There is a section of ministry called apologetics. It deals with learning how to effective debate/discuss theology.
I believe we could really use that for the 2nd amendment. To often we lose our debates/discussions before we even start by letting the anti's frame the arguement. We blindly accept their statistic and premises and we end up in an undefensible position.
Good point. I've had to engage in a lot of apologetical discourse in reference to my faith in Jesus Christ, and that has been helpful in discussing the 2A issue with others. Here is what I've learned:
-Know the topic you are discussing and as many related topics as possible
-Text without context is pretext (keep everything in its context)
-Understand common logical fallacies: don't engage in them and don't let your opponent get away with them
-Argue from fact and logic, not emotion
Finally, know that everyone adheres to a worldview that shapes their opinions about different issues. Understanding your opponents worldview can help you understand their inconsistencies when it comes to specific topics like the 2A. This may not be possible at all times, but if you can figure out where a person is coming from, it'll help you frame your arguments and turn theirs on their head.
A noble undertaking for sure.
However this situation that we have now, defies logic. We're getting mugged.
I really don't think we're going to change the nature of those pushing this disarmament agenda with logical argument. Our best hope is to fight them in the legal system, and then vote them out, one by one.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
What's needed is some cohesive point to the 2nd Amendment that someone else will care about. Why should *I* trust *you* to walk around with something that can kill anonymously from a distance?
It's an uphill battle, remember. I don't trust you. I have no reason to trust you.
And that mindset is what needs to be framed against. Strawmen need not apply. Apologetics that don't use the Principle of Charity are just echo-chamber comments. Assuming that your opponent is a power-mad idiot will not get any progress. In fact, using the word "liberal" as a slander doesn't help either. A person's opinion on progressive taxation or environmental regulation has very little to do with the discussion, unless we're making logical fallacies.
If a disagreement is based upon a hidden premise, such as any faith you mention, then you should expect the disagreement will be irresolvable. I don't think it has any basis for arguing anything in the Constitution.
Originally Posted by GeorgiaDawg
I think you are missing the point (although I could be wrong).
Originally Posted by Sig35seven
He is saying that antis have a completely different "worldview" on the issue of guns (if not other things). Approaching it like a discussion on religion between two people of different "worldviews" as far as faith (or lack thereof) is concerned can have some beneficial aspects.
It is just simple sociology...
As far as the hidden premise is concerned, everybody has presuppositions, antis and pro-gunners included. The whole point of 2A "apologetics" would be to challenge the "hidden premises" of the antis...
There is a radio host in the detroit market who has released an apologetic cd series. It covers everything from homosexuality, evolution, Christianity etc..Great stuff... if you want to know who it is pm me.
You cannot have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. At best, anyone that is anti 2A or for gun control lacks all reason, common sense and logic. At worst they are narcissistic elitist evil people. Discussion is futile.
...agreed...any attempt to reason with an anti-gunner ends up sounding like a herd of crows at happy hour!!!