FourFans

This IS nuts though. Is it not obvious this is the DNC breaking there own tools? Effectly: "Thanks for getting us momentum, the changing of federal agencies into tools to enforce leftist ideals, and getting rid of trump, now take this scandal and retire old man." Did anyone else see this coming?

"A stabilizing brace is an attachment to a pistol that functionally turns it into a short-barreled rifle, similar to a sawed-off shotgun. Such weapons are considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle, but are much easier to conceal." Yes, a stabilizing attachment that marginally increases accuracy and drastically decreases concealability of a short range pistol thereby turns said pistol into a sawed off shotgun, the most unstable of all firearms, and somehow increased the "power" to that of a rifle without changing the ammunition, muzzle velocity, or ballistics... So these attachments turn a pistol into concealable sawed off shotrifle?

You might be thinking about Hillary

I do live my life differently because of the realities of the world. First and foremost, I pay attention to what's happening in the world, and I vote for people whom I believe will respond to those issues responsibly with the best interest of our country in mind. Unfortunately, my candidates did not win recently, and it appears that we have a large section of the country who doesn't very much like our country, but that's a different topic. I also try to live a sustainable life, so if the lights go off because of an EMP, or a simply a network/grid shutdown, my family and I will survive. My kids may group up in suburbia, but they will not be dependent on suburbia. Moreover, I am raising my kids to be adults who are aware of the world around them, and to understand how to filter out the ignorant opinions that media, politicians, Karens, and internet forums will spew at them. My kids great up overseas for some time. They understand why the US is truly amazing and unique in it's liberties and freedoms. Understanding the real threats in the world is definitely impacting how I raise my kids, and I value my parenting task as possibly the most important and world changing thing I might do in my life. If my kids impact a single life because of wisdom they learned in childhood, it'll have been worth it. Beyond that, I study facts and history. The American way of international relations since WWII has been to make sure other country's problems stay in other countries. You call Ukraine a quagmire for Russia. It wouldn't be a quagmire without US involvement. If you don't understand that, go read about Chinese involvement in Vietnam, or US involvement in 1980's Afghanistan, or the French Foreign Legion, or how Rome ran it's empire. History is littered with precedent. The reason America is what it is today is because we (typically) refuse to wait until the fight comes to us. If you don't think Russia would love to kneecap the US, think again. It wouldn't occur in the ways many imagine with conventional forces and red dawn, but rather with infiltration, espionage, and subterfuge. Read about Gorbachev's or China's plans and actions with infiltration agents in the US. Bottom line is that Americans cannot stick their head in the sand and pretend like all these world problems can't hurt us. Will it largely impact how I cook my eggs in the morning, probably not...unless this whole gas stove stupidity changes that. But hey, I am intentionally not buying an EV because I've read and personally seen with my own eyes how corrupt and horrid that supply chain is for the earth and our own economy. So, yeah, there are decisions I make routinely that are impacted by the international environment. However, just because you don't see a difference in your own personal day to day doesn't mean that there's nothing happening, or that personal decisions don't make a different. We ALL have blind spots. Some we choose, others we simply have for any number of reasons. Do not conflate your chosen personal blind spot with the reality of the world.

Facts don't care about your feelings. Russia, China and North Korea are all run by cults of personality. If history tells us one thing about that kind of governing system, it's that the only predictable long term outcome is chaos and sadness. No ground truth is making it out of those countries concerning just how close-hold, or hair trigger the nuclear forces really are. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean the threat isn't there. Three highly narcissistic and insolated-from-truth men hold the keys to some seriously powerful weapons. Are you happy to simply ignore that? You're ok saying "I can't see the threat so it doesn't exist"?

