The last few weeks and months have been rough in Ukraine, to make a gross understatement.
But one thing it has shown the world is that an unresponsive government doesn’t have to care about citizens who can bring no force to bear on that government. Ultimately, an armed populace is one that governments have to respect; and in a nation where the people are armed, governments are more responsive as they can be changed by force… and by having mutual respect, are much less likely to have to be changed by force.
From Katie Pavlich:
The Ukrainian Gun Owners Association has released a statement saying, “Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens. After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law. As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms. People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution. Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people! Armed people are treated with respect“
And they’re correct.
The proposed Ukrainian gun rights amendment is thus:
Amend Article 27, paragraph four as follows:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of owning a firearm to protect their life and health, housing and property, life and health of other people’s constitutional rights and freedoms in the case of usurpation of power , the encroachments on the constitutional order , sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine . Exercising the right to free possession of firearms is governed by applicable law and may be limited only by the court on the individual. “
Frankly, I think that’s still worded as to be very, very restrictive, but it’s still an improvement, and shows an understanding that governments are a threat. Given Ukraine’s history and the Holodomor, one would think they’d already understand that free, armed men aren’t oppressed as much.
To quote fellow USSR oppression victim Solzhenitsyn:
What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand?
And what would it be like if the men being arrested were armed, if it didn’t take a half dozen people with axes and hammers, but the one victim with a firearm? And if every single victim of the state were armed?