Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Joe Biden on Memorial Day: ‘The Constitution, the Second Amendment Was Never Absolute’
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gerhard1" data-source="post: 3788764" data-attributes="member: 5391"><p>Agreed. </p><p></p><p>One more thing: gun-control (gun ban) advocates will tell us that we engage in a logical fallacy here called the 'camel's nose' argument which works like this: 'A' is proposed, and is opposed on the basis that if we allow 'A', then 'B' will follow and then 'C'. Before you know it, we are at 'Z', which for sure and for certain is a place that we don't want to be.</p><p></p><p>A common example is DUI checkpoints. Opponents warn us that this is only the first step towards giving the police more power, then warrantless, mandatory auto searches are next, and eventually, they can search our homes on a whim.</p><p></p><p>The reason that this is a logical fallacy is that 'B' and then 'C', etc., do not necessarily have to follow 'A'. 'A' could very well be where it ends.</p><p></p><p>However, care must be taken because sometimes, those who advocate for one thing have something further in mind. I give you gentle people the following:</p><p></p><p><strong>"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."</strong></p><p></p><p>Nelson P. 'Pete' Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. The New Yorker, July 26, 1976</p><p></p><p>Who is to say that handguns are not just the first step? Will the restrictions end after military-style rifles? After handguns? Who knows what they will think of then? Varmint guns as 'sniper rifles', perhaps?</p><p></p><p>I don't want to take the first step. Does anybody here? I hope not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gerhard1, post: 3788764, member: 5391"] Agreed. One more thing: gun-control (gun ban) advocates will tell us that we engage in a logical fallacy here called the 'camel's nose' argument which works like this: 'A' is proposed, and is opposed on the basis that if we allow 'A', then 'B' will follow and then 'C'. Before you know it, we are at 'Z', which for sure and for certain is a place that we don't want to be. A common example is DUI checkpoints. Opponents warn us that this is only the first step towards giving the police more power, then warrantless, mandatory auto searches are next, and eventually, they can search our homes on a whim. The reason that this is a logical fallacy is that 'B' and then 'C', etc., do not necessarily have to follow 'A'. 'A' could very well be where it ends. However, care must be taken because sometimes, those who advocate for one thing have something further in mind. I give you gentle people the following: [B]"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."[/B] Nelson P. 'Pete' Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. The New Yorker, July 26, 1976 Who is to say that handguns are not just the first step? Will the restrictions end after military-style rifles? After handguns? Who knows what they will think of then? Varmint guns as 'sniper rifles', perhaps? I don't want to take the first step. Does anybody here? I hope not. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Joe Biden on Memorial Day: ‘The Constitution, the Second Amendment Was Never Absolute’
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom