Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Scott Torino
1,312 followers -
Nothing to see here. Move along...
Nothing to see here. Move along...

1,312 followers
About
Scott's interests
View all
Scott's posts

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼⚓️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Photo

Post has attachment

The Ukraine and the Second Amendment
We are watching as Russia invades its second former Soviet neighbor in the last decade. Russia has been unambiguous about its determination to keep the EU from maintaining a common border with Russia. Russia’s strategy to maintain a buffer state between itself and the EU has unraveled, and it is now doing with force what it could not do with rubles. The EU and America have a treaty to assist the Ukraine in just this sort of scenario. So far, I see no one in the US or EU doing anything substantive to stop Mr. Putin.
My observation is that the Ukraine depended on alliances made during peace are too frequently wasted paper and ink in actual times of tribulation. The Ukrainian leadership, had it been just, should have had faith in its people. The Ukrainian leadership should have depended on its own strengths and not the so far hollow promises of the US and EU. (Who in their right mind depends on the EU for military intervention anyway? They can’t even secure their own borders for their own peoples.) The Ukrainians should have been trusted with military grade arms to safe guard their freedom. I am not that wise, and am only repeating the wisdom of Machiavelli and the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution.
An individual searching for causation in the Ukraine could observe that predators do not pick fights they cannot win, or cannot win easily. Putin observed weak allies and a military that spends a fraction of what his military spends. He has the advantage in economy, technology, and size of forces. He is not concerned with Ukraine’s alliances. The only factor that could have prevented this eventuality once the Ukraine was determined to be joining the EU was for the people themselves to be the militia. Putin would not have sent his forces into urban environments where every male of military age was a possible armed enemy. He loves Russia and Russians and those who serve in the armed forces. The man is the widely considered to be the Reagan of Russia. He inherited a nation whose prestige had damaged and he has attempted to restore some of that national prestige through militarily annexing his neighbors’ territory.
History proves that an armed citizenry will prevent foreign incursions from ever occurring. Switzerland was never invaded by Germany because of its militia. America avoided a mainland invasion by Japan for fear of the armed American people. The Ukrainians could have avoided this, it’s not like Stalin’s Russia did not attempt a Ukrainian genocide and kill 30 million Ukrainians in the last century. The Ukrainians could have avoided being invaded by simply recognizing man’s inalienable, natural right to self-defense. An armed Ukrainian populace would have given any foreign invader a much grander obstacle than their official armed services. (Some of whom have already defected.)
So when some nitwit politician demands you give up your right to bear arms, tell that politician you are responsible for the defense of the nation and cannot entrust such duties to entities as ineffectual as the American Legislative or Executive Branches.


I wrote this two years ago (admittedly I edited it since then), and find it relevant today, because I know Mrs. Clinton will stop at nothing to disarm Americans.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
Wait while more posts are being loaded