Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's a slippery slope thing (technically non causa pro causa, if anyone cares), which is what most NRA rhetoric is based upon.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a gun registry; indeed, of the first three words of the Second Amendment, two are "well-ordered," which would seem to cover things like registries and drills and so forth. However, Second Amendment absolutists believe that a registry could lead to confiscation some day. Based on this hypothetical, they're rabidly anti-registry, and nobody in the mainstream is much inclined to challenge this non sequitur (literally "it does not follow").

What ICSD is painting as an inevitable reality is in fact a slippery slope leading to a different slippery slope. Background checks could (in theory) lead to a registry, which could (in theory) lead to confiscation. So you need not one but two hypothetical acts of dictatorship to make the Barackalypse occur.

What's particularly deceitful about this NRA talking point is that the background check bill, as initially written, made it a Federal crime to create a registry. So ICSD and the other NRA hysterics are objecting to a hypothetical of a hypothetical that would require breaking the law they object to.

Does this seem irrational and insane? That's because it is. Toss moderation, reason, game theory, and common sense out the window. Also toss evidence, history, and empiricism. Just take a long, deep bath in paranoid hypotheticals, watch a little Glenn Beck, and suddenly it all makes sense.

You guys are guilty of the "'slippery slope fallacy' fallacy" on a regular basis. You maintain that if an argument sounds like an "if A therefore, eventually b", then it is a slippery slope fallacy.

Take Point 1 - many people want a gun registry.
Point 2 - creating a record of every sale to be kept for 20 years CREATES A RECORD OF EVERY SALE over time.
Point 3 - add easily and centrally accessible records to the sometimes popular desire to create a Federal registry and the likelihood of that registry increases. You fallacy comes from the mistaken belief that every analysis which determines that certain outcomes are made more likely is a slippery slop "logical fallacy". This is not the case. The public tends to balk at radical or major changes. They tend to tacitly accept changes that they perceive to be gradual and non-threatening.

Nearly every law ever passed has had the effect of preparing for further expansion or restriction of some agenda. The concept of term limits has this in mind, the concept of balance of power as well. What you call "logical fallacy" many would call cautious foresight with respect to retention of rights. Sometimes I support it (because it works), other times I reject it because I see what they are trying to do. Normalization with the intention of getting past the tendency of an electorate to reject revolutionary change - when you pre-heat an oven most people assume you are going to cook something. ESPECIALLY when you are constantly talking about cooking something

Your over use of this term for emotional effect (nobody likes to be considered illogical) is insulting to your own intellect.

"If A occurs, it therefore makes Z more likely occur, sooner" is not illogical. If I'm not interested in the benefits of A and there is a way to exclude it from legislation while retaining what I do want, I am for that option.

"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will get a good job" - is a slippery slope logical fallacy
"If I go to college And I get a college degree, Then I will most likely increase my chances of getting a good job" - is basic human foresight, used by most on a regular basis.