NoMoreTreadingOnUs
Active Member
I'm interested in hearing from others here, what has been your most effective argument against additional restrictions on gun ownership when speaking with people who describe themselves as moderates?
My experience, though limited, is that appeals based on U.S. history, founding fathers, BOR, etc are more miss than hit.
Of late have been trying to argue the point with examples of analogous restrictions on other rights, e.g. would it be OK to require a permit, waiting period, etc before individuals are allowed to speak out against a politician. Usual reply is "no, but this is different because people can die".
I haven't yet played the abortion card in response to that, though I think it may be the best card in our hand. But that risks escalating the emotion to a point that's counterproductive.
What has worked for you?
My experience, though limited, is that appeals based on U.S. history, founding fathers, BOR, etc are more miss than hit.
Of late have been trying to argue the point with examples of analogous restrictions on other rights, e.g. would it be OK to require a permit, waiting period, etc before individuals are allowed to speak out against a politician. Usual reply is "no, but this is different because people can die".
I haven't yet played the abortion card in response to that, though I think it may be the best card in our hand. But that risks escalating the emotion to a point that's counterproductive.
What has worked for you?