If you spend much time online, you have to wonder if the entire population of the United States is bipolar—that is, everything is just a or b.

For instance, if I am for expanding background checks for people buying firearms (and I am), then I am against the Second Amendment.

Or if I grieve over a 12-year-old child shot by the police, then I’m anti-law enforcement.

Or if I am for making public education in the United States more rigorous, then I’m against public school teachers.

Or if I am for investing public funds in increasing everybody’s opportunities, I’m against free enterprise.

The list, unfortunately, could go on. We’re back to the old forties tune, “It’s gotta be this or that.” Great tune, lousy philosophy.

There was a time when there was room for nuanced arguments and thoughtful consideration. There may still be, but just not where I can find it.

I have a modest proposal. Realizing that it will probably make no difference whatsoever, I’m still going to propose it.

Engage only people who are willing to adopt positions, back them up with a real fact or two, and who do not conclude that if you don’t agree with them you’re a communist, an anarchist, or perhaps the antichrist. This will do two things for you: it will cause you to respond in kind and perhaps do a little research, and it will save you a lot of time, simply because you don’t find a lot of this sort of thing on the Internet.

There is, I think, a corollary to the above: read and understand before you respond.

Once upon a time this was called discourse or discussion. It’s useful, enjoyable, and extremely rare.

Here’s an example of how it might work:

Last week Michele Fiore, a gun-toting Las Vegas assemblywoman who evidently has higher political aspirations, posted a status on Facebook asking, “What part of 'Shall not be infringed' does he not get?" The subject, of course, was President Obama’s executive order closing background check loopholes. In her article, she says that “he is unable to rally the people, congress, or our country to his way of thinking.”

There’s picture of her and two friends, each with an automatic at her hip. To me this whole thing seems to be begging for a blond joke, but it would be an insult to my intelligent blond friends.

In my improved world, Ms. Fiore would explain how the executive order creates new law, in fact, the NRA has issued a statement saying it does nothing. The President simply said that it was existing law and should be uniformly enforced.

And she would deal with the apparent contradiction between her statement about the country not rallying and the fact that all of the polls indicate that a vast majority of Americans are for expanded and thorough background checks, most of them show about 90% pro background checks.

Finally, since she has a call for action that says we should tell the President to leave her 2^nd Amendment rights alone, she would explain how the background checks contravene the Amendment.

But she doesn’t do any of these. She poses the false choide: if you’re for background checks, you’re against the 2^nd Amendment.

Leaving aside the fact that no interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment in the country’s history has said that Assemblywoman Fiore has the right to walk around with an automatic on her hip or the right to buy a gun without meeting a reasonable standard, she should at least recognize that there are degrees between being where she is and being against the constitution.

She should also respect her readers sufficiently to provide a fact or two to support her claims. If the president has made a law, what is it?

Assemblywoman Fiore is, of course, not alone. She’s just bribing Facebook to put her “Suggested Post” on pages, one of which is mine. If she’s going to stick her argument in my face, I would really appreciate it if she would make it rational.

God bless free speech. Anybody in the United States can, within certain stated restrictions, say anything they want. Everybody is entitled to an opinion no matter how uninformed or dumb it may be. That’s the First Amendment.

God bless the right to peaceful assembly. Anybody in the United States can, within certain stated restrictions (permits, etc.), gather in peaceful assembly. That’s also the first amendment.

And God bless the “well-regulated militia.” A lot of my friends have served in the National Guard. That’s the Second Amendment. Or at least it was until 2008.

Back to the original point: I’ll be happy to engage anyone in discussion, debate, or argument who will go to the trouble of actually using facts. I will ignore all of the fact-free rants that I see, which will probably cut my Facebook time by 90% or better. I hope that there are a few out there who will join me.