I am increasingly anti-gun ownership EDIT: Changed my mind. Guns are fine, even if I won’t own them

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

That's unfortunate. It's one of the only things the Republicans have going for them IMO, but your position is probably where they're headed and makes more sense with the conservative worldview anyway.

If anything, the evidence strongly suggests that Republicans (and the country writ large!) have been shifting to be more pro gun ownership for several decades now. BG's prior opposition/current dislike for guns should be read as yet a further indication of his broader leftism, rather than anything to do with the GOP/conservative movement.

The northeast is generally anti-gun.

3 New England states have laws allowing concealed carry without a license, Connecticut and Pennsylvania are shall issue license states, and support for gun ownership is extremely strong throughout rural New York. Northeastern states tend to have less ownership friendly laws than elsewhere in the country primarily because they are left of center, but they are still remarkably pro ownership in an international context, with a lot of evidence suggesting strong public support for ownership.

Relative to the South, Midwest, and West, the Northeast is anti-gun.

Okay. So what? The Northeast is still pro-gun in an international sense, as well as at least to some extent in an absolute sense. But even if it is anti-gun, that wouldn't change the substance of anything I've said here about your ideology (the Northeast is America's most leftist region) or the country/GOP/conservative movement all becoming more pro-gun.

How is someone who opposes future immigration, foreign aid, increases in personal or corporate taxes, and free trade leftist?

Two of those views (opposing future immigration and free trade) are not really right wing beliefs: free trade is something that most Republicans support but that many conservatives have historically found themselves on either side of. Opposing all future immigration is not really a belief with any precedent in American history: it's not right wing or left wing so much as a European import, but if it were to have any political comparison being concerned about the economic effects of immigration is much more associated with the left than the the right in the US. Otherwise, opposing foreign aid and increased taxes is good, although primarily reflective of your broader ideological idiosyncrasy, but doesn't negate your broader support for leftist positions on guns, religion, the economy excluding those specific topics,  and the role of government.

I support a better quality of life for all American citizens, and maximizing liberties for all American citizens. I oppose allocating any resources to non-Americans, and believe America’s involvement abroad is to the detriment of American citizens. I am ideologically pretty consistent.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

That's unfortunate. It's one of the only things the Republicans have going for them IMO, but your position is probably where they're headed and makes more sense with the conservative worldview anyway.

If anything, the evidence strongly suggests that Republicans (and the country writ large!) have been shifting to be more pro gun ownership for several decades now. BG's prior opposition/current dislike for guns should be read as yet a further indication of his broader leftism, rather than anything to do with the GOP/conservative movement.

The northeast is generally anti-gun.

3 New England states have laws allowing concealed carry without a license, Connecticut and Pennsylvania are shall issue license states, and support for gun ownership is extremely strong throughout rural New York. Northeastern states tend to have less ownership friendly laws than elsewhere in the country primarily because they are left of center, but they are still remarkably pro ownership in an international context, with a lot of evidence suggesting strong public support for ownership.

Relative to the South, Midwest, and West, the Northeast is anti-gun.

Okay. So what? The Northeast is still pro-gun in an international sense, as well as at least to some extent in an absolute sense. But even if it is anti-gun, that wouldn't change the substance of anything I've said here about your ideology (the Northeast is America's most leftist region) or the country/GOP/conservative movement all becoming more pro-gun.

How is someone who opposes future immigration, foreign aid, increases in personal or corporate taxes, and free trade leftist?

Two of those views (opposing future immigration and free trade) are not really right wing beliefs: free trade is something that most Republicans support but that many conservatives have historically found themselves on either side of. Opposing all future immigration is not really a belief with any precedent in American history: it's not right wing or left wing so much as a European import, but if it were to have any political comparison being concerned about the economic effects of immigration is much more associated with the left than the the right in the US. Otherwise, opposing foreign aid and increased taxes is good, although primarily reflective of your broader ideological idiosyncrasy, but doesn't negate your broader support for leftist positions on guns, religion, the economy excluding those specific topics,  and the role of government.

I support a better quality of life for all American citizens, and maximizing liberties for all American citizens. I oppose allocating any resources to non-Americans, and believe America’s involvement abroad is to the detriment of American citizens. I am ideologically pretty consistent.

I said you were ideologically leftist and idiosyncratic, not that you were inconsistent. None of what you have said above contradicts my descriptions (except your statement that you favor maximizing liberties for all American citizens, which I do not believe unless you have a very strange definition of liberty: it is facially contradictory to favor government bans on things like self-driving trucks while claiming to support maximizing liberty.)

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

That's unfortunate. It's one of the only things the Republicans have going for them IMO, but your position is probably where they're headed and makes more sense with the conservative worldview anyway.

