Asserts the conservative Republican blogger in California: "The problem with the NRA ad about Obama’s children [receiving Secret Service protection while Obama opposes placing armed personnel in schools] isn’t that it is glaringly logically invalid. The problem is that it’s a politically foolish point to make. As I said [earlier], logically valid arguments can sometimes be inefficacious and unappealing. The whole point of debate is to make the most persuasive, valid arguments. Bringing Obama’s children into this political discussion is not an effective way to convince people that the pro-gun position is worth supporting. It’s rather crude and turns people off to hearing the logic of the conservative position."
He continues his commentary: "Another valid-but-unconvincing argument that I have consistently heard during this gun debate is the notion that the Second Amendment isn’t just for self-defense against other citizens, but it is also a defense against a potentially tyrannical federal government. While this argument is incontestably valid, it is foolhardy to employ this as the principal argument for the importance of guns in our society. Right-wingers already have the largely unfair reputation of being paranoid gun nuts who are desperately trying to recreate the Civil War and secede from the nation, so why feed into that notion by assiduously making this valid-but-unpersuasive argument?"
More commentary from Mr. Okeem, about conservatives and gun rights: "The main argument that should be used by conservatives is that guns in the hands of law-abiding, magnanimous members of society help to reduce crime. Moreover, we must argue that gun-free zones are tantamount to well-decorated invitation cards to mass murderers for them to go on unencumbered killing sprees against innocents. Gun-free zones in schools make children less safe by broadcasting their lack of protection to deranged, violent murderers, and even just repealing these laws will make children safer in schools. When conservatives talk about gun-free zones and make the lives of innocents the priority, people will be more willing to listen to us. When conservatives make arcane and abstract constitutional points about the intent of the Second Amendment being largely about protection from a tyrannical federal government, Democrats can easily engage in demagoguery and argue that the conservative position is one where the protection of innocent life is secondary to a phantasmagoric vision of Obama being the second coming of Hitler. (And that is not hyperbole. Democrats will make that argument.)"