Politics

[Pondoro]

Okay..so if Trumps peace initiative come to nothing..what then..?

Implement new harse sanctions to slowly brake russian economy..?

Ramp up arms sales to Ukraine...sell a big portion of the mentioned M1 and Bradleys and push them back on the battlefield..?

 

[mdwest]

so what about a pistol that comes factory made with all or most of the upgrades I.E. Desert Eagle 1911

their point when I attended the courses was YOU changing out parts incurred potential liability (or at least opposing council would attempt to convince the courts that you incurred liability).. if you buy the firearm from a retailer with factory installed "upgrades".. not a problem.. thats how the factory built it and how you are supposed to shoot it.. but if YOU decide to change things up, they'll (the attorneys and particularly liberal courts) will try to leverage that against you...

At the time I was attending the courses on behalf of a PD that issued glocks.. and then later on behalf of a quasi-federal agency that issued sigs.. the glock instructors went so far as to tell us "if you want pistols with NY1 triggers or NY2 triggers, BUY them that way from Glock.. DONT buy NY1 triggers and convert your current pistols..

They told us this because there had already been agencies that did this in the interest of making their pistols "more safe" that had actually been sued on the premise that in doing so that they made their pistols less safe..

Stupid no doubt.. but, that is what we were advised none the less..

For me, I have been carrying and shooting the same G19 for the better part of the last 30 years.. its factory stock.. and has worked just fine for me... while I maintain familiarity with several different pistols, I know the G19 like the back of my own hand.. so thats what I carry...

 

[Aaron N]

take a breath, and give it a minute to work out. maybe it wont, but it very well could. remember the tariffs, and how the world was going to end, and prices double, and people would die....didn't happen. this might work out too, but it might take a minute or two.

I’m sure they eventually will. You may adore people who over promise and under deliver, but I despise them.

 

[Red Leg]

I'm hinting that the sanctions policy has failed even with Putin's friends - so is it possible to achieve something with sanctions in more serious matters? As for the territories: the root cause of the conflict is the issue of expanding the military infrastructure of the West to the East. If there is an agreement on the neutral status of Ukraine, then the territorial issues will be resolved, they are secondary. Russia will not agree to any option for the presence of Western troops in Ukraine until this issue is resolved - there will be no peace.

No, the root cause of the problem is the territorial ambition of your dictator. Frankly, the West should not give a second thought to what Russia desires with respect to the foreign policy and treaty commitments of its neighbors. Russia no longer has the power to enforce such demands any more than the UK can demand France give up its nuclear arsenal.

Should it have missed your notice, the modernized Russian army - the work of twenty years - is so much rusting metal on the Ukrainian steppe and moldering corpses of a generation of Russian men sorely needed by a nation with a collapsing birth rate. The Russian air force is incapable of operating in hostile air space and the Black Sea Fleet, what is left of it, can't even operate in the Black Sea. All that has been accomplished by Ukraine. Do you really believe NATO has any serious concerns with respect to Russian conventional forces?

The West can and should do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the people of Ukraine.

Besides, since your brilliant strategic leader, however unintendedly, sponsored the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, Russia already should be coming to terms with a close NATO neighbors.

Of course you can always sober up Medvedev for a few minutes so that he can threaten the West with nuclear Armageddon, but how much of your strategic arsenal will perform as designed? I would suggest not a single SLBM will have the opportunity to launch from one your submarines. It is unlikely any of your remaining strategic aircraft will reach anywhere near their targets. Some portion of your land based missile deployed warheads will strike the West. They would indeed cause catastrophic damage. But, all the US weapons would reach their targets. All will be precisely accurate. All will perform exactly as designed. Whatever damage you think will be visited upon the West, will be returned a hundred fold on Russia. It will cease to exist as an organized state. Its culture, language, and history would be erased from the earth. Is that really a meaningful threat to anyone other than yourselves?

I have a better idea for you and your countrymen. Try joining rather than undermining the developed community of nations. Set aside your paranoia and delusions of grandeur and embrace and exploit the economic potential of your nation. As I type, Russia's GDP per capita is 14,889 USD. That compares to the US per capita GDP of 85,810 USD. Russia, with all its natural resource potential, has a GDP per capita in the same range as many failing third world states. You really want that to be the actual legacy of this period of Russian history?

