@parados,
parados wrote:oralloy wrote:parados wrote:oralloy wrote:I was not using a slippery slope argument.
Actually, you are using a slippery slope argument.
Of all my objections to various proposals and laws, I can think of only one objection to one proposal that might even be close to such an argument, but even that one is not really a good match.
Most of my objections to various proposals and laws are nothing whatsoever like a slippery slope argument.
Really? You have forgotten your argument that registration will lead to confiscation?
No, I remember it. That is the one I mentioned that might even be close. But it is only one of a number of reasons I've given for opposing only one of a number of gun control proposals.
Anyway, there are some real-world examples of governments first requiring guns to be registered, and then following up with a gun ban. In particular, I can think of assault weapons in New York City, assault weapons in California, and most types of guns in the more populated parts of Australia. All three were cases where guns were first required to be registered. People poured scorn on those who said that confiscation would soon follow. And then the governments banned the guns and used those registration lists to force compliance with their bans (at least for those who were foolish enough to register their guns).
And unconstitutional confiscation is not the only mischief the government can achieve with registration lists. Note the recent case in the suburbs north of New York City where a Freedom Hater publication maliciously exposed the names and addresses of all local gun owners so thieves would try to steal their guns. And when people complained, the left piously proclaimed that making this information available was in the public interest.
Since I can point to actual concrete cases showing that gun registration information in the hands of the government gets badly abused, my position here is not like a typical slippery slope argument that just assumes a progression without good reason.
