My point here, though, is that the wish factor seems to be at play, i.e., no one ever expects A to lead to B unless also they think B is bad. In reality, of course, “good” slopes are no more likely to be slippery than “bad” ones are.

He has a good argument.

As soon as you present a reason, you’re no longer using the slippery slope argument, and instead relying on… well, usually appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, or non sequitur, usually, but sometimes we slip up and toss a logical statement in.

1st amendment decisions seem to always be interpreted as widely as possible. I don’t see that happening with 2A decisions, altho they’re haven’t been many.

http://www.two–four.net/weblog.php?id=P3197

At your service.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t accomplish anything, or about the long-term ramifications, but just that the court case itself would only apply meaningfully to DC’s gun ban (or potential federal bans). Even if we win incorporation in a separate case, it would still only apply against a very limited area.

Good point about the fallacy fallacy, though. Too many people ignore that fallacies just show the failure of one argument, not of the assumption, and that each fallacy is a lot more limited than the normal assumption is (it’s an ad hominem fallacy to claim gun control is bad because Hitler did it, but not one to show how it didn’t work out well when Hitler did it).