> I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights. The reason the parent post ig

> I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights. The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor. To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic. This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.