Skip to comments.Senator Murphy Reveals “Slippery Slope” Strategy on ABC’s “This Week”
Posted on 06/27/2016 6:53:32 AM PDT by marktwain
On ABC This Week, June 19, Senator Chris Murphy revealed what Second Amendment supporters have said was the anti-Second Amendment strategy all along. Pass incremental infringements on the Second Amendment until nothing is left that means anything. That is why anti-Second Amendment plotters push so hard on legislation that seems unrelated to the current terrorist atrocity.
They use it as an emotional vehicle for other legislation they normally could not pass. In the interview, ABCs Jon Karl is questioning Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. From the ABC transcript:
KARL: theres these proposals. Your proposal wouldve done nothing in the case of Orlando. It wouldve done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino and in fact was is unrelated to the killing in Newtown.So why I mean, why I mean, why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding to?
MURPHY: Well, so first of all, we cant get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting.But we cant get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposals simply because it didnt stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings dont happen. That trap is an impossible one.
No, it is not an impossible one. If the Senator were dealing honestly, he could explain it. If it would have helped somewhere else, he could
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Yep. That is always the strategy.
Advance: Accommodation: Advance: Accommodation ... it’s how slippery slopes happen no matter if it’s gun control, Sharia, or acceptance of perverted “lifestyles”.
WATCH FOR “REPEAL TO A THIRD POSITION”
This is the latest Democrap strategy.
I am amazed they have not pulled if ro gun control yet.
Here is how it works...
Let’s say you want a controversial bill passed, like making gay marriage legal. But you know if you put it to a vote it will be soundly rejected...
SO, you pass a law banning it.
But you make the wording of that law so bad it has to be repealed.
Then they assume that by repealing it, you actually approve the opposite of the law.
And ta-DAHH!!! You have approved gay marriage.
So you go from position 1, pass a law proposing position 2, and when it is ‘repealed’ then you don;t go back to position 1, you go to a whole new position 3- which was the exact opposite of 2, which becomes ‘law of the land’ by judicial decree.
However, this does not apply to Republican issues. For example, they recently approved Concealed Carry and it WON in federal court- so does that make it ‘law of the land’ in all 50 states?