Do you think the right to own a gun is more real than the right to drive a car?

Yes. One is part of our constitution, and is recognized as fundamental to having freedom at all. The other is convenient and necessary for modern life in the US, but the need could be eliminated through appropriate public policy.

I argue that the moral and ethical right comes from the right to defend your own life (and the lives of others) and freedom, with violence if necessary. If you accept that you have that right, then accepting that people have the right to use the most effective tool for that is a reasonable conclusion. Some countries do not recognize that the individual has the right to defend themselves; those countries tend to also prevent citizens from owning pepper spray and tasers, since those can both be lethal.

If you can’t pass a safety test, you shouldn’t have a gun.

That I would oppose. Once you start creating standards for the exercise of rights, it becomes very, very easy to set the standards high enough that it's functionally impossible to pass. We've already seen that kind of nonsense with literacy tests for voting in the south after reconstruction. I support making people sit through training, but I would oppose requiring passing a test.

I don’t want other people around me to be lethally armed.

I understand where you're coming from, because I know a lot of dumb people that are armed, and I've met more than a few people that I wouldn't personally trust with a gun. I had a college roommate that shot himself in his hand because he was fucking around with his handgun without, y'know unloading it. On the other hand, I've also lived in a city, and I lived in really shitty parts of that city (specifically, I lived in Chicago; I lived in Little Village half a block south of Douglas Park, Humboldt Park before gentrification started, and Austin). I've had experiences with the CPD that made me very, very aware that they were not going to be there to help me if anything happened. I had someone spend ten minutes trying to kick my front door in, and cops just... Didn't show up. My now ex-wife called and said there there was a "domestic" ongoing (e.g., she was saying I was trying to kill her), and cops didn't even show up for over 45 minutes. Where I currently live, cops are at least ten minutes away, and that's if they are willing to drive 80mph on mountain roads. Fundamentally, cops can't protect you, and if you aren't white and don't "respect their authority", they probably won't try.

...But I think that most of those things can be addressed culturally and economically rather than through additional legislation restricting rights. Violence is, more often than not, an issue related to--but not directly caused by--poverty and opportunity.

I'm generally in favor of the fewest possible restrictions; I'd rather change the cultural attitude and situations that lead to violence in the first place than restrict the tools that people use. Cramming tons of poor people with no hope for a better future into a very small area, for instance; that's a pretty solid predictor of bad outcomes.

First, I think that any costs associated with laws on gun ownership should be covered by income and wealth taxes. (I also think that state and national parks should be funded the same way; I oppose fee-based gov't services. It's it's a public good that the gov't should be performing, then it should be fully funded.)

I would absolutely favor mandatory training for people that wanted to own firearms, but I'd also make sure that training was on-demand, easily accessed, and paid for by income taxes and not fees. (So, like, Cook County, IL couldn't have only one class every month that meets 30 miles east of O'Hare at 3:30am on Tuesday morning, with a maximum of five spots open, all to make sure that very, very few people can legally own firearms.) I do generally think that people should know under what circumstances they can legally use lethal force, and I'd support free--as above--classes for anyone that wanted a carry permit. Carry permits should be free to people that have attended the classes. I support free universal background checks on all firearm transfers. I'd have to consult with how to make background checks on private transfers work, because I wouldn't want Joe Schmoe holding onto a 4473 that I filled out--too much personal information--but I also don't want the gov't having a database of all private transfers that would become a de facto registry.

I'm generally in favor of removing the rights from someone once they have been convicted of a violent offense, but not usually otherwise. (I think that 'violent offense' would need to be carefully defined so that states couldn't e.g. redefine speeding as a violent offense.) I think red flag laws might be a good idea--people planning acts of mass murder usually 'leak' information in the days or weeks prior--but the way they're currently implemented is not good at all, and it can take months to get your rights back.

You look like a cut of fuckable meat. Are you?

I'm an ex-Mormon and Satanist, I'm largely a socialist, I am very pro-gun and would support revocation of the NFA of 1934, and also pro LGBTQ+, feminist, pro-abortion, in favor of raising top marginal tax rates to 95%, instituting wealth taxes on total assets owned or controlled in excess of $100M (and total seizure if convicted of trying to conceal the ownership), support revoking corporate personhood through constitutional amendment, I'm in favor if widespread public transit, and favor taxing oil companies out of existence to pay for it, support Ukraine without reservation, blah blah blah.

