“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 (sic) into the Constitution. Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people! Armed people are treated with respect!” – Official statement, Ukrainian Gun Owners Association [h/t KW]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

167 COMMENTS

    • People never seem capable of appreciating what they have, only lamenting what is lost. The problem with a deterrent is you never have a measure of its’ effectiveness until it is no longer a deterrent. Today, some of the people will ask, “Why anyone needs guns?” Once they are gone, all of the people will ask, How could anyone let them be taken away?”

      • I used to live and work in Denver.

        When they were putting in light rail, I’d watch amused from my 34th floor office as while tearing up the streets they’d unearth sections of track from the old electric trolley line.

        Those perfectly good trolleys and tracks had been discarded, paving the way for massive gridlock unforeseen by planners who “knew” that trains and their kin had no place in downtown.

        Hindsight hits the ten ring.

        • Russ–

          Same thing in LA. After WW II the street car network was completely dismantled. You used to be able to go from San Bernardino or Riverside to the beach on this. Was completely gutted in prep for the freeway system. Now no street cars and gridlock on the freeways. But we now have light rail at a couple orders of magnitude greater cost and far less efficiency and reach.

    • That’s why the Second Amendment gets such short shrift by the general public. We combine an attitude of arrogance and a history of complacency into an “It can’t happen here” mindset. And there rests the Second Amendment, the only one that’s needed most when it’s exercised least. By then, it could be too late.

      • People don’t realize how much a single major infrastructure-damaging event could upend the stability of this country. Look at NYC during the blackout a few years back, people literally didn’t know what to do with themselves, and that was just one day without electricity. Extrapolate that across a larger geographic area, especially in an age where the government has so much control and so many people are dependent on external framework to support their lives.

        Take that away, even for a month or two, then tell me all about how it can’t happen here.

        • Example:
          New Orleans, post Katrina. The government actually encouraged lawlessness by confiscating personally owned firearms.

        • They’re in denial. People would rather not admit just how vulnerable they are, and taking precautions against situations like that would be an admission and an acknowledgement of that vulnerability.

        • I was apart of that blackout, specifically in Manhattan at the time. It was amazingly calm for what it was, likely due to the massive police presence there so close to 9/11. Many thought it was a party and used it to get wasted before all the beer got warm.

          If the event had lasted an additional day or two, there is no doubt all hell would have broken loose.

      • My Facebook post linked this article with my comment:

        The police in Ukraine are murdering citizens who protest. The citizens of Ukraine are now looking to add the right to keep and bear arms into law. They don’t want to be subject to a government which will terrorize and kill them. Not to worry, though, big government has your best interests in mind. Big government will never attempt to disarm its citizens with gun control and murder them. Except of course in Ukraine. And Mexico, which is also embroiled in war against a corrupt government.

        Other than that, you can totally trust a big government to protect and care for you even though they want to disarm you.

        Except North Korea, where you can be impriaoned or killed for being a Christian. Or Nazi Germany, China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, or the disarmament and murder of Native Americans by the US government. Other than that, it could never happen here.

        • Don’t overlook Bosnia, or the rest of the Baltic states for that matter. We may be seeing a “Baltic Spring” being born.

        • It’s been almost 2 decades since I was in Bosnia, but I don’t see that happening. Ethnic animosity runs deep, and the government uses it to “divide and rule”.

        • Little known fact, first gun control law in CA was a ban on selling Indians guns and ammunition. The Governor explicitly stated a goal of exterminating them.

  5. This might go nowhere but if any country needs an armed populace the Ukraine Is a great place to start the Ukrainian people have been pushed around since before the mongols invaded Europe .

    • Fundamental issue is if they adopt this, then they CAN’T get into the EU, which is what they’re protesting for. EU membership requires pretty strict gun control.

      • Are they protesting the drawback from the EU agreement, or the proposed closer ties to Russia? My understanding is that Putin is trying to draw Ukraine back under “the protective arm of Mother Russia.”

        • my understanding is both. Putin is trying to reconstruct the ussr geographically, ethnic ukrainians want more western ties instead of going back to the bad old days. my point was just that they cant have gun rights and join the eu. czech republic has the “best” eu gun laws and they’re somewhere between rhode island and new jersey in terms of strictness.

