No, it isn’t. Your magic spell failed. pfizzle
The slippery slope fallacy is when someone says “You can’t do reasonable thing X, it will inevitably lead to bad thing Y!” No one is claiming that universal registration will lead to a universal ban. That is obviously not the case. However, universal registration would make a ban easier to enforce. That is why people object to it. This is not a fallacy, it’s self-evidently true.
But I think that’s exactly the point. If it’s a factual statement, then the logical question to ask is: why are you proposing this legislation then?
Can we see the quote where he said that? Because we wouldn’t want to be “reading more into” something someone said, would we?
I think that’s enough hysteria from both sides. Take it to the Pit if you want to continue making comments like this; other posters want a relatively civil debate.
The Kenyan truth will come out soon enough…
Just for the record: he has. Somehow it became a conservative talking point that he is ignoring this, but he mentioned it during the second presidential debate and he has talked about it in speeches with regard to gun registration.
Wallace asked LaPierre for his thoughts on a photo of Obama shooting a gun, released by the White House this weekend.
“I think of the same thing I did during the campaign when he said to people, ‘I’m not going to take your rifle, shotgun and handgun.’ They leafleted the country with flyers like this: ‘Obama is not going to take your gun’; ‘Obama will protect gun rights.’ And now he’s trying to take away all three,” LaPierre said.
He predicted a universal gun registry is next – a measure that, as Wallace reminded him, has not been proposed.
“Forgive me, sir, but you take something that is here and you say it’s going to go all the way over there,” Wallace said. “There’s no indication – I mean, I can understand your saying that’s the threat, but there’s nothing that anyone in the administration has said that indicates they’re going to have a universal registry.”
LaPierre said he doesn’t find that convincing.
“And Obamacare wasn’t a tax until they needed it to be a tax,” he said. “I don’t think you can trust these people.”
So when both Feinstein and Cuomo speak of confiscation and forced buy backs, we should just disregard them both as cantankerous seniors?
It may be worth noting here that the bill Cuomo signed last month included neither buybacks nor confiscation, and Feinstein was talking about a bill she would have passed had she been able (but wasn’t) in 1995, and also hasn’t passed since.
Bidens statements are like a con man who reveals what he’s doing is a con, but some people are still dumb enough to fall for it!
So? An elected official talking about something draconian is nothing to be concerned about?
NO! HELL NO!:mad:
None of us should have to compromise any of our Constitutionally protected rights!
The answer to significantly reducing violent crime is to hammer those that perpetrate it. School/mall shootings are an extremely rare occurrence. The majority of violent crime takes place by repeat offenders that are continually put in and out of the system. Burglars, armed robbers, batterers, etc. rarely get sentenced to more than 10% of the maximum of what they could receive. The guy that shoots a gas station attendant this week would not have been able to had he still been locked up for the burglary he committed 2 years ago. The expense of keeping truly awful people locked up is dwarfed by the expense of our revolving door justice system and the carnage and human suffering such “people” cause while out on the street.
Adding new laws and encroachments on our liberties will have no effect. Even the Vice President of the United States of America agrees with me on this!
That’s nonsense. It’s an assertion based on what, magic?
Yes, so? They haven’t succeeded yet. What is your point?
Wait I didn’t mean it like that!
Well that’s good then. The gun violence in certain parts of Chicago has been ludicrously bad.
I do agree that we should really bring the hammer down on people convicted of gun related crimes. Sentences should be served in full and should be extremely punitive.
We can’t talk about people who want to confiscate guns until they actually confiscate guns. That’s part of the “reasonable, common sense discussion on gun control” that the gun confiscators keep saying we need to have–nobody is allowed to talk about the issue but them until they get everything they want. Then, we can all discuss the wisdom of the guns we used to have as much as we’d like to. See? Reasonable!
Then, they cannot be objectionable.
The “ultimate goal” is a less-armed society, not a disarmed society – no American gun-control advocate seriously expects that.
Not good enough.
Assault, Battery, strong armed robbery, burglary. They are all serious crimes which don’t require a gun to commit.
This, presumably, from the side that’s always asking for a “rational” debate on gun control.
Aren’t the penalties strict enough now, and the law-enforcement vigorous enough? That is why we have the world’s largest incarcerated population proportional to the general. Clearly, bringing the hammer down still harder won’t help and is not what is needed; we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns there.
Stop bothering us with the facts.