• Ukrainian Gun Owners Association seeking to amend the constitution
    83 replies, posted
[quote]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. [/quote] SOURCE: [url]http://zbroya.info/en/blog/2650_ukrainian-gun-owners-associations-official-statement/[/url] Can a Ukrainian translate the proposal? I tried Google translate but it came out retarded, so I'll just leave the link: [url]http://zbroya.info/uk/blog/2675_vlasniki-zbroyi-vimagaiut-zmin-do-konstitutsiyi/[/url]
Democracy for all. The right to bear arms is essential. [IMG]http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/files/2014/02/CryingEagle11.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=seano12;44038529]Democracy for all. [B]The right to bear arms is essential[/B].[/QUOTE] Not really, look I'm not going to go over what I think because whenever I do, all the gun nuts come flying at me telling me I'm a fucking idiot for thinking the way I do but, I mean I don't think it's essential, I don't feel like I need a gun and if I did, I don't feel the need to tell every living soul about my piece because in reality nobody gives a shit But if you want to, fine by me just don't carry it with you and make a big deal when people get anxious Whatever [editline]25th February 2014[/editline] I feel like your post could of been sarcasm but still
I was wondering when this would end up on here, I didn't want to post it because I know that here comes the inevitable... Basically, a gun owner's association in the Ukraine wants the constitution amended with a "2nd Amendment" type thing to ensure that no government can ever oppress the people of the nation again, so they claim, since the people would have guns with which to shoot back at said oppressive government should it ever open fire on its citizens again.
Can you even imagine how much worse the situation in Ukraine would have been if the protesters had wide access to guns?
Gee I bet this will work out just as well as it does for america.
Hopefully they play it smart and make it hard to get pistols, and mandatory gun courses, and making it a requirement to go to a gun range and test your ability to handle a firearm safely. Why can't they do that in the usa. [editline]25th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;44038577]Gee I bet this will work out just as well as it does for america.[/QUOTE] Yeah people kill each other left and right! Oh and our gun crime is still dropping.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;44038572]Can you even imagine how much worse the situation in Ukraine would have been if the protesters had wide access to guns?[/QUOTE] There would be some serious shit going down (Syria), but maybe it would give a reason for the government not to fuck with the people?
i can understand why they'd want this, one of the arguments against lax gun control is that it's safer to have policemen who are armed and trained, but the police of ukraine have clearly shown they can't be trusted
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44038584]Hopefully they play it smart and make it hard to get pistols, and mandatory gun courses, and making it a requirement to go to a gun range and test your ability to handle a firearm safely. Why can't they do that in the usa. [/QUOTE] "Once thay start registering, next they'll take our guns away!" Which is retarded as fuck, but hey, that's your Constitution, and people standing up for it can only be welcomed. -disregard the post, I know fuck all about US gun laws and still want to say something-
[QUOTE=Kommodore;44038572]Can you even imagine how much worse the situation in Ukraine would have been if the protesters had wide access to guns?[/QUOTE] Would just be a civil war, no doubt
[QUOTE=gudman;44038610]Because you can't even get people to register automatic weapons. "Once thay start registering, next they'll take our guns away!" Which is retarded as fuck, but hey, that's your Constitution, and people standing up for it can only be welcomed.[/QUOTE] What? you can get automatics registered, it just takes months, if not years of extensive background checking, and a $200 stamp for each weapon, oh and it costs upwards of $14,000 to buy a new factory made m16. people saying "they're gun take ouuur gunz away!" are deluded idiots.
[QUOTE=gudman;44038610]Because you can't even get people to register automatic weapons. "Once thay start registering, next they'll take our guns away!" Which is retarded as fuck, but hey, that's your Constitution, and people standing up for it can only be welcomed.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? Automatics have had to be registered through a federal registry since 1934.
[QUOTE=gudman;44038610]Because you can't even get people to register automatic weapons. [B]"Once thay start registering, next they'll take our guns away!"[/B] Which is retarded as fuck, but hey, that's your Constitution, and people standing up for it can only be welcomed.[/QUOTE] You act like this isn't happening, but it is in California as Governor Jerry Brown started funding a private police force that is confiscating firearms from people who are deemed 'mentally unfit' to own firearms. The term, of course, is being used in the broadest way possible to the point where if you have unpaid parking tickets you are considered mentally foregone. Source: [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/01/local/la-me-pc-gun-bill-20130501[/url]
[QUOTE=seano12;44038636]You act like this isn't happening, but it is in California as Governor Jerry Brown started funding a private police force that is confiscating firearms from people who are deemed 'mentally unfit' to own firearms. The term, of course, is being used in the broadest way possible to the point where if you have unpaid parking tickets you are considered mentally foregone. Source: [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/01/local/la-me-pc-gun-bill-20130501[/url][/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=Explosions;44038631]What are you talking about? Automatics have had to be registered through a federal registry since 1934.[/QUOTE] Yeah yeah, I've mixed it up, I'm a dumbass. I'll retract the statement.
