Before We Take a look at History, lets examine a Current ISSUE THAT OFTEN HAS A VERSION OF THE THE SLIPPERY- SLOPE ARGUMENT USED BY ONE SIDE TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION.
Does This Look Familiar;
BILL OF RIGHTS.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
GUN CONTROL VS RIGHT TO OWN, OR POSSESS FIREARMS.
Yes, this is a Topic I have Covered in other Posts, but here were going to look at it from Different Angles.
HERE ARE 3 VERSIONS OF ARGUMENTS USED AGAINST ANY PROPOSALS THAT ARE PUT FORTH TO ESTABLISH NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS.
THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO OWN AND KEEP GUNS, AND IF THIS RIGHT IS VIOLATED THEN NONE ARE SAFE.
THAT IF WE OUTLAW GUNS FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, IT WILL LEAVE THE CIVILIAN POPULACE DEFENSELESS, AND GIVE THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT A BIG ADVANTAGE.
ANY REGULATIONS ARE JUST THE FIRST STEP IN GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY ALL FIREARMS.
To Analyze the VALIDITY AND TRUTH OF the Above ASSERTIONS, WE MUST ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
- DO THEY CONSTITUTE DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT?
- Are They Making ASSUMPTION(S) OR DRAWING CONCLUSION(S) BASED IN REALITY, OR ARE THEY JUST CASES OF "SCARE TACTICS,'' APPEALING TO EMOTIONS AND PRECONCEIVED IDEAS TO DRAW IN PUBLIC AND POLITICAL SUPPORT?
LOOK FOR PART 3.