 

[mdwest]

I’m sure they eventually will. You may adore people who over promise and under deliver, but I despise them.

If you despise people that over promise and under deliver.. and big talkers cause you distress... I'd strongly recommend you stop following politics in any capacity.. and especially avoid Canadian politicians at all costs..

I'd beg anyone to show me a politician that is successful at the national level that hasnt played full tilt theatrics, and delivered line after line of horse shit laden drivel at the feet of their constituents and on the world stage..

It is unfortunately what they all do... It doesnt matter if we're talking Trudeau, Carney, or Ford.. Trump, Gabbert, or Ilhan Omar.. Ramanphosa or Zuma... Ven Der Leden, Starmer, or Macron..

Same show.. just delivered with a different accent.. and depending on whether they are liberals or conservatives, a different slant..

Trump just happens to have the biggest stage of them all.. and brought 20+ years of hollywood training with him to the stage..

 

[Aaron N]

If you despise people that over promise and under deliver.. and big talkers cause you distress... I'd strongly recommend you stop following politics in any capacity.. and especially avoid Canadian politicians at all costs..

I'd beg anyone to show me a politician that is successful at the national level that hasnt played full tilt theatrics, and delivered line after line of horse shit laden drivel at the feet of their constituents and on the world stage..

It is unfortunately what they all do... It doesnt matter if we're talking Trudeau, Carney, or Ford.. Trump, Gabbert, or Ilhan Omar.. Ramanphosa or Zuma... Ven Der Leden, Starmer, or Macron..

Same show.. just delivered with a different accent.. and depending on whether they are liberals or conservatives, a different slant..

Trump just happens to have the biggest stage of them all.. and brought 20+ years of hollywood training with him to the stage..

You’re 100% right. Thankfully things seem to be moving forward in a more tempered and rational manner.

 

[mdwest]

You’re 100% right. Thankfully things seem to be moving forward in a more tempered and rational manner.

I long for the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neil.. Two guys that agreed on almost nothing.. but were able to actually talk to one another in a respectful manner, negotiate to an agreeable "middle" position, and move the country forward..

Sadly I dont see that happening again in the US for a while..

I do hope I am wrong though... I'd love to think D's like Spanberger, Sherril, and Slotkin who are more center-left would start gaining more ground within their party than the AOC's, Talibs, Omars, and Crocketts... and that the same would happen on the R side of the house as well...

Unfortunately Americans love the chaos of a train wreck.. and would rather point and laugh at MTG spouting off alien invasion nonsense, or AOC trying her best to act intelligent while actually coming across as the moron that she is... than to have a room full of adults sit down and have a meaningful debate about their different opinions and then try to move the country forward...

It wasnt all that long ago that D's and R's actually wanted the same things.. safe streets, strong economy, good educational opportunities for their children, etc... they just disagreed on how to move the country in the right direction to obtain those things...

Today its abundantly clear that the two parties want very different things.. so theres no real reason to have a sensible debate on how to get "there"... since neither wants to go where the other wants to..

 

[Aaron N]

I long for the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neil.. Two guys that agreed on almost nothing.. but were able to actually talk to one another in a respectful manner, negotiate to an agreeable "middle" position, and move the country forward..

Sadly I dont see that happening again in the US for a while..

I do hope I am wrong though... I'd love to think D's like Spanberger, Sherril, and Slotkin who are more center-left would start gaining more ground within their party than the AOC's, Talibs, Omars, and Crocketts... and that the same would happen on the R side of the house as well...

Unfortunately Americans love the chaos of a train wreck.. and would rather point and laugh at MTG spouting off alien invasion nonsense, or AOC trying her best to act intelligent while actually coming across as the moron that she is... than to have a room full of adults sit down and have a meaningful debate about their different opinions and then try to move the country forward...

It wasnt all that long ago that D's and R's actually wanted the same things.. safe streets, strong economy, good educational opportunities for their children, etc... they just disagreed on how to move the country in the right direction to obtain those things...

Today its abundantly clear that the two parties want very different things.. so theres no real reason to have a sensible debate on how to get "there"... since neither wants to go where the other wants to..

The worst part is that likely 80% of the general population can see eye to eye, and understand the others point of view. But the 10% fringe on both sides of the spectrum make the most noise and get the most coverage.