That depends ENTIRELY on the state of that internal collapse. If it's replaced by a real parliamentary government (I have to laugh at that idea...but I've also heard complex and plausible options for that...), it is POSSIBLE that the US and that government could work together to contain and control the spread of nuclear arms. In any case, the Russian nuclear forces are populated by individuals who also don't want nukes randomly distributed and controlled. I have a LITTLE faith in them to try and limit distribution. One factoid should stand out to everyone in this situation though: Russia was expecting to roll over Ukraine, as was the rest of the world. They aren't, and they're having a very tough time...with UKRAINE. Not USA, not UK, the Ukraine. With the current state of Russian forces now known, it is clear that if Russian forces directly engage NATO forces for any reason, Russian military and political leadership KNOWS their only option for military victory is nuclear. That's scary.

Is this an honest question, or sarcasm?

So, if we're talking about details and context: if the person involved is, in fact, the top classification authority (even if he has only a vague idea about the rules of classification), and has decided that letters from other heads of state are now unclassified, those documents then become unclassified, correct? Removing political bias in the analysis: The Trump case is most likely that the sitting president decided to declassify certain documents that he wanted as momentos and then got cockly and arrogant about "his" momentos (oh, the ego on that moron) that he most likely declassified with a verbal order only (which is technically legal, though very poor procedure), while the Biden case is most likely that the non-sitting ex-vice president...or more likely his staff...unwittingly moved and stored classified documents inappropriately. Like it or not, the Trump case was, at least in theory, possibly legal. The Biden case was most definitely not. Both, in my book, were violations of proper processes (verbal declassification is only supposed to be used as an expedient, and should be followed by the written process) and should be investigated as such, intent or not. I see no malice in either case. Lets face it, neither of those old guys was salivating over nuclear secrets or special intel. It was ignorance and arrogance in both cases. If the legal process is completely fair, should there not be an FBI search of Biden's house? Especially considering that his son may have had direct access to said SAP documents? But instead of logic and reason, let's go ahead and analyze things with our Red or Blue glasses on instead, because that makes things so much better...

Do any of them actually make a difference? ANY classified material outside a secured environment, not to mention SCI, should equal severe consequences. One standard. The end. Seriously. Imagine realizing you had TS/SCI/SAP info in your closet at home. What would get you first, the police or the heart attack?

Quoted for posterity @cragspider

Haven't you heard? No one F's with a Biden.

...i'm guessing we're on the same side of most arguments...I'd argue that Karen should be required to test as proficient in her firearm...but that's some serious hair splitting if it gets to that point. Concur concerning Kinzinger. He's doing literally whatever he can to get paid. I can't argue with getting paid, but that bitch has sold every moral he ever claimed to get paid. 'He/That/She/It/Bag might as well be a facebook influencer.

WTF did I just look at for 10 minutes? No a single source or assumption actually linked on that page. Tons sited, none linked. It's the internet, people can say whatever they want. Without source data is all BS.

That's a fair point. From my view, we are actively in the process of giving the fight back to other people. My core point is that we need to be careful that we don't let that pendulum swing so far that we lose our ability to fight for our own interests. I could easily see our current 'leaders' doing just that, as none of them have a clue what it's like to serve something bigger than themselves, and more importantly, none of them appreciate the sacrifices that happened to get our country to where it is at the top of the heap.

