A few discrete arguments. First, I don't think it's fair to 1. paint slippery slope paranoia in such a negative light, nor 2. paint all Americans who fear down

A few discrete arguments. First, I don't think it's fair to 1. paint slippery slope paranoia in such a negative light, nor 2. paint all Americans who fear downward trends as being right wing gun nuts. Let's look at a convenient example from history. The progression of america over the last 200 years is a progression of executive power, and the results have really been a mixed bag. Wilson and Lincoln's powers during wartime, the antiquities act, the 16th amendment, the new deal, wickard v filburn. There has _definitely_ been a slope there, and I feel like a lot of the debates surrounding our current situation as a country could have been preempted many decades ago with a closer eye to this trend. (Obvious examples: Our use of torture as decided by administration lawyers, bulk surveillance, military action exceeding constitutional limits) Second, on the differences between national sentiment. Even putting my fears about the future aside, I can say australia has long since crossed a threshold I'd consider unacceptable _in the moment_ in terms of govt. control and censorship, even as early in the 90's with the game censorship, which, to be evenhanded, they DID address to allow MA rating, although a _decade_ later, and still followed by heavy banning of individual games. So to my eyes it's less about slippery slopes and more just an acceptance of a higher level of govt. control. As with my examples of executive power above there are certainly factions in the US pushing for similar in the same way there are Australians opposed, so there's clearly not "some uniquely american bias towards paranoia". My gut feel as well with many of those defending the 2nd amendment is that it's become a tribal thing where the rote arguments that get paraded around are just the rallying cries at this point. (And I say this as someone who would broadly falls on the "less regulation" side of things) To be precise, Your final point about compromise of a lawyer's role seems reasonable and I don't mean to speak on that as I don't have background to comment; this was entirely to address the characterization at the front and defend the position a little.