I am unelectable for any political party in the US.

At one time, manual transmissions were more efficient than automatic. But that's been almost half a century ago now, and you still hear people in the US saying that manual is more efficient.

Yes. Although automatic transmission is more efficient, I still prefer manual.

Almost 50. Southern US. I use one every day that I ride my motorcycle.

Russia has been beaten by most of the smaller countries that it's gone toe-to-toe against. The only particularly big win that Russia (or the USSR) has had in the past century was WWII, and that was because the USSR was getting an enormous amount of material assistance from... The US. source Russia's aggressive actions against the Baltic countries are precisely why Estonia, Latvia, etc. joined NATO. And countries have to ask to join NATO. Without Russian aggression, there is no NATO.

For a solid 25+ years, I've been saying that the second it's viable, I would happily replace all of my meat with machine. When you fuck your back up as an organic, congrats, now you get to have pain for the rest of your life. As a cyborg? Just replace the damaged part.

I would absolutely line up to be assimilated. I'd be guaranteed a job that mattered, I'd always be with family and friends, I'd be part of a group that was always working towards a common goal, and I'd be happy; the borg that are disconnected from the collective are clearly deeply distressed by the experience. Plus, I'd be stronger and more capable as a borg than I can even imagine right now.

As long as people are making the choice to join the collective, why is it anyone else's business?

China did intervene to help Korea, and that's why we pulled out of Korea. And who do you think was helping fund and arm the VC forces that eventually ran us out of Vietnam? We weren't dumb enough to start WWIII over either of those then, and Russia probably isn't dumb enough to start WWIII over NATO helping fend off their aggression now.

I tried to join the military when I was 22, and was turned down. I was, and am, willing to fight and die when it's necessary to stop evil.

As I said, and you clearly ignored, I would be a liability to Ukraine where I am right now. I am old and slow, and that would put younger, fitter people at greater risk of being killed than if I wasn't there. What I can do is vote for politicians that will fund their military, donate money to specific units for things like buying drones or Hilux trucks to move fighters, and so on.

I'm aware that Ukraine has a corruption problem. That's not actually material to Russia invading and killing civilians. Louisiana has a corruption problem; that doesn't mean that Mexico should invade and bomb New Orleans' French Quarter.

We're not talking about Vietnam, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Korea. I opposed our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, because I predicted--and quite rightly--that our invasion would cost tens of thousands of civilian lives. In Syria, we should have followed through with our commitment to the rebels when Assad used chemical weapons, and we didn't; the result has been that Assad has been free to wage war against his own people, and hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died or been displaced. But none of those are Ukraine. In Ukraine, Russia is the one killing civilians, and attacking civilians targets; Russia is the one that invaded, without provocation. There was no military attack against Russia or the people of Russia by Ukraine; Russia had stolen Ukrainian territory in 2014, but that does not make the Crimean region Russian.

Try organizing with other long-term locals to tightly regulate and license short-term rentals. Structure a local ordinance so that you can run a genuine hotel or real B & B, but can't rent out a vacation home; eliminate the profit motive.

Additionally, I would suggest organizing to revamp zoning laws so that you can have high-density housing built in the town center. (Be warned that you'll get a lot of NIMBY people if you try that though.)

Yes.

Just as I would have supported the second world war, had I been alive.

It is our moral duty to oppose evil, and what Putin is doing is unambiguously evil.

OP has clearly never priced out solid wood furniture. A single mission-style sofa--by which I mean something made using Gustav Stickley's plans--will typically retail for well over $3000 US. ...Such as this version--from the original Stickley company--that has an MSRP of >$9000

Well, personally I'd support NATO troops directly opposing Russian aggression. If I had any skills worth a damn, I'd volunteer myself. Unfortunately, I'm nearly 50, and would be a greater liability to Ukrainian defenders than an asset.

And make no mistake, this is Russian aggression. Russia is to blame for NATO's existence, and for it's expansion. Sweden and Finland were both quite opposed to NATO membership prior to Russia's unwarranted invasion.