[QUOTE=darkride196;44038652]Source?[/QUOTE] given
[QUOTE=seano12;44038601]There would be some serious shit going down (Syria), but maybe it would give a reason for the government not to fuck with the people?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44038705]yeah, then maybe it wouldn't be a one sided slaughter and the government snipers would have something to shoot back at them.[/QUOTE] To the contrary, it would have given Berkut an excuse to clear the streets with deadly force on the first day and discredit the protests internationally.
[QUOTE=seano12;44038529]Democracy for all. The right to bear arms is essential. [/QUOTE] The greatest freedom does not come from being able to defend yourself by any means necessary, but from not having to defend yourself.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;44038572]Can you even imagine how much worse the situation in Ukraine would have been if the protesters had wide access to guns?[/QUOTE] yeah, then maybe it wouldn't be a one sided slaughter and the government snipers would have something to shoot back at them.
[QUOTE=seano12;44038529]Democracy for all. The right to bear arms is essential. [IMG]http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/files/2014/02/CryingEagle11.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] idk honestly it seems that their protests have been pretty fuckin effective so far without them [editline]25th February 2014[/editline] and probably their lack of guns has prevented the loss of a lot of lives [editline]25th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44038705]yeah, then maybe it wouldn't be a one sided slaughter and the government snipers would have something to shoot back at them.[/QUOTE] no the gov't would just ramp up the extrajudicial killing to even more insane levels.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44038566]I was wondering when this would end up on here, I didn't want to post it because I know that here comes the inevitable... Basically, a gun owner's association in the Ukraine wants the constitution amended with a "2nd Amendment" type thing to ensure that no government can ever oppress the people of the nation again, so they claim, since the people would have guns with which to shoot back at said oppressive government should it ever open fire on its citizens again.[/QUOTE]I was going to post it earlier, but my internet connection wasn't very good so I couldn't search to see if it was posted. :/ [QUOTE=gudman;44038660]Yeah yeah, I've mixed it up, I'm a dumbass. I'll retract the statement.[/QUOTE]No you're not. :( Mistakes happen, guy! It's going to be okay. [QUOTE=Kommodore;44038674]To the contrary, it would have given Berkut an excuse to clear the streets with deadly force on the first day and discredit the protests internationally.[/QUOTE]All I know is the police in the United States aren't so cavalier about shooting into a crowd of people that are protesting, no matter how wild they get. Ultimately it's impossible to say what would have happened, but maybe reevaluating the personnel in Berkut and the purpose of the organization should be on the agenda for the new government.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44038710]idk honestly it seems that their protests have been pretty fuckin effective so far without them [editline]25th February 2014[/editline] and probably their lack of guns has prevented the loss of a lot of lives [/QUOTE] Hundreds have been killed already and police/military are firing into crowds along with snipers shooting civilians and medics for s&g's. The loss of life is pretty severe as it is. You're not going to have a blood-free revolution (see; almost every revolution ever) but at least if the revolutionaries had some armaments they could efficiently fight back, rather than having to use fireworks and molotov cocktails.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;44038674]To the contrary, it would have given Berkut an excuse to clear the streets with deadly force on the first day and discredit the protests internationally.[/QUOTE] This is very true. The original argument for having an armed populace to resist tyranny were extremely relevant and justified when they were originally made. During the aftermath of the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, the militia forces of the U.S. could rival and even defeat professional armies, and this had been evidenced many times throughout the war and even later during the War of 1812. When a firing piece and a simple line drill was all that was needed for proper combat to be held, armed citizenry could be extremely potent and even dangerous to professional armies, especially due to their ability to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]outnumber and overwhelm[/url] a qualitatively superior force. However, since the mid-19th century, technology that is usually unavailable to normal citizens has become necessary to succeed in warfare, such as artillery, methods of transportation, aircraft, and armored vehicles, as well as the weapons used to defeat these technologies. The mass of soldiers alone is almost useless in a war against a properly trained, but more importantly properly [b]equipped[/b] foe.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44038737]Hundreds have been killed already and police/military are firing into crowds along with snipers shooting civilians and medics for s&g's. The loss of life is pretty severe as it is. You're not going to have a blood-free revolution (see; almost every revolution ever) but at least if the revolutionaries had some armaments they could efficiently fight back, rather than having to use fireworks and molotov cocktails.[/QUOTE] It would have been total chaos: hundreds if not thousands more people would have died and it would have flung the situation well past the point of reconciliation, whereas in [I]real life[/I] it ended with a protest movement that based its legitimacy on peaceful action and achieved their goals all the same.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44038737]Hundreds have been killed already and police/military are firing into crowds along with snipers shooting civilians and medics for s&g's. The loss of life is pretty severe as it is. You're not going to have a blood-free revolution (see; almost every revolution ever) but at least if the revolutionaries had some armaments they could efficiently fight back, rather than having to use fireworks and molotov cocktails.[/QUOTE] i do research on violence and im telling you that hundreds dying is actually really really good for a revolution the places where there's use of firearms have seen deathtolls that are factors above the other states. egypt, syria, libya. the use of firearms turns protests into a civil war - and guess what, states are allowed to protect themselves during civil wars.