        • An “interesting” part of this is that vast parts of the Ukranian population is actually “ethnic” Russian.

          Stalin butchered MILLIONS of Ukranians and resettled the area with Russians (for and very interesting history see the book “BLOODLANDS” http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393255291&sr=1-1&keywords=bloodlands

          During WWII the survivors initially welcomed the Germans (as a likely to be an improvement over Russia). Hitler blew that and butchered millions more (Ukranian and Russian). And then the Russian payback arrived and millions more were butchered (thus Bloodlands).

          As the EU natural gas supply lines (from Russia controlled ga fields) run thru the Ukraine, I don’t think they have much negotiating room on “allowing” anyone to have firearms.

        • From what I had gathered, the ousted president elected to take a 15 billion $ bailout from Russia over proposed inclusion into the EU.

          The problem was that Putin setup the bailout as convenient monthly payments, which he would sometimes withhold as leverage to exert influence over the Ukraine. SO the bailout had little effect but further repression of the economy since their was no infusion of cash per se but rather a slow trickle.

          So now the Ukraine is split, between those who want into the EU and more western democratization, and those that want into Putins Russian version of the EU. I just read today that one of the port cities on the black sea pledged their allegiance to Russia and Putin.

          With the gas pipline running through the Ukraine that feeds Russia it’s natural gas, I cant see Russia taking this lightly….and with the divide between east and west Ukraine I think this is just the beginning of what will be a long road to a free Ukraine.

        • It’s complicated. It’s both and neither.

          Initially, they started protesting the reversal of course on EU associative membership. However, this was also tied in with the customs union with Russia – basically, Russia said that it’s going to be one or the other, so they have to choose.

          Back then it was not such a massive protest, and it gradually wound down as people had to get back to work etc; the ones still left protesting were mostly students. That’s when govt decided the protest is now weak enough to just crush it by force without much notice. So they sent in the police to beat people up overnight, and they did, but the outcry from that was far bigger than the original cause of the protest. A lot of people who couldn’t care less for EU, in fact, even many ethnic Russians and Russophones, joined it then, and it became a general protest against the corrupt and oppressive government, and for a free country that serves the interests of its nation rather than a few people.

        • The divide between East and West is not all that it’s made out to be. There is a map floating around that shows the origin of all the people who died on Independence Square during the revolution, and while there are more guys from the West there, there are quite a few from the East as well. So far the local governments of all the eastern regions have already pledged their allegiance to the new state government, and there doesn’t seem to be any significant protest, even in Crimea, which is traditionally the most pro-Russian region with a supermajority Russian population.

          The one exception which you mention – the port city – is Sevastopol. This one is a very special case, because it is a place of the Russian naval base which houses the entire Russian Black Sea fleet. When USSR fell apart and Ukraine separated, that’s where the Soviet Black Sea fleet was, and Russia didn’t have the time nor the means to build better facilities on its own coast, so it just rented the facilities from the new Ukrainian government. It had always remained a sore point for both countries, but usually what happens is when there’s a next round of talks about natural gas supply from Russia to Ukraine, Russia asks to extend the lease as part of the deal, and after a lot of grumbling that is granted.

          So Sevastopol is not just majority Russian ethnically and culturally, but it has Russian military (navy) personnel stationed in it, and members of their families living in the city. That’s why their reaction to the Ukrainian revolution is quite different from other russophone population in East Ukraine.

        • There are definitely some analogies to Gitmo, but some important differences, too. The Russian Fleet base itself is like Gitmo in that it is extraterritorial. However, Gitmo is basically isolated from the rest of Cuba, while in Sevastopol the personnel of the base is free to mingle with city residents, and many officers do in fact live in the city with their families.

          The other aspect of it is that Sevastopol also has the Ukrainian Black Sea fleet base. In fact, it is in the same harbor alongside the Russian one (and for the same reasons – they couldn’t afford to build new facilities). Needless to say, this also contributes to tensions, like during the South Ossetian war, when Ukrainian ships tried to prevent the Russian ones from leaving the harbor on a combat mission.

