Ukraine Wants Gun Rights


It’s only mentioned in passing under the Gun Report blog at The New York Times, but apparently the Ukraine Gun Owners Association is drawing up plans in an effort to include something like a Second Amendment to their constitution following the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovich.

After violence erupted in Kiev on Feb. 18th, over 70 people died, many shot by government snipers. As both the Times and Breitbart report, the citizens and gun rights groups in Ukraine seem to believe they are held nearly captive to a government that retains 7 million weapons, while the citizenry has only 3 million, many of those illegally (compare that to the US where citizens privately hold 310 million firearms and police and military hold slightly less at 3.85 million).

What’s interesting about this is that in an effort to frame the disparity of gun ownership in Ukraine as somehow negligible, and simultaneously suggest that US gun rights groups are “pouncing” on the Ukraine uprising to push their pet cause, the more liberal pundits are capable only of offering a pretty good defence of increased gun ownership and the Second Amendment in general.

TakeThe Daily Beast story at the link directly above. The headline would have one believe that those violence-loving gun nuts are salivating over the turmoil in Kiev. But the writer, one Scott Bixby, never really offers much of a rebuttal to what is essentially the nut graf of his piece, whether he likes it or not. And it comes from a gun rights advocate.

When GOA and other gun rights groups see empty-handed protestors confronting well-trained riot police and well-armed security forces, they see the logical end of gun control’s slippery slope. “Human nature being what it is, it’s always a risk when people’s gun rights are obliterated. Now, it doesn’t happen overnight, but it does happen,” says Pratt. Citing mass killings of unarmed civilians by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Kim regime in North Korea, Pratt points to Ukraine’s strict gun registration laws as the first step toward firearm confiscation. “It turns a god-given right into a government-given privilege.”

And that “god-given” right applies to everyone, Pratt says. “We view that right as universal. We’re fortunate to have it protected in this country by the Second Amendment, but the thing about rights is, they can’t be given or taken away.”

He tries of course, mentioning at the end that, “On February 19, protestors seized more than 1,500 firearms and 100,000 rounds of ammunition from government storage” as if this is somehow the first step in the coming civilian uprising where all government leadership is slaughtered.

Of course, that was almost a week ago, and something tells me that if the mass coup, where civilians overtake government buildings guns a blazing was going to happen, it would have by now. But instead…we have a very sober effort to include gun rights in an amended constitution.

Huh. So…just having the guns in hand didn’t turn these disgruntled citizens into trigger happy monsters? And instead allowed them to feel protected enough to begin to request real change from a government that was, a week ago, picking them off Texas bell tower style? That’s odd…and is exactly how our Second Amendment in this country works.

The only question that’s relevant in all this is would the protests have been as bloody and violent and disruptive had the citizenry already been armed? Of course it’s impossible to know, but if the protestors relatively calm behavior now is any indication, the answer is no.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.