Not so at all. Human nature can, and does change, albeit very, very slowly. Evolution exists; humans continue to evolve through natural selection. We have mitigated some of the environmental effects, in that people that would not have survived to reproduce a hundred years ago now survive and thrive, but we are still evolving.

Communism was the norm for 95% of the time humans have spent on Earth.

Yes, this I agree with.

Communism works very, very well when you know everyone. Communes still exist today, and they are wonderful places, because everyone knows everyone else, and is able to work for the common good. Bad actors are quickly recognized and removed. This is what is called a community; community is direct and personal, because each individual knows each other individual, or at least knows someone that knows that individual. You can still find echoes of this with civics clubs, certain churches (not megachurches), and other local chapters of national organizations.

But this is not what we have now. Society has replaced community. Rather than everything being personal, everything has become impersonal and depersonalized. (That this feeling of being disconnected is pervasive in society; it's giving rise to right-wing extremism, as young people--mostly boys--looking for community are finding fascists that welcome them into a community. This is a large part of the reason why cells of groups like the Proud Boys are successful) Society is a largely external force, outside of the individual. In a society, problems are external to the individual; in a community, problems are internal to the individual, because the individual knows every other person.

Human nature can not keep pace with the ways that we are changing out environment. We have evolved to live in tribal groups, but in our development and reproduction as a species we have out paced the size of communities we have evolved to function within. Societies attempt to create a framework that allows individuals to continue to function, despite no longer being directly connected to the other people around them. Society has largely failed, and continues to fail to adapt in modernity; this is true for both capitalism, and so-called communism at a nation-state level.

For decentralized, anti-authoritarian communism to work, it must be personal and individual. You would need to evolve--or devolve--to tribal groups, or very small village-states. You could not have countries as we currently understand them, and we would certainly have a hard time e.g. coming to agreements about combating climate change (esp. when you consider that there are certain religious communities that are personally invested in denying that climate change is even real). Moreover, we have seen that there have been no successful transitions from communist revolutions to true communist societies yet. Is it possible in the future? Sure. But that's not the way that evidence is pointing.

I don't believe that capitalism is the answer; that's failed to meet the needs of everyone economically, and has often failed to meet social needs. I don't believe that communism can work the way that it was conceived; it may meet the bare economic necessities of most people (baring famines caused by hubristic governments or intentional genocides), but has failed the social needs. I don't think that communism should be accepted or permitted in the way that it's been implemented by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, or any of the other communist dictators due to the way that it removes the individual, personal autonomies and liberties of the people in those systems. (And yes, I'm aware that "dictatorship" is a loose term, and that even an absolute monarch doesn't have unlimited power, but the USSR, China, Cuba, and others, have been effectively dictatorships.)

This isn't a problem that can be solved through black and white, reductionist thinking--capitalism -OR- communism--and I don't think it can't be solved through pure theory. I tend to have a lot of respect for people that will admit that they don't know what the solution looks like, while decrying both the communism that has existed as well as capitalism as it now exists. I have much less respect for people that insist that they know for certainty that this or that will work.

I'll take that as no, you haven't read the article, and no, you don't believe in individual self determination.

Nice chat.

And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare

The US has just approved the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine. So that might change soon. IIRC, Ukraine has had a shortage of airplanes to use. Russia has been very reluctant to use the airplanes that they have because they keep getting shot down, and they simply can't replace them at the speed necessary (especially since their economy has crashed, and China is the only country that can supply them with the circuitry that they need).

A bigger problem is that Russia has air defenses and air bases inside Russia. NATO in general has been very reluctant to transfer offensive weapons to Ukraine that would make it possible to strike those--entirely legitimate--targets inside of Russia, because that would be an escalation. But to have air superiority, you need to ensure that those SAM batteries, RADAR installations, and forward air bases are not in the picture. So to break the stalemate, Ukraine has to be able to make strikes against Russia, in Russian territory. That's potentially very dangerous.

If it's allowed to grind on, Russia wins eventually, because they have a population many times the size of Ukraine, and can keep throwing bodies at them. So Ukraine needs to win air superiority, which means striking targets inside of Russia.

God (probably) doesn't exist. Humans do.