As many of us have said every time someone tries to compare guns to cars, we would be overjoyed to regulate guns as well as we do cars. That is the whole point. Cars are dangerous but needed, so we allow them but put all sorts of conditions on the ownership and operation of them. At least in Texas you can't even buy a car without having insurance. You can't operate a car without training and licensing. You can be forced to take no-refusal drug and alcohol tests for just being in the driver's seat of a car. Fail that test and you will go to jail, for just sitting in the driver's seat, no requirement to actually drive the car.
I have no problem with the facts regarding this, but there is a difference still. Driving is a privilege whereas the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed. State legislatures can therefore attach whatever riders they like to the privilege of driving but not anything they want to gun laws. So the point remains that what gets considered to be rational legislatively compared to what is rational constitutionally, are different things based on the one hand on opinion about what is rational and what is constitutional, differing sets of standards. Legislatures decide the one based on the majority opinion, the SC only needs the agreement of 5 people. The founders were well aware of the potential insanity of popular opinion and the tyranny of the majority.
Are these words in this order supposed to convey some meaning? Are these words in this specific order for a reason or did you just grab a bunch of random words from a dictionary and run it through a grammar check? Because this reply barely counts as sentences much less anything resembling coherent thought. The current crop of AI Chatbots are considerably more thought provoking then these seemingly random words.
My words were: "The presumption is that you know enough to know what is fantasy and what is not. It's easy to assume you know what you feel if you have never experienced the retrieval of suppressed feelings by feeling what you feel. Some people are driven to discovery by seeking the answers to questions like what is the Matrix. Others not so much...."
Your response: "While we are at it why don't we make it so people can't die or take any damage at all. Make everyone immortal and indestructible. That will also fix the problem. As long as we are talking about fantasy solutions, I think mine should at least be considered."
Me: Your response was to present an absurdity with the intention it be analogous to what you felt was my absurdity, that the kind of answer I proposed equated to the stupidity you presented as an alternative. You did this because heard in your head regarding what I said only that which your life experience has given you the capacity to see. You judge the world as if that is all the capacity anyone else has automatically, unconsciously, and without question. Additionally, I told you why you do that, why you have limited your experience out of fear.
I know what you do not, in my opinion, and I am uninterested in the competitive threat I believe that makes you feel. I regard my task as to tell you the truth I see. I regard my level of real understanding to be pathetic but better than you have. There is no way no words to make you realize you do not know what you feel. But I believe you can find out were you serious enough to want to question everything you believe. One of those questions is whether at present you are really serious and to what degree you can see you are not.
I know what you fear because I fear it too. That last part, that we fear, is what I know that you do not admit to. Somebody told me and I have had years and years checking and verifying those facts. I call it dumb luck but my Mom told me to be honest. I did my best and destroyed everything I held sacred. Probably helped me to be somewhat open to hearing. Good luck.