[QUOTE=seano12;44038529]Democracy for all. The right to bear arms is essential. [IMG]http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/files/2014/02/CryingEagle11.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Nobody gets saracasm on the internet, looking at the ratings. :v: If Ukraine actually becomes an EU member I'll move there so I can start collecting SKS's and AK rifles heh. (Probably not)
[QUOTE=Explosions;44038741]This is very true. The original argument for having an armed populace to resist tyranny were extremely relevant and justified when they were originally made. During the aftermath of the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, the militia forces of the U.S. could rival and even defeat professional armies, and this had been evidenced many times throughout the war and even later during the War of 1812. When a firing piece and a simple line drill was all that was needed for proper combat to be held, armed citizenry could be extremely potent and even dangerous to professional armies, especially due to their ability to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]outnumber and overwhelm[/url] a qualitatively superior force. However, since the mid-19th century, technology that is usually unavailable to normal citizens has become necessary to succeed in warfare, such as artillery, methods of transportation, aircraft, and armored vehicles, as well as the weapons used to defeat these technologies. The mass of soldiers alone is almost useless in a war against a properly trained, but more importantly properly [b]equipped[/b] foe.[/QUOTE] Civilian and guerrilla forces are able to make crude weapons and are able to add some sort of armor to vehicles. Civilian forces can fight back well see: Vietnam, Afghan/Iraq wars, Libya, Syria.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44038741]This is very true. The original argument for having an armed populace to resist tyranny were extremely relevant and justified when they were originally made. During the aftermath of the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, the militia forces of the U.S. could rival and even defeat professional armies, and this had been evidenced many times throughout the war and even later during the War of 1812. When a firing piece and a simple line drill was all that was needed for proper combat to be held, armed citizenry could be extremely potent and even dangerous to professional armies, especially due to their ability to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]outnumber and overwhelm[/url] a qualitatively superior force. However, since the mid-19th century, technology that is usually unavailable to normal citizens has become necessary to succeed in warfare, such as artillery, methods of transportation, aircraft, and armored vehicles, as well as the weapons used to defeat these technologies. The mass of soldiers alone is almost useless in a war against a properly trained, but more importantly properly [b]equipped[/b] foe.[/QUOTE]While I do agree with you, an armed insurgency does not rely on fighting in proper battles and instead makes the job of being nearby difficult and miserable for the enemy. Ultimately an insurgent's goal isn't to win on the battlefield, but to cause damage and survive which makes the insurgent such an annoying and potentially dangerous threat. There's no day-to-day campaign that an insurgent is fighting in, it's a series of small personal victories like "I shot a soldier, I did good!" or "I blew up a bridge, that will surely cause problems for [i]those bastards.[/i]" However the insurgent has one critical weakness that an occupying force does not, their recruitment pool is highly vulnerable to how well they are liked. Countless rebellions, insurrections, and other armed actions have failed because the freedom fighter did not stay in the good graces of the local population and was eventually wiped out. This is why there's the "hearts and minds" strategy that was developed in Vietnam, it was designed around depriving the Viet Cong of their replacements and reducing their effectiveness on the field. Insurgents never win wars by themselves, they merely endure until the opposite side gives up. In fact, being an insurgent is actually very hazardous because they usually do not (unless they steal it or capture it) have access to the equipment you mentioned. Sometimes an insurgent force actually becomes a legitimate military force when they have this equipment, operating just like a "proper" army, but this usually happens as the enemy force is pulling out.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44038808]i do research on violence and im telling you that hundreds dying is actually really really good for a revolution [/QUOTE] Last I checked, the protests/revolution isn't over yet and Russia may be gearing up for an intervention into their puppet state. If I lived in the Ukraine, I'd rather have something to defend myself with for when Ivan starts rolling tanks across the border. Something a little more effective than a beer bottle full of gasoline or a bottle rocket. [editline]25th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;44038808] the use of firearms turns protests into a civil war - and guess what, states are allowed to protect themselves during civil wars.[/QUOTE] They're already using military infantry, snipers, and tanks against protesters. The only other thing they could be doing is using aircraft, and the Ukraine would lose a hell of a lot of credibility for using those. Anymore senseless slaughter and it will turn into a civil war.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.