Reader Dallen writes:
The opponents of firearms freedom are working assiduously to undermine our Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, as RF’s post on the ARS “gun violence” playbook makes clear.
We may not have the legacy media bully pulpit or the eager help of major ad agencies, but we People of the Gun — AKA, the “gun lobby” — can play the playbook game, too. Here’s my quick take on a conversation guide for freedom-minded defenders of our nation’s most maligned civil right.
First, a few do’s and don’ts to help you avoid stepping in the language traps that the progressive spin-doctors have set for us.
If you want to really drive these points home, cognitive dissonance is your best friend. Familiarize yourself with this list of dissonance-inducing questions, which I’ve adapted from Alan Korwin’s guide to the political war of words in which we find ourselves.
These questions cut right through the crap and expose the flawed assumptions behind anti-gun arguments.
If these common-sense restrictions make sense for the Second Amendment, would they also make sense for the First Amendment?
Are criminals going to obey this particular law? How will you make them?
Should it be against the law to defend yourself?
- What about your children? Wouldn’t you want to defend them?
- Shouldn’t we disarm the criminals first?
- Why are you blaming peaceful gun owners for getting their property stolen? Would you blame a woman for providing sex to a rapist?
- Why don’t they arrest people who lie about their criminal past and fail background checks?
- Are you comfortable with the fact that nobody knows who is on the terrorist watch list or how to get off it if you’re innocent?
- If “assault weapons” are only good for indiscriminately spraying bullets at people, why do we trust police with them?
- If you don’t want to disarm the police and the military, you’re not really against guns at all — you’re only against MY gun. Why is that?
- If you’re okay with police and the military having guns, then you understand that guns are necessary. You just want someone else to hold a gun for you. Why is that?
The key here is to let them answer. Actually, make them answer. Watch their certainties crumble as they try to explain why nonsense isn’t actually nonsense.
One last thing to remember: internet arguing is largely a spectator sport. You probably won’t get anyone to admit that they’re wrong, but you don’t have to. The fence-sitters and information seekers who are watching are your ultimate audience. Every solid, civil argument we make builds our credibility.
If you’re the smart one, if you ask penetrating questions, avoid language traps, ad hominems, and stay civil while your opponent splutters and slings insults, you win. So let’s go out there and win.