Gun Debate

To have a rational conversation about gun the anti-gunners have to accept a condition before the discussion starts.  Anti-gunners are the bad guys trying to restrict an individual right.  Just as if they were insisting that police no longer need probable cause or that they wanted to institute a $200 tax in order to vote or wanted to return to segregation by race.

Concede that point from the start, then we can talk.

"the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being."

We are not, generally, horrible human beings.  But the anti-gun side has insisted we are for decades.  I might accept they are not the bad guys, and are debating from a position of good faith, but only after they sit in the corner on it for a few decades, starting now.   When their arguments are absent eliminationistic rhetoric for a score or more years 

(golly that's a good essay.  RTWT.)