If anything, the evidence strongly suggests that Republicans (and the country writ large!) have been shifting to be more pro gun ownership for several decades now. BG's prior opposition/current dislike for guns should be read as yet a further indication of his broader leftism, rather than anything to do with the GOP/conservative movement.

Not necessarily. It's the reason people with your mindset can vote (or in your case will vote when you turn 18 in five years) that groups like Redneck Revolt, the Socialist Rifle Association, and the John Brown Gun Club exist.

And lest we forget:

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Huh? I'm pretty sure that my right to vote does not come from the actions of the Socialist Rifle Association or the John Brown Gun Club. And while, yes, Marx did say that the "workers" should not be disarmed because he thought that they would eventually revolt and be the key to overthrowing capitalism, he didn't favor gun ownership in general. Rather, he specifically advocated for armed groups of workers to use force to seize power:

Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Marx believed that guns should be controlled by the state and utilized by workers as part of NKVD type proletarian guards. If anything, that's by a long shot more similar to the beliefs of gun control advocates (only state sponsored forces should have guns) than it is to the beliefs of gun control opponents (everyone should have guns to stop tyranny).

But even if we ignore the Marx point briefly, my point was that leftism and leftists in general support gun control, not that Marx in particular did. Even if Marx really did support gun ownership, most leftists certainly don't: supporting gun control is strongly correlated with high trust in government, a leftist view, as well as broader leftist viewpoints. BG-NYC favoring gun control (or disliking guns, at least) fits very well in his pattern of opposing economic liberty, calling for the GOP to strip religion from public life, and disregarding social conservatism.

Trust in government is at an all-time low across the spectrum. Socialists sure as hell don't benefit from the status quo. But yes, Marx essentially argued for a workers' militia and dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Castro realized something very obvious: those same guns which liberated many countries from Western imperialism and capitalism could be used against them. Notice, however, that Marx never advocated for any kind of gun confiscation in any context -- by communist states or otherwise. The end goal for Marxism is anarchy, and that's why it fails as an ideology.

But Christian Nationalism is tyranny. Trumpism is tyranny. The war on trans people is tyranny. As far as "small government conservatism" is concerned, Trump and DeSantis give Bush a run for his money in term of authoritarian policies. But of course, the US Republican Party is not a "conservative" party by any means. The Democratic Party is.

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

That's unfortunate. It's one of the only things the Republicans have going for them IMO, but your position is probably where they're headed and makes more sense with the conservative worldview anyway.

If anything, the evidence strongly suggests that Republicans (and the country writ large!) have been shifting to be more pro gun ownership for several decades now. BG's prior opposition/current dislike for guns should be read as yet a further indication of his broader leftism, rather than anything to do with the GOP/conservative movement.

The northeast is generally anti-gun.

3 New England states have laws allowing concealed carry without a license, Connecticut and Pennsylvania are shall issue license states, and support for gun ownership is extremely strong throughout rural New York. Northeastern states tend to have less ownership friendly laws than elsewhere in the country primarily because they are left of center, but they are still remarkably pro ownership in an international context, with a lot of evidence suggesting strong public support for ownership.

Relative to the South, Midwest, and West, the Northeast is anti-gun.

Okay. So what? The Northeast is still pro-gun in an international sense, as well as at least to some extent in an absolute sense. But even if it is anti-gun, that wouldn't change the substance of anything I've said here about your ideology (the Northeast is America's most leftist region) or the country/GOP/conservative movement all becoming more pro-gun.

How is someone who opposes future immigration, foreign aid, increases in personal or corporate taxes, and free trade leftist?

Two of those views (opposing future immigration and free trade) are not really right wing beliefs: free trade is something that most Republicans support but that many conservatives have historically found themselves on either side of. Opposing all future immigration is not really a belief with any precedent in American history: it's not right wing or left wing so much as a European import, but if it were to have any political comparison being concerned about the economic effects of immigration is much more associated with the left than the the right in the US. Otherwise, opposing foreign aid and increased taxes is good, although primarily reflective of your broader ideological idiosyncrasy, but doesn't negate your broader support for leftist positions on guns, religion, the economy excluding those specific topics,  and the role of government.

I support a better quality of life for all American citizens, and maximizing liberties for all American citizens. I oppose allocating any resources to non-Americans, and believe America’s involvement abroad is to the detriment of American citizens. I am ideologically pretty consistent.

I said you were ideologically leftist and idiosyncratic, not that you were inconsistent. None of what you have said above contradicts my descriptions (except your statement that you favor maximizing liberties for all American citizens, which I do not believe unless you have a very strange definition of liberty: it is facially contradictory to favor government bans on things like self-driving trucks while claiming to support maximizing liberty.)

I don’t oppose government bans on trucks? Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

The more I travel outside of the U.S., the less I believe in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

[Comrade Luanne Platter]

I've actually trended in the opposite direction over the last few years; more out of resignation to an inevitable fact of American life than anything else though.