Double Naught Spy Wrote:Because, you know, when your country is actively being invaded by a Super Power, it is important that the gun buying process to help defend the country only take a few days, LOL. It makes you wonder what crisis they are really fighting.

Zeneffect Wrote:I think this is more impactful post war since apparently they are handing out AKs on the street to those who are willing and able.

Zeneffect Wrote:I dont know man, honestly some of the stuff is just outright weird. Captured russian military equipment doesn't have to be claimed as income. Why would they even mention it? Just weird. Maybe it's a mental incentive thing to engage the populous to fight more?

BluntForceTrauma Wrote:My take on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:

First, I like Putin for unapologetically putting Russia first, even if he is a sneaky former KGB bastard who is always scheming to get rich selling Russian energy and arms to the world. But I’d be happy if Biden put America first half as much as Putin puts Russia first.

Second, Ukraine is run by mafia-like oligarchs (like, oh, Romania) and is corrupt from top to bottom (like Mexico). Ukraine’s military is dysfunctional, no doubt, cuz government officials have pocketed the money.

Ukraine’s democratically-elected government was pushed out by U.S. strong-arm tactics by the Obama administration in 2014 and the current corrupt and illegitimate Zelensky regime installed. The present Ukraine government is just as illegitimate as the Biden administration. (Yes, I went there, but that’s for another topic.)

Now, as a matter of principle, it’s not right to invade a country that has not invaded you, nor was threatening to invade you, nor had any capability of invading you.

If a corrupt government of a neighboring country is justification for invasion, then the U.S. is justified invading Mexico.

So, Putin is morally unjustified to invade Ukraine.

However, now that he has, for the sake of the average Ukrainian suffering under a corrupt and illegitimate mafia-like oligarchy, I hope Russia ousts the Zelensky regime. Admittedly, there’s a slim chance that Putin’s corrupt regime will replace Zelensky with a righteous regime. (The governments of Poland and Hungary are examples of “righteous” regimes that don’t have more than the standard amount of corruption and who, generally, have the best interests of the people at heart.)

And I understand nationalist fervor when one’s country is invaded, no matter how much one suffered under corrupt and oppressive leadership. (See Russia under Stalin in WW2.)

Bottom lines:

Should the U.S. send humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine? Yes — provided corrupt officials don't intercept aid shipments and re-sell them on the black market like they do in Haiti and Africa and everywhere else.

Should the U.S. send Javelin and Stinger missiles to Ukraine? Well, yeah … OK. We armed the Mujahedin against Russia in Afghanistan, so — grudgingly — why not?

Should the U.S. send ground troops or declare a No-Fly Zone? Hell, no! You crazy? Billionaire investor Warren Buffet says, “You can’t do good business with bad people, no matter how tempting the deal.” Similarly, I say don’t get into political entanglements with corrupt governments. Didn’t we learn this in Vietnam?

BluntForceTrauma Wrote:My take on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:

First, I like Putin for unapologetically putting Russia first, even if he is a sneaky former KGB bastard who changed the laws to keep himself in power and is always scheming to get rich selling Russian energy and arms to the world. But I’d be happy if Biden put America first half as much as Putin puts Russia first.

Second, Ukraine is run by mafia-like oligarchs (like, oh, Romania) and is corrupt from top to bottom (like Mexico). Ukraine’s military is dysfunctional, no doubt, cuz government officials have pocketed the money.

Ukraine’s democratically-elected government was pushed out by U.S. strong-arm tactics by the Obama administration in 2014 and the current corrupt and illegitimate Zelensky regime installed. The present Ukraine government is just as illegitimate as the Biden administration. (Yes, I went there, but that’s for another topic.)

Now, as a matter of principle, it’s not right to invade a country that has not invaded you, nor was threatening to invade you, nor had any capability of invading you.

If a corrupt government of a neighboring country is justification for invasion, then the U.S. is justified invading Mexico.

So, Putin is morally unjustified to invade Ukraine.

However, now that he has, for the sake of the average Ukrainian suffering under a corrupt and illegitimate mafia-like oligarchy, I hope Russia ousts the Zelensky regime. Admittedly, there’s a slim chance that Putin’s corrupt regime will replace Zelensky with a righteous regime. (The governments of Poland and Hungary are examples of “righteous” regimes that don’t have more than the standard amount of corruption and who, generally, have the best interests of the people at heart.)

And I understand nationalist fervor when one’s country is invaded, no matter how much one suffered under corrupt and oppressive leadership. (See Russia under Stalin in WW2.)

Bottom lines:

Should the U.S. send humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine? Yes — provided corrupt officials don't intercept aid shipments and re-sell them on the black market like they do in Haiti and Africa and everywhere else.

Should the U.S. send Javelin and Stinger missiles to Ukraine? Well, yeah … OK. We armed the Mujahedin against Russia in Afghanistan, so — grudgingly — why not?

Should the U.S. send ground troops or declare a No-Fly Zone? Hell, no! You crazy? Billionaire investor Warren Buffet says, “You can’t do good business with bad people, no matter how tempting the deal.” Similarly, I say don’t get into political entanglements with corrupt governments. Didn’t we learn this in Vietnam?