      • They don’t want to be members of the EU, they want to have trade agreements with the EU. The issue was never EU membership, it was an abandonment of an agreed upon trade deal at the last minute in favor of ties with Russia. Frankly, joining the EU would be very stupid for Ukraine. If anything, they are much better off playing both sides.

        • They do actually want to be in EU (well, a lot of people do, not all). They were not offered membership, though, only association – they don’t have the economy up to the requirements of full membership. It seems that EU might actually put them on fast track for full membership now, though, along with massive loans to rebuild their economy.

      • there is no EU Firearms Directive yet, we are opposing one at the moment. With regard to firearms – its just European culture, 2 World Wars with the associated “”temporary” suspension of freedoms and 30,000,000 war dead , Nazism with compulsory confiscation into multicultural EU Socialism, will do that unfortunately.

    • Ukranians, Finns, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians — there are lots of little guys who could use force equalizers. The Finns are fast forgetting how they held off the Russians.

      • Well, I can not comment for Latvia or Estonia (the only two other “Baltic” nations, though Estonia is Baltic only in geography), however, as I am moving there in less than two months and have done my research, I can speak for Lithuania.

        The Lithuanian Constitution provides protections for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

        They are allowed rifles (even “evil” semi-automatic so-called ‘assault weapons’), shotguns, pistols, and so forth. You may obtain concealed carry permits.

        You may not purchase or possess machine guns (I’m not sure about “destructive devices” SBR’s and AOW’s, but I imagine they’re regulated closely as well, if at all allowed).

        You may not open carry.

        There are more firearms in civilian ownership in Lithuania than there are firearms in Government inventory. It’s not a large margin, it’s very close numbers. But the people do outgun the Government, at least numerically.

        Given the history of the Nation, I sincerely doubt that will ever change with the consent of the people.

  6. “90 percent of Ukrainians support the use of rubber batons and boots on their loved ones.”
    _Ukrainian Mothers Demand Action

  10. I believe this is why those who howl and scream, demanding disarmament, advocating for the repeal of the second amendment remain afraid to actually pursue a constitutional convention. Deep in their hearts they fear that there is enough recognition of the individual unencumbered right to arms that the result of the amendment would be a nice, simple, 14 word chain binding the government to it’s proper scope. That said, keep reaching out to your friends, family, co-workers, everybody in your life. Teach them gun safety, take them to the range, explain self defense laws, encourage them in their firearms journey. Ensure that those who would trample our rights never gain confidence in their position. We defend our rights so that we never find ourselves in a position like Ukraine.

  11. “Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!”

    And, that’s the money shot right there!

    • If “its” is changed to “their”, I agree. There is a disagreement in number in the phrase.

  12. Isn’t it funny that while Anti-gun voices ring out throughout America, “the land of freedom”, for the government to “do something” about guns; voices rise up one by one, to a roar, in all the dark pits of oppression in the world, “Give us guns so we may protect ourselves.”
    Whenever anyone from any other country wants freedom, the first thing they ask for is the freedom to own guns. Meanwhile, in America, the Antis tell us that private guns make no difference against our god-like government, and courts tell us what “reasonable” restrictions on “Shall not be infringed” are….
    The Bill of Rights was written to tell Government what it cannot do to Citizens, If we let them de-facto take away even part of one amendment then all the amendments are worthless.
    Don’t let them tell you, “you are just a crazy gun nut”, don’t accept, “reasonable restrictions”, and don’t be fooled. We are fighting a battle, of ideas in people’s minds, for the very soul of our nation.

    • Perhaps they just want to have the US join the EU so we can drag down the Euro and have Europe support the US while creating a single first world global economy. After all, China is withdrawing US support, the political big wigs need a new economic sugardaddy to keep afloat.

    • I find it amusing that the left liberals so prone to claim civilian firearms could never successfully oppose the magnificent power of the government have rarely served in its army. Much less have they fought our peasant enemies out in the boonies of the world. They are clueless about how force works. Give the mass of common men in any nation sufficient grievance and they become invincible. Confusable? Sure. But invincible.

