignorant of the issue. NOWHERE in here have I EVER done anything but be fanatic about ALL of our rights, not just some. ignoring the slippery slope is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
 
Superfreak said:
Forgive me for thinking you were promoting their ideas.

The thread is about using the images to get the anti gun laws they want.
Click to expand...

I only promote regulation of ammunition and guns sold over the Internet and background checks.

This board has convinced me that anything else is not going to happen. See, in my perfect world there would be no guns, but I realize that is fantasy.
 
Rana said:
I only promote regulation of ammunition and guns sold over the Internet and background checks.

This board has convinced me that anything else is not going to happen. See, in my perfect world there would be no guns, but I realize that is fantasy.
Click to expand...

How would you regulate guns and ammo sold over the internet? Would this apply to all consumer to consumer transactions or just internet based? How could we possibly enforce such laws? Again I fail to see how this is going to stop such events from occurring. It is again blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a coward.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
GHW Bush cancelled his membership because the NRA rightfully criticized the ATFs handling of ruby ridge and WACO, unless you call murdering 80+ men, women, and children as business as usual for the federal government.
Click to expand...

Unless you can prove the feds were wearing Nazi helmets and storm trooper uniforms, you're wrong.

Bush said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's description of federal agents as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms' (and) wanting to `attack law-abiding citizens' is a vicious slander on good people."
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously... look up the term straw man... It doesn't mean what you think it means

We are talking about BANNING certain types of weapons and clips Mutt... that is what the fear mongers are suggesting. That is the side of the argument you are taking. That is a rewrite of the 2nd Amendment. It has to be a rewrite or it is a violation of the 2nd.
Click to expand...
Maybe I jumped into the thread when you were on something more specific than the OP. It is a strawman to misrepresent the OP as being anything other than advocating the use of images to change attitudes about guns and violence. Same goes with using those images to marginalize the extremist attitudes of the NRA. I see nothing wrong at all with changing attitudes costing the NRA it's public support.

As for specific weapons go. Let me ask you this. Where to you draw the line on military weapons? If not assualt rifles then where? Mines? Tanks? Grenade Launchers? Battleships? Nuclear warheads? Where?
 
christiefan915 said:
Unless you can prove the feds were wearing Nazi helmets and storm trooper uniforms, you're wrong.

Bush said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's description of federal agents as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms' (and) wanting to `attack law-abiding citizens' is a vicious slander on good people."
Click to expand...
so tyranny from the government can only come when they wear nazi helmets and uniforms? not when they come machine gunning women and children, driving tanks through walls and crushing the skulls of 8 year olds under their tracks? burning them alive with CS gas that is flammable? hey, at least you let me know when YOU believe we've finally had government tyranny.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
is this why idiots like to claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy? so then can keep implementing laws that will not work?
Click to expand...

Because it is a fallacy and your argument follows the lines of it exactly. Substitute "guns" for "pornography" in example four.

Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

  1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
  2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

  1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
  2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
  3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
  4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography guns. Once they start banning one form of literature firearm, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning banning all the books guns!"
 
SmarterthanYou said:
new regulations on cars to make them 'safer' is not anywhere near an accurate analogy for new laws prohibiting gun possession or magazine capacity because they don't make anyone safer. therefore, a strawman.
Click to expand...

We're not arguing safe v. unsafe. We're arguing whether partial regulation of an item will inevitably lead to a ban of that item.
 
christiefan915 said:
Because it is a fallacy and your argument follows the lines of it exactly. Substitute "guns" for "pornography" in example four.

Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

  1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
  2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

  1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
  2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
  3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
  4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography guns. Once they start banning one form of literature firearm, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning banning all the books guns!"
Click to expand...
that is a seriously twisted viewpoint of declaring it a fallacy. it's really quite simple..you're wrong. end of story. registration leads to confiscation, if it comes true just one time, then the slippery slope exists. case in point, the assault weapons confiscations after the roberti-roos act in cali. I win, you lose. you're wrong, i'm right.
 
christiefan915 said:
We're not arguing safe v. unsafe. We're arguing whether partial regulation of an item will inevitably lead to a ban of that item.
Click to expand...
so a slippery slope can't possibly exist because there's no way of confirming whether idiot libs will continue to pursue more gun bans? that's total horseshit and you know it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so a slippery slope can't possibly exist because there's no way of confirming whether idiot libs will continue to pursue more gun bans? that's total horseshit and you know it.
Click to expand...

That's the argument gun nuts make, not me, and they've already been proven wrong. The Brady Bill didn't lead to total confiscation of guns back in the 90s and the same type of regulation isn't going to change things today, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top