Friday at the Washington Times Cheryl K. Chumley writes “‘Slippery slope’ of bump stock ban.” Presumably she has never learned that slippery slope arguments pose a logical fallacy. In this form it is just fear mongering because Chumley opposes something without having to argue the merits. While logically fallacious the slippery slope has been an effective strategy for the NRA and its supporters. It kept Congress at bay even after 20 children were murdered in a spate of gun violence five years ago.
The line of reasoning is bewildering in any form:
Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi admits any bans on bump stocks could bring on more Second Amendment controls.
Beware, conservatives, of banning anything to do with the Second Amendment.
Pelosi’s quite right. One chip in the constitutional block leads to another chip, and then to another chip and another. It’s the slippery slope of gun control.
Chumley has now added a lie to her intellectual gaffe. What Leader Pelosi said is that she hopes that a bump stock ban will lead to other reforms. The last time I checked that would still require the votes of a majority of a Republican controlled Congress. Pelosi’s aspirations do not magically materialize as public policy.
Furthermore, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. As a society we have accepted that fact that there are reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms, even if we accept that the Second Amendment provides an individual right (I do not). For example, we protect the public with restrictions on firearms in courtrooms and commercial airline flights. In most locales carrying a concealed weapon requires a license.
Another restriction, passed by Congress, is on automatic weapons. Congress took that action more than 30 years ago because machine guns can inflict spectacular carnage in a short period of time (as we have just witnessed) while having no legitimate purpose for sport or self-defense. It stands to reason that a device which effectively turns a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon should be banned for the same reasons.
For Chumley this is some sort of sick contest:
It’s not that this is a shocking admission. Second Amendment defenders already know that’s how the left plays the gun control game — one small, tiny step at a time.
It’s more that the NRA and President Donald Trump — in the face of such knowledge of how the left works, in the face of such blatant statements by Pelosi — are nonetheless considering a ban on bump stock accessories.
Again, Pelosi did not admit anything. Furthermore, Chumley refuses (for obvious reasons) to supply any evidence. What bit of gun control led to additional controls. Expressing the same sentiment as Leader Pelosi, I wish that were so. This has nothing to do with defeating lilly-livered-red-tinted-elite liberals. Get a grip Ms. Chumley. This is about saving lives — maybe yours.
If Chumley’s position is true — that this about defeating liberal gun grabbers — then the opposite proposition is also possibly true. People are proponents of gun controls because it defeats right wing fascists. That doesn’t make sense either. I am an advocate of gun control because I want to save lives and prevent injuries.
For Chumley this is an abstraction. For me it is not.
Because of a weapon in the hands of a prohibited purchaser and prohibited carrier I was seriously injured. It ended my career which was extremely important to me and hundreds of people were affected negatively. It left me with lifelong injuries and PTSD, a mental health disorder. Sometimes I have to forfeit my dignity and ask others if something I might do is sane or crazy. I was a very effective executive. Today I could not run a gas station and that makes me very sad. No one should have to suffer as I have. More importantly, no one should be murdered by a deranged gunman if some common sense gun safety might prevent that from happening.
Some common sense should be offered — even from the outlet owned by the Unification Church.