  13. What is the saying, “everything old is new again”?

    Our nation’s Framers new full well what they were doing. Fortunately, we know as well, which is why we continue their legacy.

  15. I’ve spent a lot of time in Ukraine over several trips. Each time I went I was blessed to know many wonderful Ukrainian people. Watching the violence erupt recently, it broke my heart to know the upheaval my friends there were experiencing.

    There are still many obstacles to long-term security in Ukraine, but the developments of the last couple of days have given me some hope that there is a chance that they’ll be able to establish a government of laws, instead of men, by and for the people, sternly checked in its power by the will of a strong civil society.

    Constitutionally enshrining Ukrainians’ natural right to defend themselves and their liberty would be a good first step to ensuring the strength of their civil society to confront threats of tyranny.

    • Like dominos, they will fall. First they come after the second amendment, because who really “needs” guns?. Next they will come after the first, because all the angry former gun owners will have to be shut up… This isn’t a political party issue anymore. Bill of Rights, or oppression. That is the issue.

    • Michael B, you are incorrect.

      He was turned away (initially) for promoting/advertising a political agenda within 100 feet of a voting location. The rule is fair and wise, nobody gets to advertise, campaign, promote, push, their view/candidate/agenda right at the polling location and that is how it -should- be.

      Once the issue was explained to him, the slogan in question was temporarily covered and he was allowed within the 300ft “neutral zone” so he could vote.

      Of course this -is- a prime example of limits placed on the FIRST Amendment, but it has nothing to do with the Second.

      • The rule is fair and wise,

        Making a full grown man cover up his pro-second shirt in order to vote is fair and wise? Get real.

        • I am real. I’ve worked polling places and in my state the ruling is that NOBODY gets to advertise any political agenda or personal stand “inside the door” of the voting place, the intention being that once you pass the entrance door you should be free to compose yourself and vote your mind in peace and privacy.

        • Here, voting booths are generally private already. And as long as no one’s physically intimidating or interrupting other people voting I don’t see how simply wearing a shirt constitutes violating anyone’s peace.

          I take issue with your state’s law and your support of it.

        • Same here as in Dale’s state. You can take issue all you want, but most (if not all) states have the same rules. Most likely your state does too.

      • Odd. While in the real world there is a lot of politics surrounding firearms, they are not officially a political agenda.

        ‘Course, were one candidate or another running on a pro or anti stance, or a judge with well known views up for retention, it might make sense.

        I know a gal who was initially turned away because of her MIT shirt; it took a whie to convince the proctors that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was not associated with Romney.

        • “While in the real world there is a lot of politics surrounding firearms, they are not officially a political agenda”

          I am honestly not sure how you can say that.

        • It was poorly worded.

          The intent was to convey that ones love of or belief in the rights concerning firearms is not invariably an indicator of their choice of candidate or their position on other issues.

          A pro 2A shirt might be worn by someone supporting abortion rights, for example, or Obama lin Biden. Conversely, Christie should wear a 2 with circle/slash.

      • Except, Dale, that the 2nd amendment isn’t a political agenda. It’s part of our Constitution. In truth, promoting the RKBA is no more political than promoting the 19th amendment (women’s suffrage).

        We’re good at cutting through the standard Bravo Sierra: “assault weapons,” “ForTheChildren,” “reasonable restrictions,” “I believe in the 2nd amendment, but….” The next step is pushing back against the idea that there’s anything controversial about the 2nd amendment, that the phrase “shall not be infringed” has an obvious and incontrovertible meaning, and that ANY infringement on our rights (or any court’s declaration that infringements aren’t really infringements) is blatantly illegal and will not be tolerated.

        This Ukraine business is a great I-told-you-so opportunity for the POTG, if we are smart about it. The Ukranian Gun Owners’ Association’s statement is perfect.

      • The 2A isn’t advertizing, it is the law of the land. I am certain no ballot issue existed to repeal it.

