Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

Despite your trafficking in cheap insults, i will mention that there is a slope, a necessary one, but it's not slippery, which was my point

 

well it depends how you define slippery. we know that many democrat schemes are not based on a rational reason. Example. the Hughes amendment which banned private citizens from owning (with the onerous and lengthy process) machine guns made after May 19, 1986. what caused this Amendment that was snuck onto a pro gun bill with parliamentary shenanigans by the Democrats? Not crime given there had been ONE or TWO murders in 50 years with legally owned machine guns and the only one anyone can recall involved a Dayton, Ohio Police officer. It was purely to DERAIL a pro gun bill. Then we have the turds in the NY Democrat party. They had already passed an unconstitutional ten round magazine limit which was fashionable with democrats at the time. Then someone using illegally obtained AR 15 with already banned 30 round magazine (in NY) to commit a crime and the scumbag governor and his minions pushed thorough a seven round magazine limit. If the reasons for passing something have NOTHING TO DO with a demonstrated need, I would say the sole is slippery. Why is a slope necessary? and pretending we should have slope alone proves my point.

 

I really wish you would stop using weasel words like 'we know'. No, we don't know, and there is no 'we'. You purport to be some kind of constitutional expert which would imply a modicum of gravitas (one would expect that accompanies such a claim) yet your prose is sophomoric. That is an discrepancy insofar as your claim. This is why I say there are no experts on this forum, we're all mere mortals.

So that we agree on the analogy, here's what I mean by 'slippery slope logical fallacy' which is what you are implying. Reality's analogy about the training the horse illustrates this fallacy (though that wasn't his intention) perfectly.

'slope' = gun legislation, which should be founded on public safety or rationale that is reasonable in this regard, noting that not everything can be perfectly measured, without placing an overreaching and undue burden on gun owners. I'm going to disregard Bruen here,. because I disagree with it, and I don't feel my opinion should be constrained by it. If you want to interject opinions on public safety must be filtered through Bruen, fine, but since that is a given, why bother with that point (in case you are thinking of it) ? Let's just stick to principle arguments. I think Bruen should be the subject of a separate thread.

"slippery' is the implication that all regulations are made with the objective that there will eventually be a total gun ban everywhere. Which is absurd.

Every gun regulation, apparently, is seen by you, based on my observation of your comments, as a full steam train headed for the bottom of that slope.

That's a logical fallacy. And it's rather egregious that someone who purports to be a lawyer and a constitutional expert is making it. Your opinion is actually a sentiment, an emotional reaction because you like to shoot guns, and you don't want your political opponents making it difficult for you to enjoy your hobby. Now, on the flip side, I can think of a lot of emotional sentiment and cheap insults to the opposite side, my side, but I will abstain.

Anway, This fallacy is nicely explained on the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit.

Where you argument is legitimate is on regulation that is unreasonable, places an undue burden for little gain in the arena of public safety, and therein is the debate.

I say let's keep the debate there, and abstain from the slippery slope allegation because that taints your reasoning, which makes me want to discard all of your arguments wholesale, as apparently, correct me if I'm wrong, you can't get passed that one. And, while your at it, it would be appreciated if you chucked the cheap insults, which, not only do not improve your argument, they weaken your posture in any debate, and alienate those who disagree with you. If that is your intent, that, to me, doesn't make sense, for why are you here? Are you here merely to get likes from like minded folks on this forum, or to engage in a constructive debate? In any case, I'll continue.

You've raised concerns about Democratic gun regulation proposals, suggesting that they lack a rational basis and are part of a broader agenda to ban all guns. However, your argument, as I've stated above, seems to rely heavily on a slippery slope fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when you argue that a specific decision or action will inevitably lead to a series of other extreme outcomes, often without sufficient evidence for such a progression.

You reference the Hughes Amendment and New York's magazine limit laws as examples. You argue that these regulations were enacted without a direct correlation to crime statistics or a demonstrated need, implying that they were politically motivated rather than aimed at public safety. You suggest that these actions are steps toward total gun prohibition.

