Another Thought On Why We're Winning . . .

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece on why firearms owners are winning the intellectual argument regarding the danger students, faculty and staff face on our victim disarmament zone college campuses, and why allowing CCW holders to have the option to be armed on campus is a good thing. Advocacy groups, blogs like this, and honest debate is helping more and more Americans realize they have a vested interest -- a benefit -- in law abiding women and men having the option to be armed. Even on the quad, the oval, or whatever the central gathering place is called at most institutions of higher learning.

To protect everyone's basic human right of self defense.

Caleb, better known as Ahab to his readers, has a great piece on the same issue. Why we are winning. Specifically, he notes that while firearms ownership groups are not afraid to invite anti-gun advocates into the arena for intellectually honest debate, the other side does its best to censor pro-gun, pro self defense argument.

"Meanwhile, anti-gun people ban pro-gun activists from commenting, delete comments from their blogs, and generally avoid open debate like cockroaches avoid the light. I will give Paul Helmke props in that he was willing to attend that function, that was pretty out of character for an anti-gunner to do that.

"That’s the big difference though - anti-gun people will constantly and consistently attempt to turn the argument about guns into America into an emotional issue, citing x,000 people killed with guns every year, or talking about blood in the streets, etc. Meanwhile, we argue with facts, statistics; our debate thrives in the open because it’s based on logic and reason, and not on appeals to emotion."

Right on, my friend. Right on.

So which side is showing just how intellectually bankrupt they really are?