    • There’s a Second Amendment-related ballot issue before us this year. He was asked to comply with state law forbidding electioneering within the polling place. He was free to advocate for whatever he wanted, from 100 feet away, like everyone else. Or, he could turn his shirt inside out and proceed to vote. But he doesn’t get it both ways of advocating his personal position in a polling place and exploiting a captive audience. Any other time he could wear that same shirt to vote, just not when its message relates to an issue on the ballot.

      • One could not have been voting for the second amendment.
        As an aside, if a sales tax issue on durable goods were on the ballot, would everyone need to vote whilst naked?

        • Paul G, you made me chuckle, good for you. But I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree because I’ve spent far too many years in legislative meetings, hearings, and so forth, to ever accept that Second Amendment issues aren’t political ones. Sure I agree that they shouldn’t be, that the Constitution seems awfully clear on that point, but the reality is what it is and that means it’s a political football.

  17. Oh, I’m sure there is someone over there saying…
    “Oh you can’t possibly think you’ll be able to stop with your one gun”
    “The is just there to help”
    and on and on and on.

  19. I wonder if Chairman Obama will strengthen ties with Putin and help them with their own version of Fast and Furious from Ukraine into Russia so Putin can use it as an excuse to crush the revolution. . . . pay attention to Holder’s travel over the next few months

  20. Well, how about that? I will be well and truly jiggered.

    Actually, though, many former Soviet satellites have some very lax gun laws.

    F’rinstance, in the Czech Republic there is only one requirement at the store to purchasing pretty much anything: demonstrate profficiency. Well, and bring money.

    That’s no catch 22, either; there are plenty of places to get your hands-on before buying.

    “Silenced automatic weapon, sir? Certainly, sir. Pleasure doing business, sir.”

    Add to that the fact that there is already an owners’ association, which implies a good number of owners.

    Welcome, Ukraine.

    • Somehow I get the impression that the “lax gun laws” are directly related to the desire to remain FORMER satellites of the Russian Empire (in whatever incarnation it exists in at the time).

  21. The president of the church body in which I serve gave the following comment:
    We were informed by the president of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church that a young medical professional named Olesia Zhukovska was serving as a volunteer to help treat those who were injured in the clashes. As she tended to the wounded, she herself was struck in the neck by a police sniper’s bullet. By God’s grace, she survived emergency surgery and is in critical condition. Her story has made international news as reported by the Associated Press.

    Noteworthy: Struck in the neck by a police sniper as she was tending to the wounded? Either it’s very poor marksmanship….or it’s not. 🙁

    http://www.wels.net/news-events/wels-news/ukraine/violence-in-ukraine-touches-fellow-lutherans

  25. I have a real appreciation for people who are smart enough to honestly look at a situation and come up with an honest answer.

  26. I propose that all Connecticut residents who refuse to register and are dedicated to the cause get together and ship their rifles to the Ukraine.
    We all know Barry’s not gonna do it.

  27. I finally watched the video. Those apparently unarmed guys with the metal shields advancing on the police have ginormous b@lls!

    That actually brings up a good point. What kind and how thick would someone need a steel shield to stop sniper rounds? I know the answer to that question is somewhat caliber dependent so let’s break it down by caliber:
    (a) 5.56 NATO
    (b) .308
    (c) .300 Win. Mag.
    (d) .338 Lapua
    (e) .50 cal

    • I have a set of Level 3A AR 500 plates that are curved and between 3/8 and 1/4 thick (can’t give you an exact measurement due to the splatter guards).

      Those were tested to stop 5 rounds of AP .30-06, so they would stop .556 or .308. I dunno about .300 win mag. I’m pretty sure .338 Lapua would penetrate, and I know .50 cal would.

      You are not going to be able to carry anything that will stop .50 BMG, and I’m skeptical about .338 Lapua at close range. For sure the BMG and probably the Lapua are going to blow through anything you can pick up and lift.

      Angling the plate would give you better protection, but this isn’t the kind of stuff you want to try to figure out in the field.

      • The Ukrainians are probably using soviet era 12.7s. Same bore diameter as our .50 bmg but with a longer case for more powder capacity. So their 12.7 has a slight edge inpower and penetration. I don’t think anything hand held would survive an encounter with it.

