K.I.S.S. principle in gun debate

[A-R]

Try this simple line when discussing gun politics:

The gun debate is simple: One side uses force to impose its will; the other side offers a choice.

[chasfm11]

Try this simple line when discussing gun politics:

The gun debate is simple: One side uses force to impose its will; the other side offers a choice.

It sounds like a good approach but I've never been able to make variations of this approach work. I'd love to be an observer when someone else can so that I can figure out what I'm doing incorrectly.

Antis don't seem to have any problem with forcing others. Most of them don't limit their "force" to guns, including a wide variety of other topics from what type of car your drive, what you eat, etc. I've tried to get them to show me an instance were government force accomplished the original goal but even that line of thinking does seem to dissuade them. Basically, they won't want you to have a choice on anything.

[A-R]

The KISS principle obviously works best with non-gun owning libertarians, independents, conservatives etc. - and even some who own guns only for hunting.

As for die-hard liberals, you're not likely to convince them of anything anyway, and I purposely worded the OP that way to avoid this, but ....

if you want to convince a liberal just change the sentence structure to this.

The gun debate is simple: One side tells us what we should do; the other side is pro choice.

And please please please no one start an abortion debate here that will surely get this thread locked.

[The Annoyed Man]

Try this simple line when discussing gun politics:

The gun debate is simple: One side uses force to impose its will; the other side offers a choice.

It sounds like a good approach but I've never been able to make variations of this approach work. I'd love to be an observer when someone else can so that I can figure out what I'm doing incorrectly.

Antis don't seem to have any problem with forcing others. Most of them don't limit their "force" to guns, including a wide variety of other topics from what type of car your drive, what you eat, etc. I've tried to get them to show me an instance were government force accomplished the original goal but even that line of thinking does seem to dissuade them. Basically, they won't want you to have a choice on anything.

Except abortion. Then they want you to have a choice. So perhaps an argument that might work is to say, "surely if there exists a right to choose abortion in non-enumerated emanations or penumbras in the Constitution, then surely there must exist a right to choose to exercise any of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights? For instance the right to choose to practice or not to practice a religion? Or the right to choose to self-incriminate or not to self-incriminate? Or the right to choose to speak or not to speak? Or the right to choose to keep and bear arms or not to keep and bear arms?"

My argument is not about abortion, but that the same constitutional standards which are used to justify it's practice actually reinforce the RKBA.

[olafpfj]

Except abortion. Then they want you to have a choice. So perhaps an argument that might work is to say, "surely if there exists a right to choose abortion in non-enumerated emanations or penumbras in the Constitution, then surely there must exist a right to choose to exercise any of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights? For instance the right to choose to practice or not to practice a religion? Or the right to choose to self-incriminate or not to self-incriminate? Or the right to choose to speak or not to speak? Or the right to choose to keep and bear arms or not to keep and bear arms?"

My argument is not about abortion, but that the same constitutional standards which are used to justify it's practice actually reinforce the RKBA.

I had been kinda thinking that way but hadn't solidified a coherent argument about it. That is perfect. It fits in with a philosophical argument I've been trying to answer regarding what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable death. I've pretty much made up my mind so its more in trying to expose liberal hypocrisy.

Criminal being shot by Police= OK
Criminal being shot by citizen= NOT

There's many other examples but I'll stick to the obvious for the chl forum.

[flintknapper]

Try this simple line when discussing gun politics:

The gun debate is simple: One side uses force to impose its will; the other side offers a choice.

It sounds like a good approach but I've never been able to make variations of this approach work. I'd love to be an observer when someone else can so that I can figure out what I'm doing incorrectly.

Antis don't seem to have any problem with forcing others. Most of them don't limit their "force" to guns, including a wide variety of other topics from what type of car your drive, what you eat, etc. I've tried to get them to show me an instance were government force accomplished the original goal but even that line of thinking does seem to dissuade them. Basically, they won't want you to have a choice on anything.

Except abortion. Then they want you to have a choice. So perhaps an argument that might work is to say, "surely if there exists a right to choose abortion in non-enumerated emanations or penumbras in the Constitution, then surely there must exist a right to choose to exercise any of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights? For instance the right to choose to practice or not to practice a religion? Or the right to choose to self-incriminate or not to self-incriminate? Or the right to choose to speak or not to speak? Or the right to choose to keep and bear arms or not to keep and bear arms?"

My argument is not about abortion, but that the same constitutional standards which are used to justify it's practice actually reinforce the RKBA.

Never work TAM.

That approach would require intellectual honesty and a healthy application of logic. With the "rabidly anti"...this will never happen.

[anygunanywhere]

Try this simple line when discussing gun politics:

The gun debate is simple: One side uses force to impose its will; the other side offers a choice.

It sounds like a good approach but I've never been able to make variations of this approach work. I'd love to be an observer when someone else can so that I can figure out what I'm doing incorrectly.

Antis don't seem to have any problem with forcing others. Most of them don't limit their "force" to guns, including a wide variety of other topics from what type of car your drive, what you eat, etc. I've tried to get them to show me an instance were government force accomplished the original goal but even that line of thinking does seem to dissuade them. Basically, they won't want you to have a choice on anything.

Except abortion. Then they want you to have a choice. So perhaps an argument that might work is to say, "surely if there exists a right to choose abortion in non-enumerated emanations or penumbras in the Constitution, then surely there must exist a right to choose to exercise any of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights? For instance the right to choose to practice or not to practice a religion? Or the right to choose to self-incriminate or not to self-incriminate? Or the right to choose to speak or not to speak? Or the right to choose to keep and bear arms or not to keep and bear arms?"

My argument is not about abortion, but that the same constitutional standards which are used to justify it's practice actually reinforce the RKBA.

Never work TAM.

That approach would require intellectual honesty and a healthy application of logic. With the "rabidly anti"...this will never happen.

True dat.

Anygunanywhere