[quoteThis Year’s Model]
I can’t bring beer into the park, why should I be able to bring a gun. This is an example of perfectly valid local control.
[/quote]
Wrong question. The question to be asked, is why shouldn’t you be able to carry your concealed handgun in the park? After all, the law is written to proscribe a specific activity that would be otherwise legal. If the law is written that way, then the justification and support for that law must follow the same path. *“Why should this activity no longer be permitted?”
If I were to try to get this law repealed, I’d have to justify why I want to be able to engage in this activity. I can’t simply turn the question around. And that’s what you’re doing here. You’re supporting proscription of an activity simply because you can’t find a reason to allow it to continue. If we start down the path of criminalizing activities simply because we can’t find a good reason to allow them to continue, where’s that leave us? Seems to me that kind of reasoning serves to lubricate the slippery slope. And not just regarding gun rights, but it could be equally applied to all of your freedoms.
The slippery slope argument is particularly uncompelling to me.
We can’t have gay marriage because people will be marrying their mules.
We can’t legalize marijuana because all our kids will be heroin addicts the next day.
We can’t have any gun restrictions because the government will just end up taking them all away.
This is why I’m a Republican. It’s not, per se, that Republicans are always right (I currently think both parties are whizzing all over the budget in a way they didn’t a decade ago), but that I just can’t stand the Democrats on the national stage. Though if they put Phil Bredeson up, I’ll vote for him. Of course, if they put Phil Bredeson up, he’ll probably get the Republican nomination.
Of course, it’s also because they never seen to actually come up with any proposals. They criticize ours loudly, but don’t put forward any practical, workable plan for doing anything.
But, aside from all of that hijacking, I hate the constant power grabbing from both parties.
Except that by lumping this in with two fallacies, you’re actually attempting to cast something that has happened in the past, in the United States as a fallacy. Your assertion is inaccurate to say the least.
Look at Chicago and Washington, D.C. which started with registration and then used the closing of registration to produce de facto bans.
Look at California which used registration of ‘assault weapons’, then termed the SKS rifle an assault weapon, and used the list to round them up to enact a ban.
It happens that registration is used to implement a ban, so your inclusion of it with the others is dishonest.
This just in [ticker tape noise]
It has come to our attention that a particularly nasty and oustpoken spokesman for the antigay agenda (N. Horsly) has admitted to have been romantically involved with a mule.
I was a Republican, but then left them - back during the “moral majority” days. They haven’t improved since then either. They’re all (both major parties) power hungry hacks. (end of mini hijack)
It takes a registration first, to find out where the suckers are, who registered. Then you know exactly where to go, when it’s time to sieze and confiscate. It’s an easy way to get your foot in the door.
Nope, the better question is why shouldn’t you be able to carry both beer and a handgun in the park. Although, maybe not at the same time if you’re planning on drinking heavily.
(looking) Well, you gotta admit that, with so many locales associating threaded barrels with silencers and making them illegal, Walther should’ve thought of a better way to mount the counterbalance.
Silly boy, for the same reason I have to register my cars and dogs–so I can pay for the honor of owning them and be fined if I don’t pay. I would think that after all of your complaints about the predilection of Democrats to tax everything you might’ve realized there are other reasons for registration than as a prelude to confiscation.
Good point, Drop. Dunno how I missed something so obvious.
And, actually, that’s pretty much the case in California. While I was poking around yesterday, I found out that for the privilege of registering your handguns in California so “they” know where to come and get 'em later, you get to give the state $19.00 per handgun. That could get into some serious money seriously fast. I have a friend here who has recently been collecting little .25 & .32 autos. Says he’s got nearly a hundred of ‘em now. (When I asked him how many guns total he owned, he told me he had no friggin’ idea but it was probably about 300 - give or take fifty. He’s got more guns than most people have books.) That would approach two grand in registration fees in California. And nineteen bucks would be a substantial percentage of the purchase price of some of those things - like 25% or more.
This website says that a silenced gun “can be as quiet as 115 dB.” Is that accurate, gun mavens? That’s as loud as a rock concert! What good would such a device do a criminal?
115db? I gotta ask, since deciBels is always a noise level as referenced to something else, just what is the zero dB level? What is this 115dB referenced to? Other than that, I don’t even own any handguns anymore, and I’m against all this.
I live in California (job, not choice) and all I’ve seen here is that the noisy know nothings seem to want to control and tax (or take away) everything. It’s sickening.
The locales don’t matter. There is a certain group of people that hear “assault weapon” or “silencer” and imagine roving bands of armies taking over large cities.
It’s akin to those that listen to a few whack jobs and think that homosexuals are out to destroy the republic.
It’s almost the same thing. Depending on whether it’s guns or gays, the story only changes slightly. “They” are going to run wild. “They” are going to destroy the country. “They” want to “recruit” your children. “They” hate you. There will be wild gun battles (or gay orgies) in the streets. It’s always “them” against “us”.
