It's what it costs you now, and you don't have alternatives now.
Maybe this will help you think about the future differently: be it planning to move or getting a different job so that you can use alternative transport, making smaller changes that would allow you to not use a car as much, or even long-term decisions like championing for change at the legislative level that might aid development of better transportation access.
Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.
So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?
If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.
It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.
The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.
It’s a Right, not a “right”*.
Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?
There was a recent speech/plan/diatribe about this kind of thing by Cory Doctorow a couple months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rimtaSgGz_4
What I most appreciated about it is that in addition to describing the problems we're facing, he also proposed some actual fixes that are possible - though not without organization and concerted effort from those of us who care about this kind of thing!
I don't know what days I don't need that.
I struggle to find what to say, because I'm just some random schmuck on the internet. Plenty of people post vile comments, so I'm going to post a saccharine one, in honor of your friend.
Others have said it already, but I'll say it again because why not: your voice online has been a pleasure.
Grief is terrible, and I'm sorry you lost a loved one. I'm lucky enough to have a friend like the one you describe. We're a big part of each others' support system, and a lot of what we talk about winds up being Trek. I say that only to let you know that your grief will help me remember why I should cherish my friend, while we're both around. Maybe that doesn't do you any good, hopefully it doesn't come across as selfish/insensitive on my part (if so, you have my apology in advance), but maybe it's some consolation that you and your buddy are inspiring others who have never even met you. We all have an effect on people's lives, whether we know when it happens or not. Just being some kind of role model, even in a small way, will influence people for the better. That's my hope, anyway. So you and your buddy have clearly been doing this for a lot of us, here. I'm sure elsewhere. You don't owe any of us anything, but I know seeing your positivity makes me smile.
Gotta say though, I wouldn't mind the unceremonious death of Jadzia if it wasn't wrapped up in the sexist contract disputes, because the character is the perfect one to kill off, because she was (in a sense) only mostly dead! Imagine if we had gotten the chance to see Ezri talk to Jadzia, like we saw Jadzia talk to former hosts.
The two of them could work through the complications of living on the same station as Jadzia's husband, how her death wasn't some honorable warrior's death like Jadzia (and Curzon) would have dreamed about, and how Ezria wasn't ready for the responsibility of being a host. There's a lot of really interesting stuff writers could play with there, and I think Adira and Gray in Discovery have showed there's some nice storytelling potential there (the same kind of additions to canon could have happened with Ezri and Jadzia, in terms of a traumatic host transfer causing unexpected bonds between the hosts' memories).
Precisely. I voted today and it took a few minutes of my time. There was still plenty of time in the morning to keep working on the things I think will make more of an impact re: improving things somewhat. Mutual aid and anything else in the bucket of "resisting tyrannical government" is much easier when it's only +1 more evil rather than +10.
Didn't you just lay out why it is a social problem, though? Men are disproportionately abusing folks because they're disproportionately in power.
Clearly testosterone plays a major role in causing aggressive behavior, and men tend to have more testosterone, but that also isn't a clear-cut division between groups, and folks with lower testosterone can certainly still be aggressive monsters. Oversimplifying the problem isn't going to fix things.
I'm all for it! Balancing by buffing rather than nerfing seems to be best, in most cases.
Right? Would be easy enough for a DM to just improvise if they don't want the players using everything. Big ticket items have inscriptions that terrify anyone they try to sell it to, which is itself a plot hook. Maybe it's all cursed. Or they get arrested by the local authorities on suspicion of trafficking in stolen goods. Or even just have another adventuring party steal it from them somehow.
Depends on the abilities of the party, but snatching away their spoils after they get away sounds even more fun than not letting them take it in the first place.
I've got some student loans....