While thinking about the Ron Regan Jr video from last night I got thinking about a fundamental difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun side of arguing a point.
Ron Starts off with saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, then immediately contradicting this point by talking about how much guns kill people. Further he states that the “Constitutional Right to Firearms has never been threatened, and never will”….well except for the fact that in recent memory Heller v DC, and McDonald v. Chicago struck down some unconstitutional gun laws that had been in effect for generations. The Federal Assault Weapons ban was also fairly recent.
He’s either totally stupid, or he doesn’t even remotely believe the words he’s saying. So why is he saying it? Simple, he wants to appear more moderate on the gun control issue so that he can garner more support.
Now that in itself isn’t a bad thing, the slippery slope goes both ways and all major political battles, the only problem is he’s openly saying he’s opposed to the very slippery slope he’s supporting.
Essentially its a con.
Same goes with this video from Ladd Everett:
Ladd leads out with a statement that CSGV has never claimed that “Guns Cause Crime”, and even notes that the UK and US homicide rates WITHOUT guns are fundamentally different…but then quickly abandons all of that to talk just about guns. If you don’t believe that guns cause crime, and just that guns make crime worse…then why are US knife crime rates so much worse in the numbers than the UK? And why have so much to say about guns, but not about that relevant fact? Does the US simply have more criminal people? A greater culture of violence? Or is it the fact that the UK counts crime in a drastically different way than we do? (*hint* Its that one)
The answer is simple, Ladd thinks that guns DO cause crime…and he also knows he has NOTHING to actually prove this. Hey but it makes him seem less crazy by opening with that….the only problem is it makes him look MORE crazy in the event we make the mistake of trusting him for the first step.
The best example of this is what is generally considered the apex of the gun control movement when there was no direction other than down: The federal assault weapons ban. People bought into the anti-rights lies that the ban wouldn’t effect THEIR guns, so they supported it….and the antis quickly turned on them.
They haven’t been trusted since, nor should they (you don’t need to go any further than this video to see just how moderate their views REALLY are)
The slippery slope can slide…but it can also slide both ways if the first step is a lie. The antis haven’t learned this, but I think we can see it easily.
Yeah, we see alot of this bad faith auguring.
Like this clown.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78799.html
He thinks that just because Gun Control won’t do anything and that guns have a legitimate role in self protection that they shouldn’t “surrender discussions about gun control.”
And then goes on with the bog standard: “But WHHHYYY can’t you rednecks come around to our side and be common sense? Stop thinking we’re trying to take your guns away! We just want access limitations! Totally different.”
He says stuff like this:
“So why not reach a bipartisan consensus on reasonable gun laws aimed at curtailing gun violence? Would limitations on access to automatic high powered weapons like the AK and automatic hand guns make mass shootings less likely?”
Followed by:
“I’m no firearms expert, but it is time for those who are to make modest gun regulation proposals based on facts and statistics — rather than nonsense like international conspiracies to take away grandma’s hand gun.”
Yeah it’s pretty clear your no expert Jimbo as you can’t be bothered to look up what automatic means, or the current laws around the purchase of automatic firearms.
Unless you think there’s a lot of mass shootings with Glock 18’s and the like then yes, you do want to go after Grandma’s hand gun.
Oh and how often do you think she goes duck hunting with her Gatson there?