Incrementalism is a tactic anti-gun groups have used to steadily increase restrictions on guns and simultaneously make the gun-rights community appear hysterical and extreme. In Part 1, we explored this tactic and how to distinguish it from the slippery slope fallacy. In this segment, we will address how to paralyze the common gun-control counterpoints used to strengthen and defend the incremental approach. Follow these steps to shut down this political strategy:
Any restriction short of that kicking-in-the-door scenario doesn’t seem to count as “coming for your guns,” whether or not the net effect is that private owners don’t get to keep and bear arms.
How do we call attention to the incremental infringements so that both sides see how much has already changed?
For anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet, those of us who have been through the vetting dragnet would know how phony the issue about “universal background checks” really is. Question is, how many of our weak knee’d gun friendly politicians understand that? Will Lord Blackface Northam and his militia become the rule rather than the exception? The incrementalism that is taking place also involves “piling on”, when and where ever they can get away with it.
If you cannot obtain accurate universal data, which is not really possible, that stupid claim is nothing more than a hollow suit. Now I could explain my own experiences with that, comparing FBI info to whatever data base they are referencing. But that would take up alot of space, or if you’ve had your own experiences, no further explanation is necessary. What is most important is the actual criminal record hard data, and how that sizes up a gun purchase or permit candidate. You can have a permit delayed because of innacurate traffic violation data in your record.
But speaking of licenses, how about handing out driving licenses to illegal aliens? Does the constitution support such criminal breach on the part of blue state politicians? Does the naturalization process give them the green light to establish a legal ID, before they are ever approved and vetted as legitimate citizens. And if they cannot come up with the standard paper trail to prove their identity, how do they end up with a license to drive? Aren’t they putting the horse before the cart on this one? More incrementalism.
Another farse and smokescreen is the “red flag” law. Red Flag is Arabic for temporary, or longer, restraining order. Any fool would know there are at least 10 ways to commit assault and battery against a spouse. Or to commit suicide. No fire arm necessary.
Obviously, there are major flaws and deficiencies in our system and in our communities when it comes to providing help to people who need help. This is more about common sense.
When a judge issues a restraining order (red flag) on a defendant, (court order) he simply looks at what’s on paper in front of him, (petition), a he said, she said. Unless you can spend a few thousand dollars hiring an attorney, which might work, or it might not. If the judge likes the smell of it, they just simply issue the order. There are people who became very good at manipulating this to cause trouble for other people…
Then comes the fun part. The court order requires the defendant to turn in weapons and ammunition to the police, or commit a misdemeanor that can land you in jail. What restraining order, or “red flag” if you will, does not take that leap? None that I know of.
What need is there for a new law? More incrementalist hype and hysteria, what else?