 

[Aaron N]

If Ukraine was given all of the equipment and munitions that it wanted, would they have the manpower and skill to push Russia back over its borders? There’s a very good chance that Putin will refuse to back out of any captured territory.

 

[mdwest]

that may well be a problem.... assume the US committed to sending them 1000 M1A tanks, 500 M2 Bradleys, and 30 F16's tomorrow..

Question #1 would be: Do they have enough people available that are capable of not only manning, but maintaining those systems (there are a few tasks on an M1A that you can give to any random guy and have them accomplished.. but there are other tasks that take reasonable intelligence, a certain amount of physical capability, etc.. there is a reason most really good tankers are about 5'8 or shorter and built like fire plugs, and strong as bears, for example...)....

If the answer to Q1 is a "yes".. then Q2 would be: how quickly could we get these people trained and capable of using these platforms competently in combat?

Basic Jet Engine school in the USAF is 7.5 weeks of "basic training" plus an additional 8 weeks of follow on technical training. Once they get through the 2 months of technical training, if I understand correctly, depending on which aircraft they are going to work on, there is another 1-3 months of training for that specific aircraft.. so if youre looking at taking a guy fresh off the street and want him to keep that F16 flying.. its going to take a minimum of 6-8 months to make that happen.. and thats if you are able to train him in Ukrainian (im not sure how many jet propulsion instructors speak fluent ukrainian.. but it cant be many... ).. if you have to teach him English first before he can come over to learn those skills.. youre talking several more months..

The transition program to take people that are already certified pilots and get them checked out on the F16 is 4-6 months long.. Im sure that could be abbreviated to some degree.. but even getting someone capable of flying those planes is going to take a substantial amount of time..

With the ground systems the time lines would be shorter... but.. its still not an "overnight" thing.. an M1A isnt the same thing as a WW2 era sherman.. theres a lot of technology inside those giant steel boxes.. and theyre capable of doing things that older era tanks arent capable of..

OSUT training in the US Army for a tank crew member is 22 weeks (including 10 weeks of Basic Training).. the mechanics that work on the tanks get 34 weeks of training..

 

[Tanks]

If Ukraine was given all of the equipment and munitions that it wanted, would they have the manpower and skill to push Russia back over its borders? There’s a very good chance that Putin will refuse to back out of any captured territory.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/04/europe/russia-war-casualties-1-million-ukraine-intl

Ratio so far seems to be 2 to 1. Russia has 3.6M soldiers, Ukraine 800K. Can Russia lose another 1.6M to finish off Ukraine? Putin doesn’t seem to care about casualties as he would look at population gains from annexed areas to make up for it.

Also, I don’t see Ukraine getting a lot more stuff any time soon.

 

[spike.t]

Concur with all.. except duty to retreat.. which is something that requires quite a bit of situational awareness... (for example, under TX law there is no duty to retreat.. whereas MN, NY, HI, and many other states have very strict duty to retreat laws.. so.. you better know where you are and what the laws are if youre not going to try to physically remove yourself from a threatening situation as a priority.. )

Its been 25+ years.. but when I went through both the Glock Armorer and the Sig Armorers courses the instructors were very clear.. DONT MODIFY YOUR GUNS... the liability just isnt worth it.. for CCW, carry factory only.. they even went so far as to encourage us not to swap out Glock triggers with NY1 or NY2 triggers which increase the trigger pull weight and are OEM parts.. because there had already been lawsuits filed against individuals and agencies that had gone with heavier triggers for "safety" reasons.. but then were getting sued under the auspices that "you cant be accurate with a 12 lb trigger... you didnt actually mean to kill my client.. you were trying to wound him!" (or you didnt mean to wound my client and cause him a life long injury and pain.. you intended on killing him!)...

We were told swapping out parts for other OEM parts of the EXACT SAME design was ok.. but ZERO modification to parts and ZERO swapping out of parts for non original parts was recommended..

So it's better to swop the heavy ny trigger for a lighter factory one so you can more accurately shoot the correct spot?....asking for a friend....

 

[Wheels]

Co-anything generally doesn’t bode well for the individual who held the position in totality. My guess is Bongino is on the way out.