        And they most likely also have 14,5 mm weapons. Real armor is needed for those weapons.

    • to defeat most of those rounds reliably with a portable steel shield, would be too heavy to carry and use effectively.

      I have a square foot chunk of 1/2″ plain old mild steel that will still barely stop 7.62×39 at 100yd, but it does stop it. it would not stop 7.62×51 or 7.62x54r. Many of the Ukraine protestors are taking on 5.45×39, 7.62×39, and 7.62x54r.

      those shields we’re seeing in use will stand up to none of those rounds. most of the bullet-sized dents you see in their shields are most likely from fragments and debris from nearby strikes.

      that chunk is about ten pounds or so, I would guess.

      • Just got home and watched the vid. Jeff is spot on. Those shields look like they are the cover plate of a furnace or hot water heater. They aren’t going to stop anything other than clubs or bricks.

      • I have a piece of 1″ thick mild steel I use as part of a backstop for Rimfire and pistol shooting. It will stop 5.56×45 & 3006 FMJ at 50 yards, but the energy transfer actually melts the steel and the dent/crater left is impressive. You could not carry enough of this around to provide protection from a sniper. BTW, 5.56×45 FMJ goes through 1/4″ mild steel lIke a hot knife through butter.

        • “BTR” literally means APC in Russian, so there are a bunch of them. I’m not aware of any that have fuel tanks in the hatches – indeed, one of the purported advantages of their layout is that the tanks are outside the main compartment and are specially isolated from it. They’re still known to burn very easily (experimentally proven since Afghanistan), mainly because older and more popular models used gasoline for fuel. Gasoline + external tanks + Molotov cocktails, well…

          The newer BTR-80 uses diesel instead. Some Ukrainian modifications of the older BTR-70 were also converted to diesel. I don’t know how much that helps, and I don’t know which model is on that video.

          • One would think they were always diesel, since it is explicitly suited for heavy (mobile) machinery.

        • I have no idea why, since it’s clearly a logistic headache, but Soviet army never really standardized on one single fuel. E,g, Ural-4320 heavy trucks, which are heavily used by the army as transport and as platform for rocket artillery, use diesel. But the preceding truck, Ural-375D, which is still used, is gasoline powered. OTOH, all Soviet/Russian tanks were diesel powered since T-34.

  28. Ukraine’s got the right idea. The freedom to defend oneself from should always be an utmost importance. Man will never know true liberty until he has wielded arms against those who want to suppress or harm his family and neighbors.

  31. Being beaten and picked off by snipers well definitely make the people of that country understand why it’s a bad idea for the police and military to only have guns. For the rest of the world who favors massive gun control, consider this a wake up call.

  32. When you write up the new Constitution leave out the “well regulated” part, it looses something in the translation from the sane to the insane.

      • “Berkut” is an Ukrainian special police force, and they definitely had snipers there.

        Now, there is some evidence that there were other snipers. Who, curiously enough, shot at both Berkut and the protesters… in fact, they shot at Berkut first, which may have pushed them to start shooting back to where they thought the fire is coming from.

        Who those mysterious snipers were is an open question. I don’t think we’ll find out anytime soon.

        • If only the rest of the internet (or real life for that matter) were so polite and willing of self-examination.

          Gotta give you props for that.

          • Hey, thanks. All my life I’ve striven to tell what’s true. Except when I’m spinning a tall tale about my dead friends. We can settle that later.

  35. Issue are counrty it lives in state of denial tell self becuase live in frist world counrty that all other bad thing happen in other thrid world counrty well not happen here in United States becuase more civilized . As some who teach security for living who ex cop told me one we think becuase there more cops military in are counrty provides illusion safer counrty than other counrty. Yet that lie cost people there lives ever day in this counrty that have no gun rights defend them self in places like Chicago New York Washington Dc highly restricted gun right. How many bad events could stop if some one are counrty arm was there stop them????

  36. ” Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens.”

    This is bullshit of the highest order. Protestors were actually shooting at the police. The Ukrainian cops showed remarkable restraint against their countrymen, by and large.