BluntForceTrauma Wrote:My take on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:

First, I like Putin for unapologetically putting Russia first, even if he is a sneaky former KGB bastard who changed the laws to keep himself in power and is always scheming to get rich selling Russian energy and arms to the world. But I’d be happy if Biden put America first half as much as Putin puts Russia first.

Second, Ukraine is run by mafia-like oligarchs (like, oh, Romania) and is corrupt from top to bottom (like Mexico). Ukraine’s military is dysfunctional, no doubt, cuz government officials have pocketed the money.

Ukraine’s democratically-elected government was pushed out by U.S. strong-arm tactics by the Obama administration in 2014 and the current corrupt and illegitimate Zelensky regime installed. The present Ukraine government is just as illegitimate as the Biden administration. (Yes, I went there, but that’s for another topic.)

Now, as a matter of principle, it’s not right to invade a country that has not invaded you, nor was threatening to invade you, nor had any capability of invading you.

If a corrupt government of a neighboring country is justification for invasion, then the U.S. is justified invading Mexico.

So, Putin is morally unjustified to invade Ukraine.

However, now that he has, for the sake of the average Ukrainian suffering under a corrupt and illegitimate mafia-like oligarchy, I hope Russia ousts the Zelensky regime. Admittedly, there’s a slim chance that Putin’s corrupt regime will replace Zelensky with a righteous regime. (The governments of Poland and Hungary are examples of “righteous” regimes that don’t have more than the standard amount of corruption and who, generally, have the best interests of the people at heart.)

And I understand nationalist fervor when one’s country is invaded, no matter how much one suffered under corrupt and oppressive leadership. (See Russia under Stalin in WW2.)

Bottom lines:

Should the U.S. send humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine? Yes — provided corrupt officials don't intercept aid shipments and re-sell them on the black market like they do in Haiti and Africa and everywhere else.

Should the U.S. send Javelin and Stinger missiles to Ukraine? Well, yeah … OK. We armed the Mujahedin against Russia in Afghanistan, so — grudgingly — why not?

Should the U.S. send ground troops or declare a No-Fly Zone? Hell, no! You crazy? Billionaire investor Warren Buffet says, “You can’t do good business with bad people, no matter how tempting the deal.” Similarly, I say don’t get into political entanglements with corrupt governments. Didn’t we learn this in Vietnam?

LRRPF52 Wrote:Moldova will be annexed next, at which time Romania, Poland, the Baltics, and Finland will undergo massive changes in defense spending on top of their already increased spending.

Putin has a very narrow window of time from which to annex and attack the non-NATO nations, since Finland won’t be taking delivery of F-35As until 2025. Once Finland takes delivery of enough F-35s, an invasion like this could never take place there, and Russian strategic targets would be vulnerable to deep penetration strike profiles as a deterrence.

Russian foreign ministry was already talking about all this over 20 years ago when Putin was surprisingly announced as the new President by Yeltsin on Dec 31, 1999, without any election.

My friend’s uncle was in the Russian foreign ministry at the time and said now that Putin was in, Russia would be taking back Ukraine, Baltics, Poland, and Finland like a steamroller. He was running his mouth braggadociously, so the Russian Foreign Minister told him to shut his hole, or else. None of this is an accident or incidental to recent events.

LR1955 Wrote:Guys:

Precisely why the 2A was developed.

I bet that if Ukraine forces the Russians out that they will enact some sort of law that will be very close to our 2A.

Also bet the Ukranian government wished they had an armed populace before this invasion by Russia.

Ukrainian citizens lining up to get an assault rifle and ammo so they can fight.

Not lost on me but I bet not one anti gunner gets it.

LR-55

montana Wrote:The 2ndA had been an outdated concept for many people until the last few years when society broke down in certain parts of the country, the pandemic and now with the invasion of Ukraine nobody really believed would happen. I noticed with a raised eyebrow how fast gun laws were forgotten when the survival of the government was at risk. What this should teach people who love freedom is to never give up their right to bear arms and the importance of training with those arms..The other lesson shows what a determined, motivated armed population can do against an overwhelming force.. This is why tyrants hate a well armed, self sufficient population..I can say without hesitation, I would not want to be the one forced to chase Montana hunters out of the woods..

biodsl Wrote:Wolverines!

Double Naught Spy Wrote:Because, you know, when your country is actively being invaded by a Super Power, it is important that the gun buying process to help defend the country only take a few days, LOL. It makes you wonder what crisis they are really fighting.

montana Wrote:Same sh@t, different day. Nationalist Russia and China's new world order vs the west's soy boy brain dead woke deep state new world order. And right in the middle are the same clueless common people who only know the propaganda their nation feeds them so they can be manicured to risk wealth, life and limb defending the oligarchs who control them..Watching the literal circus of clowns during the state of the union tells me we are in big trouble..I'm getting too old for this cr@p....

LRRPF52 Wrote:As the people of the various nations peel the curtain back more and see geriatric pedophiles and mafia gangsters, time to distract them with another war.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Which brings us back to the 2A.

There have been a huge amount of people that previously identified as “anti-gun” who panic-bought firearms and ammunition over the last 2 years.