Missouri AG Andrew Bailey to become FBI co-deputy director, joining Dan Bongino

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey will serve as the FBI's co-deputy director, alongside the law enforcement agency's current second-in-command, Dan Bongino.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

their point when I attended the courses was YOU changing out parts incurred potential liability (or at least opposing council would attempt to convince the courts that you incurred liability).. if you buy the firearm from a retailer with factory installed "upgrades".. not a problem.. thats how the factory built it and how you are supposed to shoot it.. but if YOU decide to change things up, they'll (the attorneys and particularly liberal courts) will try to leverage that against you...

At the time I was attending the courses on behalf of a PD that issued glocks.. and then later on behalf of a quasi-federal agency that issued sigs.. the glock instructors went so far as to tell us "if you want pistols with NY1 triggers or NY2 triggers, BUY them that way from Glock.. DONT buy NY1 triggers and convert your current pistols..

They told us this because there had already been agencies that did this in the interest of making their pistols "more safe" that had actually been sued on the premise that in doing so that they made their pistols less safe..

Stupid no doubt.. but, that is what we were advised none the less..

For me, I have been carrying and shooting the same G19 for the better part of the last 30 years.. its factory stock.. and has worked just fine for me... while I maintain familiarity with several different pistols, I know the G19 like the back of my own hand.. so thats what I carry...

I’ve seen this sort of thing discussed a lot over the years but I wonder if there is actually a case of someone who made an otherwise good shoot in self defense that was prosecuted based on modifications to his pistol?

 

[mdwest]

I’ve seen this sort of thing discussed a lot over the years but I wonder if there is actually a case of someone who made an otherwise good shoot in self defense that was prosecuted based on modifications to his pistol?

An Attorney Reflects on Gun Modifications

armedcitizensnetwork.org

Link is to an interview with an attorney by the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network that adds a little fidelity to the discussion..


Its not a matter of someone being prosecuted based on modifications whereas otherwise there wouldnt have been a case in a criminal court.. the shoot is either justified, or its not.. whether you shot someone with a .22 or a 30-06.. a pistol or a rifle.. or a crossbow.. youre going to have to meet the jurisdictions requirements for utilization of deadly force in a self defense situation..

its a matter of civil liability.. whether or not youre giving someone the opportunity to pursue you or providing them an angle of attack that they otherwise wouldnt have had..

In the civil courts, decisions are often made over dollars rather than right and wrong... if youre going to pay $150K to defend yourself and have a 50-50 shot at winning a $5M lawsuit.. as often as not cities, counties, agencies, companies, etc.. will choose to "settle" for a lessor amount.. just to avoid the bad PR, the court of public opinion, and to reduce the chances of getting hit for the full value of the lawsuit in the event of a loss.. whether or not someone is guilty of something is often unfortunately an afterthought.. the financial impact (short and long term) is often the greater focus..

As someone stated earlier in this thread.. its a sad reality that most people in this country cant afford to defend themselves.. even when they are innocent..

So.. If an unmodified, factory Glock helps to lower that liability exposure and will get the job done sufficiently.. why modify it?

The linked article above also touches on some of the political and social issues that impact both the criminal and civil courts and decisions and perceptions that are made regarding modified firearms... its well worth the read IMO

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

An Attorney Reflects on Gun Modifications

armedcitizensnetwork.org

Link is to an interview with an attorney by the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network that adds a little fidelity to the discussion..


Its not a matter of someone being prosecuted based on modifications whereas otherwise there wouldnt have been a case in a criminal court.. the shoot is either justified, or its not.. whether you shot someone with a .22 or a 30-06.. a pistol or a rifle.. or a crossbow.. youre going to have to meet the jurisdictions requirements for utilization of deadly force in a self defense situation..

its a matter of civil liability.. whether or not youre giving someone the opportunity to pursue you or providing them an angle of attack that they otherwise wouldnt have had..

In the civil courts, decisions are often made over dollars rather than right and wrong... if youre going to pay $150K to defend yourself and have a 50-50 shot at winning a $5M lawsuit.. as often as not cities, counties, agencies, companies, etc.. will choose to "settle" for a lessor amount.. just to avoid the bad PR, the court of public opinion, and to reduce the chances of getting hit for the full value of the lawsuit in the event of a loss.. whether or not someone is guilty of something is often unfortunately an afterthought.. the financial impact (short and long term) is often the greater focus..

