Alex_Krycek

"Canada’s government is to legislate for a national freeze on handgun ownership that would prevent people buying and selling them anywhere in the country." “The day this legislation goes into effect it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns in Canada,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/handgun-freeze-in-canada-and-five-round-limit-on-magazines -------- To score political points, Trudeau is removing the right to self defense from practically the entire Canadian population. I guess the logic is if someone is violently attacked and can't defend him/her self it's that person's own responsibility. “Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said. What an utterly absurd and ignorant statement.

I see Trudeau's busy limiting the rights of gun owners. Easy to take away someone's rights, no so easy to protect them.

What will never work: Banning all guns. (too many in circulation, too many people would violently resist) Focusing on one type of weapon or controlling ammunition / magazines, etc. What might work and would have an immediate impact: Raising the minimum age to own a firearm Significantly cracking down on illegal gun ownership Increasing mental health counseling for young people "Red flagging" certain convictions as barriers to gun ownership Criminalizing gun ownership if a person states intent of harming others

True but... "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. archives.gov/federal-register/constitution I don't think these requirements are realistic when we're talking about rescinding the second amendment. Also there would likely be a civil war from the far right...but that's another story.

Won't work in America. Owning a firearm is a constitutional right. While some types of guns can be regulated (it's illegal to own a machine gun, for example) banning all guns would be an extremely difficult endeavor that would probably be struck down by the Supreme Court in the end. Regulating content wouldn be as easy or easier than regulating guns in America. Personally I would be in favor of mandatory psychological checks to get a 2 year permit to own a gun. Every two years the license must be renewed after another mandatory visit to the psychologist. The problem is such a measure would probably be struck down in court as unconstitutional. I'm not talking about guard towers and barbed wire fences. Bullet proof security doors and windows, fully trained staff who keep the building secure from unauthorized intruders. These are things that would not have to interrupt the fun environment happening inside. Many options here. Easier to get a consensus on mental health legislation before universal heath case. Step by step. On this timeline we're looking at 50-75 years before any meaningful systemic change takes effect. We should be looking at measures that can be implemented right now.

The focus on the "military-style assault weapons" is a red herring, in my opinion. The AR-15 is just a standard semi automatic rifle when it comes down to it (glorified to look cool for the gun nerds). There are actually considerably higher caliber rifles available such as the Army's new MCX Spear which are now available on the commercial market. The constant focus on banning the AR-15 is a non-sequitur and would be drop in the ocean in terms of actual prevention. My sugestions on how to mitigate these massacres: 1. Address the fixation on violence and control in the media (movies / TV / video games). A shift has occurred in the last 20 years in the mindset of young people where extreme violence is considered acceptable (normalized through the aforementioned forms of media). Unfortunately, this kind of violent entertainment is the most profitable in a free market system. There should be significantly increased regulation on what type of content is available to those under 21. 2. Raise the age of gun ownership to 21 everywhere. Nobody under 21 should be able to buy a firearm. Giving a firearm to a person under 21 should be a felony in every state. 3. Every school funded with taxpayer dollars must be airtight in terms of security. Schools are the number one soft target for this kind of terrorism. Schools should be impenetrable fortresses to anyone without security clearance, and should be regularly inspected to maintain standards of security. 4. Make it illegal for the media to report the assailant's name and identity. These terrorists are doing this in part for ego manifestation/glorification; they should know that even after their atrocity is committed ,they will remain anonymous. The mass shooter event has unfortunately become a meme now in our society, driven in part by the attention sought by the assailants. As a society we should begin to dismantle the perceived psychological rewards the attacker's see in committing such crimes. 5. Significantly increase mental health counseling / services for young people. With the exception of the Las Vegas shooter, it seems that young people predominantly commit this particular type of atrocity. There should be a place for them to get help free of charge. The barriers around mental health treatment must come down.

What-about-ism. Classy.

In case it hasn't been established yet, thought I'd point out the obvious that what Russia is doing clearly qualifies as genocide: From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (United Nations) Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (killing Ukrainians because of their nationality) (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (civilians targeted everywhere in Ukraine) (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (widespread indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas) (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (bombed maternity hospital) (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (relocating women and children from Ukraine to camps in Russia) Source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

Might also be a cover story to sideline them while the FSB's internal affairs investigation moves forward. The Kremlin must be rife with paranoia about who might turn / have turned against Putin.

The Ukrainians are fighting a guerilla war; what do you expect? This is how any country under occupation tries to turn the tables back in their favor. It doesn't somehow give the invading country the right to indiscriminately massacre civilians.

Considering how integral sorties are to Russia's campaign, it's hard to see how a no fly zone wouldn't be seen as a declaration of war, considering it would necessitate expelling the Russian aircraft using force.

It's only insane to the sane. For everyone's sake, I hope Putin still is. ------ Good analysis here also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXKSM8lpqKM

Baloney. A tyrant's hunger is never satiated.

Glad to see the Snake Island troops may yet be alive. Would have been a reckless move by their commander if he decided to go out in a blaze of glory. Escape / evasion would have been the right COA.

Only because they step out of line one at a time. Impossible to quell such non-violent opposition when the entire population does it simultaneously (and is willing to die for it).

It would quickly turn into a war of attrition, Russia's Vietnam. Ukranian civilians holding AK-47s might make for sensational television, but in reality horrific loss of life will ensue if these people actually see combat. They'll be absolutely slaughtered. I hope that doesn't happen. Putin would likely drag it out for years regardless of the civilian casualties, using each Russian casualty as justification for an exponential increase in force. A better route that Zelensky might have chosen for his people might have been that of collective Non-Violent resistance, nationwide civil disobedience.

I expect the message to Zelensky will be: "Kyiv is surrounded; give up now while you still can." The Russians would have an interested in avoiding this battle too, since fighting from the outskirts of Kyiv to the center will be block by block, house by house - and they will likely lose a lot of troops.

Has any negotiation been agreed? The last I saw, Zelensky rejected the idea of a negotiation taking place in Belarus, saying any other country would be acceptable.

Putin orders nuclear deterrence forces on high alert Sigh...

Possible escalation point: (involving overt conflict between NATO member state (Turkey) and Russia. Obviously depends how much Russia cares about this maritime route. Zelenskiy claims Turkey will ban Russian warships from Black Sea Turkey will stop warships passing through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits, which connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.

Summary: Putin is a failed leader presiding over a dysfunctional society. The rising success of former Soviet countries such as Estonia and Ukraine underscore Russia's shortcomings and would eventually lead to internal change. Thus, Russia's neighbors must be subjugated.

Maddow articulates here how I see Russia. 100% nails it.

"Madman Strategy" - the same moniker used to describe Trump when he was supposedly playing 5-D Backgammon of whatever. The world gives people like this too much credit. Putin is an obsolete remnant of an obsolete system, a country calcified with corruption, unable to rejuvenate itself organically due to a lack of democratic processes. It's a country in slow decay whose only avenue for growth is to reach out for the unattainable pipe dreams of past imperial glory.

More like "full on George W. Bush".

My theory: any areas the Russians attempt to permanently "liberate" will have already been judged to have a population sufficiently in favor of a Russian presence. They will expand Luhansk and Dontesk only so far as these territories can be held indefinitely. Or they'll steamroll the entire country and make it a puppet regime for the next 100 years; that's another possibility.