Now people who want reasonable gun laws are “emotionally compromised.” If you’re not affected emotionally by 19 murdered 10 year olds, you’re sick in the head. I have zero problem saying that causes an emotional reaction and the thought of it makes me sick. So, I do have this theory though that people who detach their emotions around this subject actually hurts them more than regular people. I think you guys are so sickened by these massacres that your minds won’t let you process the horror and pain. It’s like people who can’t remember traumatic events because it’s just too crippling. So I actually think you’re in denial that gun laws will save the lives of thousands of kids and 10s of thousands of adults every year because you can’t process your emotions fully.
First, the word "reasonable" is, by definition, subjective. You might think it is reasonable to have your house temperature at 78, where I think that is much too warm. You have said it is "reasonable" to risk nuclear war to defend the Ukraine. I think that is insane. And being unemotional when you look for solutions to problems - and I am fully admitting a problem exists, for your information - does not mean I do not grieve for lost children. It just means I am able to compartmentalize my emotional reaction to my logical response to fixing the problem. You do not seem to be able to - which makes you exceptionally untrustworthy (to me) in your ability to present a solution that will work in the real world.
As we say here in NJ, yeah no. That’s the point, that you think you’re compartmentalizing when you’re actually not processing the damage. You’ll disagree until you’re blue in the face, I’m sure, but my take is you’re just shrugging off the seriousness of this issue and accepting a degree of horror as a part of life. But that’s not healthy. That’s not healthy and that is not normal. Whether you recognize it or not, you’re accepting the death of children as a trade off for some minor burdens we all already shoulder in many parts of our lives. This is against common sense reasonableness. And I’m not saying you don’t have common sense just that you’ve allowed yourself to become detached on this subject to the point you disregard what is actually reasonable. My take on you is that you are filled with lies and unfounded fear that reasonable gun laws won’t work and that they will somehow take away your guns. Now I don’t know if you are a walking “red flag” or if your ability to analyze readily available information and studies is below comprehension either. So I can’t fully say you will be able to keep your guns or understand the impact of the proposed laws. But for the vast majority of gun owners most of the proposed laws will have no impact on their lives other than minor or inconvenient burdens. Otherwise known as reasonable.
In Florida DeSantis would heartily approve of the gun sales and the state trooper would not be sentenced to prison.
Yeah, no. Sorry. I'm also from NJ. And there's that subjective word "Reasonable" where you get to tell me what is and is not reasonable. You're certainly entitled to your own view, as I am. But your challenge is that you have to get my side to the table to get anywhere, and you won't with this approach. Your take is noted, and discounted. It's not reasonable.
Right, my bad. oooh, ooohh...maybe DeSantis would be in on the sale! That's even better because then he'd go to prison! yambag
DeSantis supports arming teachers in the classroom... we have the Florida version of this for your approval.
i support trained, armed teachers as well - so I approve. So this is a win, despite your false narrative about "can't say gay" in your silly cartoons. That's the only value you bring to this forum, cartoons!
No. The challenge is not mine to get you to the table, there really is no table. We should not be negotiating over protecting children from being massacred. And FYI, “reasonable person” is a legal standard. Theoretically anyone can argue reasonableness. For instance, we can argue whether or not nuclear weapons are reasonable for a person to possess under the second amendment because technically it’s an arm but of course it’s not reasonable on its face. But you’ll argue anything because as I have been telling you, you’re unaffected by the massacre of children.