    • I watched some interesting footage on RT last night. The Ukie Riot Police in Kiev were quite ready and willing to “get some,” but were ordered [by ??] to hold back. The protesters were returning fire primarily with Molotov Cocktails and some interesting new fire bomb technology (I learned something new). I think the “shooting back” was more like counter-sniper operations.

    • William, how do you know? Were you there? So these ‘protestors'(sic) were shooting at the cops eh? Were the protesters not being shot at by the police? Are you siding with the oppressors?

      The protesters were utilizing their natural right to self-defense. Furthermore the rifles I saw in the protesters’ hands looked a lot like break-barrel pellet guns to me. Still somewhat lethal, but the police were using 7.62 guns that went BOOM not PFFT.

    • I’m shocked at your double standards William. If those were American police and protestors you’d be crying for the blood of the cops.

      • No double standard applies. The Ukrainian “revolution” is a phony one, backed by the CIA and old revanchist hawks like Brzezinski. The plan is to encircle Russia with US proxy missile sites. If Russia loses, the NWO wins. That’s not a good situation for you, me, or us.

        Belarus is likely next. Or Hungary.

    • The protesters started shooting at the police with something other than air guns only after the police started shooting at them with real bullets, not before that.

      And if you’re going to say that protesters were behaving violently before that, with molotovs and all – sure, they were. But that was after the first few activists of the heretofore-peaceful protest were abducted and then found dead in a nearby forest with signs of torture.

      It was not the protesters who fired the first shots in this conflict, either literally or figuratively.

  37. I know the Ukrainian’s aren’t reading this, but if you are and you are mulling over what to add to your constitution. “The right of the People of Ukraine, to keep and bear arms, shall not be Infringed.” Because you really can’t plagiarize rights.

      • “The right of the People of Ukraine, to keep and bear arms, shall not be Infringed.”

        In the Bill of Rights, the second comma is a direct quote. The first one is completely unnecessary and makes the sentence awkward. So yeah.

        • Rules for commas in Ukrainian are different, anyway. This particular sentence wouldn’t have any, in fact.

    • I was going to suggest they specifically not use the phrase “shall not be infringed”. Here in the states it’s become almost meaningless. I wish it were so black-and-white clear that even idiots would think people who misunderstood it were idiots. Something like: Neither the federal Congress, neither any State or Local Municipality shall make any law concerning the ownership, transfer, purchase, manufacture, carrying, or use of weapons or firearms of any type; and shall not regulate, restrict, place additional taxes upon, or otherwise legislate for or against weapons or firearms of any type.

      • Just because some have questioned it does not mean we should ignore it. In fact, there are no stronger four words in our Constitution than “shall not be infringed”.

        In fact, the Second Amendment is unique, in that it is specifically enumerated as an individual right, not a collective one.

        BAD IDEA.

    • They have now posted the suggested wording on their website:
      http://zbroya.info/uk/blog/2675_vlasniki-zbroyi-vimagaiut-zmin-do-konstitutsiyi/

      Ukrainian constitution is generally more verbose than American ones (well, most constitutions are generally more verbose), so it’s not a one liner. I’ll translate:

      “Everyone has the right to freely own firearms for the purpose of protection of their life and limb, of their residence and property, of life and limb of other people, and of constitutional rights and freedoms, in the event of usurpation of power, encroachment on the constitutional order, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine. The implementation of the right to free ownership of firearms is regulated by the appropriate law, and can be restricted only by court order with respect to a specific individual.”

      They also propose a bunch of other amendments, such as e.g. defining what “usurpation of power” means exactly (basically, any restriction or limitation of constitutional rights and freedoms, except during legally declared state of emergency or war), and further reiterating that people have a right to defend those rights and freedoms if so usurped.

      Yet another addition in the same law establishes universal military conscription (explicitly inclusive of both genders, I must add). Ukraine had military conscription until October last year.

      • It should also be noted that passing an actual constitution amendment along these lines is not particularly likely. What’s more likely is that they will liberalize the existing gun law, and in particular allow for concealed and open carry, without writing it into the constitution.

      • Here’s what I have to say about this “revolution”: this is a proto-fascist revolution, mark my words.

