Advocates of more oppressive gun laws often criticize gun rights advocates for opposing even the most “reasonable” new infringements on that which shall not be infringed, because doing so only gives “gun control” advocates a beachhead from which to launch their next incursion on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
The gun prohibitionists actually heap scorn on the notion of the “slippery slope,” characterizing such concerns as either cynical fear mongering for money on the part of the “gun lobby” (which the other side uses as a synonym for NRA, despite the wild inaccuracy of that supposed equivalence), or paranoid delusion on the part of we unsophisticated rubes who have been duped by that “gun lobby.”. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea observes:
For some time now, particularly after changing their name from Handgun Control, Inc., the Brady Campaign has been assuring Americans they don’t want to ban all guns. The idea of a “slippery slope” is something they ridicule as “gun lobby” paranoia.
Case in point, “NRA Myth 10“:
“The Federal Assault Weapons Ban is just the first step on a slippery slope to ban all guns in America.
“Response: Wrong. There is no hidden agenda behind saving the Federal Assault Weapons Act…”
As St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner has argued before, opposition to restrictive gun laws in no waydepends on the “slippery slope” argument–the proposed new restrictions are themselves “Intolerable Acts,” and indeed worth resisting by force, if necessary. Regardless, when interviewed by video journalist Jason Mattera, U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) left no doubt that she and her ideological allies are working hard to pour a little more oil on that slope, and crank up the incline a few more degrees. From Breitbart (there’s also a sidebar video, but the background music is intensely annoying):
Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.
That’s it, Jan, exploit those murdered kids, just as your New York colleague has urged. The interview continues:
Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?
Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun… something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.
But, but . . . the Brady Campaign told us that banning so-called “assault weapons” was not part of a wider “gun control” agenda–despite ostensibly “conservative” columnist Charles Krauthammer arguing (approvingly) that the wider agenda–“disarm[ing] the citizenry” was the only point of the ban.
The Brady Campaign has argued that even if there had been any merit to the “slippery slope” concerns, they were put to rest by the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Hellerdecision. Apparently, though, Schakowsky didn’t get the memo:
Mattera: We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.
Schakowsky: I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t. And there may be an allowance, once again, for communities–I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to view that as a sensible way to keep people safe–I don’t think it’s precluded.
Although the Supreme Court’s McDonald v. Chicago decision, by virtue of incorporating (via the Fourteenth Amendment) the Second Amendment against state and local governments, would seem to refute Schakowsky’s assertion, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned, and any Justice appointed by President Obama would no doubt be keen to do just that.
The “slippery slope” is indeed real, but if we reach the bottom, it will not be to find the “gun free paradise” that Schakowsky envisions. At the bottom of that slope lies bloody civil war–and America’s gun owners do not intend to lose.