As someone stated earlier in this thread.. its a sad reality that most people in this country cant afford to defend themselves.. even when they are innocent..

So.. If an unmodified, factory Glock helps to lower that liability exposure and will get the job done sufficiently.. why modify it?

The linked article above also touches on some of the political and social issues that impact both the criminal and civil courts and decisions and perceptions that are made regarding modified firearms... its well worth the read IMO

Are there any civil court cases where a private individual (rather than, say, a police department) was held more liable in a defense shooting with a modified pistol?

 

[rookhawk]

Are there any civil court cases where a private individual (rather than, say, a police department) was held more liable in a defense shooting with a modified pistol?

I think it goes back to civil liability as previously stated. A civil trial cannot speculate as to the state of mind of the person that used deadly force, but they can build a constellation of tangible facts to make you look like a “gun nut out to shoot somebody”. Examples would include you tinkering with your gun to make it more deadly in layperson speak, to handload more lethal ammunition, to participate in a gun club where they sell targets that may have Muslims or other minorities as paper targets, your social media posts that encourage or rejoice for justified homicides, rebel flags hanging in your home, participation in civilian SEAL / SpecOps weekend courses, etc. <- All of that would speak to the jury about the character of the shooter in a civil court.

A reminder that many people prevail in criminal court (e.g. OJ Simpson) but lose horrifically in civil court for a wrongful death.

This is where your personal conduct and social media posts better be unimpeachable. Just using racial slurs could be enough to tip a civil jury when a criminal jury found you not-guilty. It’s a far lower bar.

 

[rookhawk]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/04/europe/russia-war-casualties-1-million-ukraine-intl

Ratio so far seems to be 2 to 1. Russia has 3.6M soldiers, Ukraine 800K. Can Russia lose another 1.6M to finish off Ukraine? Putin doesn’t seem to care about casualties as he would look at population gains from annexed areas to make up for it.

Also, I don’t see Ukraine getting a lot more stuff any time soon.

The declarative winner in this conflict is China. Their aggressive neighbor is being slaughtered. Russia’s sanctions are forcing them to sell resources at wholesale to China. Future threat from Russia to China is greatly diminished.

The west is a slight net-gain from the wholesale slaughter on both sides, sadly. A weakened Russia as a consequence of a weakened Ukraine is still a slight win in the larger calculation.

I suspect Ukraine will lose Crimea, Luhansk, and Donbas forever and in exchange pseudo-NATO membership for the remaining Ukraine will occur. Probably by UK/Germany/US bases and defensive weaponry installations in the remaining country.

I’m not here to say any of this is good, just what is likely. That, and that China won the Ukraine-Russia conflict handedly.

 

[Red Leg]

The declarative winner in this conflict is China. Their aggressive neighbor is being slaughtered. Russia’s sanctions are forcing them to sell resources at wholesale to China. Future threat from Russia to China is greatly diminished.

The west is a slight net-gain from the wholesale slaughter on both sides, sadly. A weakened Russia as a consequence of a weakened Ukraine is still a slight win in the larger calculation.

I suspect Ukraine will lose Crimea, Luhansk, and Donbas forever and in exchange pseudo-NATO membership for the remaining Ukraine will occur. Probably by UK/Germany/US bases and defensive weaponry installations in the remaining country.

I’m not here to say any of this is good, just what is likely. That, and that China won the Ukraine-Russia conflict handedly.

In the long run, so will Western Europe with respect to a future independent of American influence and leadership. Interesting current discussion of that potential. The relative manufacturing data points are the most striking.

European rearmament is pushing Trump into irrelevance on Ukraine

This vain, vacillating, gullible US president no longer commands the West

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Tanks]

...I suspect Ukraine will lose Crimea, Luhansk, and Donbas forever and in exchange pseudo-NATO membership for the remaining Ukraine will occur. Probably by UK/Germany/US bases and defensive weaponry installations in the remaining country.

I doubt even with the land gains Russia will go for bases in Ukraine. Also, a pseudo-NATO membership is worth nothing. US, UK and Russia were signatories to Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine giving its nuclear weapons as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. One invaded, and the others stood by and did nothing.