Posted by Kromey at 4:35pm Dec 1 '13It does not say anything about limitations, either for or against.
in·fringe, v.; to wrongly limit or restrict
The amendment was written explicitly to provide the people with a way to protect themselves against tyranny -- including (again, explicitly) tyranny from their own government. The amendment was written with the idea that the people would have the same firearms as the government.
Or does the First Amendment only apply to literally standing on the street corner on a literal soap box, and have no bearing whatsoever on the internet -- which they couldn't possibly have envisioned back then.
It's potentially a slippery slope--they're taking away our AK-47s, next up is our rifles, then our pistols, then a blanket outlaw. But I don't think there's much merit to slippery slope arguments.
What about when Handgun Control, Inc. explicitly changed their tactics to create the "assault weapon" moniker as something more likely to pass, which they could then leverage to continually chip away further at gun rights? They're deliberately trying to create a slippery slope to get their own stated end goal: No personally-owned firearms, period.
(HCI renamed themselves Brady Campaign in 2001.)
Or the numerous politicians (most notoriously Sen. Feinstein) who have explicitly stated their goal is to end personal firearm ownership entirely, and only because they can't get the votes to do so are they only going after so-called "assault weapons".
It's a "slippery slope" because they have explicitly made it into one, not because we fear it becoming one.
Re: Hmm. - Kromey