Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gerhard1" data-source="post: 2835665" data-attributes="member: 5391">Point of fact, if I might; as has been pointed out, what Obama has done are Executive Action, not Executive Orders.&nbsp; They don&#039;t have the force of law.&nbsp; Also, I might also point out that the only way to enforce UBC&#039;s is by imposing universal registration. The &#039;camel&#039;s nose&#039; or the &#039;slippery slope&#039; arguments are usually logical fallacies, but in the case of gun control they are valid.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because the advocates of gun-control themselves say that their pet bill is only a first step&nbsp; towards what they call &#039;more comprehensive&#039; gun laws later.&nbsp; In other words, they are simply laying the foundation as it were for extremely restrictive laws. As evidence I offer Nelson P. &#039;Pete&#039; Shields.Shields was an executive with du Pont, who lost his son in the &#039;Zebra&#039; killings in San Francisco in the early 1970&#039;s.&nbsp; These were a series of racially-and-religiously-motivated killings of Whites by members of the Nation of Islam in which a handgun was used.&nbsp; Shields in his grief, decided the thing to do was to outlaw handguns, so he founded Handgun Control, Inc., which later merged with The Brady Campaign.&nbsp; In a 1976 interview, he revealed his game plan, saying this:In the The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58Can their ultimate goal be any clearer?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gerhard1, post: 2835665, member: 5391"] Point of fact, if I might; as has been pointed out, what Obama has done are Executive Action, not Executive Orders. They don't have the force of law. Also, I might also point out that the only way to enforce UBC's is by imposing universal registration. The 'camel's nose' or the 'slippery slope' arguments are usually logical fallacies, but in the case of gun control they are valid. Why? [B][I]Because the advocates of gun-control themselves say that their pet bill is only a first step[/I][/B] towards what they call 'more comprehensive' gun laws later. In other words, they are simply laying the foundation as it were for extremely restrictive laws. As evidence I offer Nelson P. 'Pete' Shields. Shields was an executive with du Pont, who lost his son in the 'Zebra' killings in San Francisco in the early 1970's. These were a series of racially-and-religiously-motivated killings of Whites by members of the Nation of Islam in which a handgun was used. Shields in his grief, decided the thing to do was to outlaw handguns, so he founded Handgun Control, Inc., which later merged with The Brady Campaign. In a 1976 interview, he revealed his game plan, saying this: In the The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58 Can their ultimate goal be any clearer? [/QUOTE]

Verification