Reason

Reasonable Men:

I post two examples today of blessed reason in a highly charged debate. The first is from Kim du Toit, speaking of "infringement" and the Second Amendment. While I disagree with some of his underlying assumptions, that is not the point here. The point is that the Second Amendment is as near to his heart as a thing can be, and he comes to a set of conclusions that ought to be soothing to anyone who fears 2A advocates to be unreasonable.

You can (as I do) disagree with the particulars, while recognizing that this is the mark of a reasonable man. The Second Amendment's partisans are wary of 'compromise' only because the opposition openly uses compromise as a "Death by a Thousand Cuts" strategy. If met in good faith, however, a genuine compromise would be possible -- if we could all agree that the issue was settled, and leave it at that. Because every 'compromise' is met with immediate, renewed pushes for still more concessions, you end up with the hard line that has come to characterize the debate.

The second is a post from Geek with a .45, or rather, the comments to that post. The post is against the SWAT mentality that has overcome many law-enforcement agencies (for a defense of that mentality, see Man Sized Target). In the comments, a police sergeant ventures out, expecting to be roundly flamed -- not an unreasonable expectation, given the heat of the comments prefacing his entry to the debate.

Instead, he was met with great civility and respect. His point was an excellent one, and well made. No one drew a straw man around it to attack; no one made any use of flame-war rhetoric. That's the way debate should be conducted.