The words defining platform issues are carefully chosen for propaganda value.
If the issue is defined as "common sense gun legislation" it follows that any opposition is lacking common sense.If it is described as "reasonable compromise" standing ground is automatically unreasonable.
Perhaps you have noticed this principle applied in the labeling or branding of other polar political positions.(No,I do not think it appropriate to bring these issues into this thread)
What I do when this trap is set up,I insist we back up and redefine the arguement.Example"I understand you wish to compromise one of our Civil Rights granted by our Creator and enumerated in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.I absolutely will not accept your premise that such compromise is reasonable.Perhaps we can come to an agreement on some non-predjudicial terms to define our differences,as I may just as easily define your position as "Anti-Civil Rights"