Leaders in the civilian disarmament movement ridicule the notion that gun control laws are intended to result in, uh, civilian disarmament. There is no "slippery slope," they say, and suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.
"THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS JUST THE FIRST STEP ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO BAN ALL GUNS IN AMERICA
"Response: Wrong. There is no hidden agenda behind saving the Federal Assault Weapons Act."--The Brady Campaign
"Fearful of becoming enmeshed in the gun lobby's 'slippery slope' argument (that any gun control, no matter how limited, is the first step toward total gun confiscation), many actively voiced their opposition to a handgun ban, warning that ban proponents would marginalize the entire movement. They could offer no proof of this claim—yet the argument took hold."--Ban Handguns Now
"In this debate, it is the National Rifle Assn. that is the true purveyor of fiction. In its paranoid world, any measure to make you safer is the first step on the slippery slope to taking away its members' rights."--Richard North Patterson at Common Dreams
In other words, the "slippery slope" argument is a myth. There is no hidden agenda. There is no proof that success in some gun control measures leads to other attempts at restrictions. The whole argument is a fiction. If you believe in it, you're living in a paranoid world where you think people are trying to take away your rights.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Just ignore the quotes Gun Scholar has compiled, or a similar collection posted by my favorite gun control organization.
Very seldom is a debate won by calling names, and if I just called the gun banners liars, I wouldn't expect it to be persuasive. So I won't.
I'll call them demonstrable liars.
But don't take my word for it. Take theirs. Follow the links and prove it yourself.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN DRIBBLE YOU ARE A TWIT. YOu ARE a pompous jackass for sure!!
In response to the couragous stand by the poster named "anonymous": Now that is a well thought out and reasoned argument. Your points were clearly supported by intense research and fact-finding. Especially the creative use of the word "dribble" in this context. I've never seen that before (at least not in English). You've convinced me. I'll never buy another gun...at least until tomorrow anyway.
Unbelievably, I have a father-in-Law that votes liberal everytime. I have warned him about the Liberal Anti-Gun agenda and he agrees that this is the aim. Unfortunately, he's on Social Security and STILL votes democratic straight ticket!
He's as blind as can be because he is depending on us to defend his right to own a gun. He simply can't see past his Social security.
The Anti-gunners are headed for a long fall soon though. He's in his 70s along with most of the Democratic voters. Sooner or later (probably sooner considering the general health of post 65 year olds) the tide will be turned and the voters that are currently middle aged will be the seniors. Then the anti-gunners will not have a snowballs chance in Hell (which they don't believe in).
B.L. May
not all of us old geezers are anti-gun, i'm 68 and retired on social security from my last job as an armoured truck guard. i kept my guns when i retired, i still have them and plan to keep them as long as i remain vertical and warm.
Gee, "anonymous" (the rude one), your words are so convincing!(Right now, my words are dripping w/sarcasm)As if I would change my thoughts on gun control, when I see your own inane "dribble".
Not only that, but you don't even list your name.Also,your lack of reasoning and facts justs goes to show us how high the intelligence level of the gun control brigade is.
i should add to my comment above that i have never voted for pat leahy or "bernie" sanders and only reluctantly voted for james jeffords before he turned his coat. i am almost sorry jeffords has announced his intent to retire, i was looking forward to voting against him in 2006, to correct my error in 2000
Post a Comment