        This is why Russia just sent troops into the Crimean Peninsula, and they will probably eventually send them into the Eastern Ukraine: the Russians are very concerned about ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians, in areas where ethnic Russians are in the minority. It could be Yugoslavia writ large.

        Russia is being encircled by the Pentagon and NATO. The end game is the conquest of Russia, especially by nuclear conflagration. This is a war of madmen, a war where everyone loses.

        I believe it is in the best interest of the American public to support Russia; simply put, if Russia falls, we all fall.

  38. He’ll never learn if someone doesn’t tell him. It can be awkward, like a woman who’s left a restaurant rest room with a long piece of toilet paper trailing her skirt. No matter who tells her…AWKWARD.

  39. I watched the video and read the quote. It does not seem like the cops were using rubber bullets. The rioters went down when shot. Some seemed to bleed profusely, some definitely seemed to have succumbed to their wounds and die. I know rubber bullets can be fatal but one man was hit in the upper thigh, he then moved his hand and there was allot of blood. Seems like the cops ratcheted it up to FMJ over there. I send my prayers.

    On a side note I started reading the Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy by Matt Braken. It is an excellent read and while a fiction novel it goes over how exactly we could be disarmed and what could happen. I don’t want to spoil it but many on this site would find it an interesting read. In fact, I would love to see a section on gun literature reviews. Fiction, historical, manuals, etc. Hell I would love to write it. Just sayin’.

  40. neiowa, the question of ethnicity in Ukraine is far more complicated than you present here. Yes, there are a lot of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but this is a historical thing that has little to do with Stalin’s policies (though he definitely did decimate the population – of all ethnicities – in Holodomor).

    First of all, Russians and Ukrainians (and Belarusians) all descend from the same Eastern Slav stock, and used to be the same nation, Kievan Rus. Their paths parted when the country fragmented and shattered during the invasion of Mongol hordes; Western Ukraine and Western Belarus ended up conquered by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and, having a lot of population, gradually started to dominate its politics), which then merged with Poland. Eastern Ukraine was overrun by steppe nomads, and then, when the Mongol empire broke down, by some of its remnants which established their own state in Crimea. Lands to northeast were gradually conquered by princes of Moscow while still under Mongol yoke, and their rule was extended and solidified even further after they managed to break off.

    Borders on paper do not translate to clear divisions on the ground, though. If you’d ask a typical 19th century peasant in rural souther Russia, Ukraine or Belarus of his national origin, the most popular answer was “tuteyshiy” – literally, “here-abouts-ian”. Sometimes they’d define themselves in terms of their religion (under Polish rule, Catholicism became a strong contender in Western Ukraine and Belarus, though Eastern Orthodox were still dominant), but very few would have a solid understanding of their national identity. Languages, similarly, weren’t really distinct, but rather formed an even gradient from Russian to Ukrainian and Belarusian, with numerous intermediate forms (surzhik) – to the point where it was sometimes hard to tell whether a given village speaks an extreme dialect of Russian, or an extreme dialect of Ukrainian.

    People also flowed back and forth, especially to Ukraine. As it was not under control of the Muscovite tsars, it never developed the peculiar extreme slavery-like implementation of serfdom that Russia had, and so Russian peasants who ran away from their lords often headed there and joined the ranks of the cossacks as free people. As they used to say, “there is no return [of serfs] from Don”.

    This all makes the current ethnic and national identity situation on Ukraine complicated, to say the least. Some people identify as Russians, others as Ukrainians. Some people who identify as Ukrainians mostly speak Ukrainian, others mostly speak Russian. Some of those who mostly speak Russian still consider Ukrainian their “mother tongue”, some don’t.

    However, one thing that should be understood about their revolution is that it involved both Russians and Ukrainians, from both East and West. It’s not about ethnic identity and not about language. It’s about living as serfs or as free people. In fact, many people say that the revolution, in fact, forged a new united Ukrainian nation – a civil one, centered around the notion of citizenship of an independent and sovereign nation-state.

    • int19h you have provided some interesting and good insight into the goings on there.

      Thanks for posting and I’m glad I reread the comments here.

Comments are closed.