That's cool. I'm not fixing or editing anything, but thanks for the threat. You gunna jump through the internet and choke me if I don't censer my words? Here I though helo guys had thick skin... Glad to know you were there in the 1700s, that must have been cool. By the way, they routinely drilled with their weapons, fully understood the concept of military hierarchy, came to duty when called, and were infinitely more disciplined (when needed) than we are today. They were also basically farmers with pitchforks...and cannons...yes, CANNONS. Imagine Jim-bob in Kansas having a fully operational 155 howitzer hanging out in his barn. Historically, that's actually a pretty close technological equivalent. What's more, they built many of their own weapons and their own ammunition. They also drank. A LOT. Don't go cherry picking comparisons. Full context is key. I feel confident in my assumption that the authors used "well regulated" intentionally because it could grown, expand, or contract as required with time and social requirement as needed. They understood that having some constantly drunk dude rolling up with his arsenal was not helpful to the fight. Discipline then, as it is now, was highly important. No doubt, they had their well armed "a Florida man" who did what he wanted, and the framers intentionally didn't want to empower that asshat. My point is not that the government or some other central agency should regulate our militia capable citizens. Rather, that our citizens should adhere to a high standard if they intend to own weapons. Modern day suburban Karen, who owns a baby Kimber .45 that she carries with one in the chamber at the bottom of her purse while she never practices, maintains, or even fires it, and still shouts about her second amendment rights, is being violently arrogant. A right is a responsibility, not an entitlement. Too many 2nd amendment thumpers forget that there is a first framing portion in that amendment's text, and they tend give responsible gun owners a bad name. We the people are supposed to be disciplined, regulated, responsible, and good stewards of the rights and freedoms purchased with blood that we didn't have to spill. Cherry picking rights and omitting framing text in the guidance passed by our forefathers is rather childish. If you're going to pick up a weapon and claim it as an American Right...which it is...you must pick up the responsibility that goes along with it. A 'well regulated militia" implies going way beyond defending my personally property, and asserts that that I am willing to subordinate myself and my armed capacity into a military structure for the purpose of defending my state or country. Sadly, that's taking critical thinking and analysis of our constitution WAY farther than most drunk airline pilots are willing to intellectually go. More unfortunately, educating people into being responsible is damn near impossible, but I'll keep trying. Out of curiosity, how would you have me edit my statement? All I did was quote the a constitutional amendment. What triggered you? So we're clear, here's the full text of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For the millennials: TLDR - If you own a gun, you're supposed to be responsible and proficient with it. It's not just for defending yourself or your own interests, it's for defeating tyranny and defending your country if so needed. Many abuse that right and it pisses me off. Governments should be afraid of, and work for, their people, not the other way around.

Just gunna throw some words out that are rarely included: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." (emphasis added) I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin

Post American Revolutionary era draw-down led directly to the White House getting burned. Post WWI draw down heavily contributed to an over-populated workforce and helped make the great depression even greater Post Korea draw down coupled with the idea that all future wars would be nuclear lead to an entire series of weapons (century series aircraft) that were completely inappropriate and miss-matched for the real-world wars that were clearly on the horizon. Post Vietnam draw-down lead to a completely hollow force (literally we parked airplanes with no engines in them to make it look like we had more than we really did). We got lucky that the 70s and 80s weren't more turbulant, and we got really lucky that Reagan revived our military instrument of power before it was needed. That's just American history. Ask Germany, Japan, Spain, and France what happens when you let others do your fighting for you. No-one cares as much about you as you do. Pretending we can pay others to fight our battles from here on out is an easy trap to fall into, and has NEVER historically worked in the long term. I am not advocated maintaining our military as is. I AM advocated for a right sized and CORRECTLY ORIENTED force (an expeditionary capable deterrent force able to hit hard and get out fast against a near peer. We can and should not be an occupying force.

History is full of examples of exactly why we should not do this.

Yeah, definitely whiskey involved. TLDR: SEAD/DEAD in the future is going to look a lot different than it did in the past.

How does the current "anti-russia" impact the the environment in Europe right now? A thought: this guy offers a LOT of useful information. Caveat: YGTBSM crowd: yes, I am addressing your kindred. Your offspring WILL NOT look like you. Yet they will do your job better. They WILL hang it out, in a way you don't understand. Trust them. ...sadly, the guys who Know..probably, are too understand, unless young officers make them understand..;. OOOOORRRRRRR I'm completely wrong and this dude just broke a LOT of rules:

All these are false arguments: people with normal incomes don't routinely travel between DC and NY. Only the exorbitantly rich and professional protestors do that.

Well, in AMC dudes are still deploying, only it's Ramstein and DJ now (and yes, sadly...the 'deid still...sigh). Africa, PACOM and exercises keep the mobility bubbas just as busy as they were, just in different locations. I know some of our young IP/WO community still, and as a single ray off sunshine compared to ClearedHot's report card on AFSOC, the up and coming mobility community is ready for the future fights (both dirty and conventional), at least at the squadron/group level. Innovation and initiative are high in those kids.

We can hope. He's already demonstrated that he can handle a crisis with logic and reason. If someone would please shut down Trump, that would be great.