However, it's crucial to examine your argument critically. The slippery slope you propose is not substantiated with concrete evidence, that is not to say the evidence doesn't exist, but you haven't provided it and you are making that argument. The Hughes Amendment and magazine limits, while controversial, can be seen as specific responses to gun violence, intended to reduce the potential for future incidents, noting that not all regulation can be easily quantified into a cost benefit study, often it's just based on reasoning and reasonable assumptions. Assuming that such regulations are deliberate steps towards a total gun ban is a significant leap, especially without direct evidence linking these actions to such an end goal.

Moreover, your argument seems to overlook the complexities of gun control debates and legislation. I've noticed this tendency of many on the iright to see the world through a simplistic lens, one that lacks, totally lacks nuance. These measures are often influenced by various factors, including public opinion, political climate, and specific events. Simplifying this process into a linear path toward a singular extreme outcome overlooks these complexities.

In essence, while your concerns about gun rights and legislation are important points for discussion, your argument is weakened by its reliance on the slippery slope fallacy. . It would be stronger if it focused on specific aspects of gun control legislation and its implications, rather than hypothesizing about a grand, overarching agenda without substantial evidence.

 

I don't think it is a fallacy because I do believe that the leaders of the anti gun movement want to ban guns. And that is proven as being correct to me because the anti gun movement focuses on laws that are designed to harass lawful gun ownership, rather than impeding criminals using firearms

 

The arduous process of getting license and registrations hasn't deterred anyone from getting a car. So what is your basis for that reasoning?

 

... thus reducing your entire argument to a pile of fantastic irrelevance..
When discussing fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitutions, you don't get to ignore the constitution.

 

You do not need a license to buy or own a car.
You only need to register a car if you drive it on public roads.

 

And they ban whatever guns they can, whenever they believe they have the political security to do so.

 

You make my point, non of the proposed regulations would apply to guns in your own home, only when you take them out in the public, or carry them in your car.

So there is no basis to reject them then.

 

Which regulations, proposed by whom?

 

Hmm... So let us compare this statement with.. The CDC says there were 620,327 abortions nationally in 2020 in the District of Columbia and 47 states, a 1.5% decrease from 629,898 in 2019. Guttmacher’s national total for 2020 was 930,160, a 1.5% increase from 916,460 in 2019.

So, which is worse? Guns or abortion clinics?

 

Proposed by the Biden admin.

 

Which regulations, proposed by the Biden administration?

 

The OP, the one in cali that is requiring insurance, any others that stand any chance of passing etc.

 

These restrictions are plenary and apply to people in their homes.

 

That misunderstanding is your only gripe then?
A simple clarification that it only apply to ammo, or weapons you dont self manufacture, or intend to remove from your home would end your protests?

I dont think so.

 

You said:
You make my point, non of the proposed regulations would apply to guns in your own home, only when you take them out in the public, or carry them in your car.

You then concluded:
So there is no basis to reject them then.

Your premise is factually false, and thus, your conclusion is unsound.

 

None of the regulations would apply to weapons in your home, like a car in your garage.

The complaint is that it harasses gun owners and my counter is it hasnt stopped anyone from getting a car so there is no basis to claim its harassing gun owners over car owners.

 

Your statement is false.

The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the constitution, is not limited to inside one's home.
Thus, you argue from an invalid standard

 

Thats simply not true, or i wouldn't need a license and registration, insurance and other hassles that come with operating any personal propert aka arms outside my home.

So what you claim is false.

There is no basis to claim these regulations are to harass people since it hasnt stopped anyone from getting a car for instance.

 

It is completely true.

These regulations are unnecessary, ineffective, and violate the Constitution.
At BEST they are meant to harass people.

 

You are objectively incorrect, as evidenced by the fact so many cars are on the road despite such regulations.

What stats back up your assertion of their inneffectiveness?

 

None of the regulations under discussion here apply to cars, on the road or otherwise.
Thus. your claim is meaningless.

The complete absence of statistics which demonstrate they are effective.

 

They are arguably far more strict then anything proposed, so its a perfect analogy because cars can be used as weapons thus they are arms we have a right to, and because travel is also protected under the constitution.

The fact that so many are on the road despite such regulations cancels your harassment concern, and the fact the regulations in place do have an effect on safety cancel your assertion that they are ineffective as well.

The regulations applied to cars would be just as constitutional if applied to a bumpstock or other weapons and their accessories.

 

... so they fail as an analogy based on a lesser restrictions

These regulations are unnecessary, ineffective, and violate the Constitution.
At BEST they are meant to harass people.