# The inherent problem with 2nd Amendment debates \[tactics\]

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-inherent-problem-with-2nd-amendment-debates-tactics/839983>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 10, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-inherent-problem-with-2nd-amendment-debates-tactics/839983 "2019-09-10T14:43:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\
**Post date:** [September 10, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-inherent-problem-with-2nd-amendment-debates-tactics/839983/13 "2019-09-10T17:08:12Z")

</div>

> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> If you truly believe this to be true, I think it would be more honest to lead with that and skip the rest that you don’t really think matters.

¿porque no los dos? It’s not like an argument need only stand on one leg. The support for the right to arms and defense is well founded on multiple levels. I mean:

> [@Founding Fathers influencing today's politics](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/276):
>
> Your argument, like every argument for your side, adds up to the U.S. Constitution and related case law being on your side. That’s all well and good. When the law is on your side, bang on the law, as they say.

There are strong arguments, A, B, C, etc. and you are asserting that pushing A and not leading with B is dishonest? That is weak sauce.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-inherent-problem-with-2nd-amendment-debates-tactics/839983)._