Viewpoint: A free Ukraine would not have been attacked
So far, the obvious has eluded us. There’s a critical lesson to be learned from the tragic bloodbath that was once the peaceful cities, hillsides and farmlands of Ukraine.
TV commentators are bent on characterizing Ukraine as a democratic and free country. Yet if that were true, Russia would have never invaded. To do so would have been military suicide. They would have faced a citizenry that is not only courageous and resolute, but a citizenry that bears arms and knows how to use them.
A free nation does not fear its citizens. A free government that protects rather than rules, recognizes the inalienable right to self-defense, and thus trusts its citizens with the private possession of firearms – the most effectual means of defending one’s home, one’s country, one’s freedom. Ukraine is not free. And so, the noble blood of a disarmed population once again flows through the streets of this brave and perpetually embattled land.
Last-minute efforts to loosen gun laws and pass out government owned weaponry to people largely unfamiliar with the safe handling and accurate discharging of firearms, is a cruel and poignant reminder of the abject stupidity of government gun bans. A new law drafted last month, aimed at greater private access to firearms, said that it “gives permission to Ukrainians to carry firearms and act in self-defense.”
Permission? A free people need permission to defend themselves and their country?? Therein lies the irony of a nation politically more aligned to the autocratic controls of the invading Russians than to the individual liberties of the friendly United States.
The bill’s authors further explained that the reversal of past policies was needed due to “existing threats and dangers for the citizens of Ukraine.” Ah! So the “privilege” to defend yourself is entirely situational. It’s not a right at all. Watch how quickly this lately-discovered legal right will be quickly taken back, once Ukraine isn’t under attack by a foreign enemy.
Until the Russian war, Ukrainians were outright prohibited from owning handguns, and could own a longarm only on a “may issue” basis, with the owner strictly licensed by the government and the firearm nationally registered. According to a 1997 survey, only 640,615 Ukrainians out of a population of 51 million were licensed to own a gun at that time (just over 1 percent,) and a mere 7.6% of households had a firearm.
More recent studies have rated Ukraine 88th among the nations of the world in per capita gun ownership, with estimates of as low as 6.6 private firearms – legal or illegal - per 100 people. Even taking into account a vigorous “black market,” there is no avoiding the fact that Ukrainians are a disarmed people.
How different would it now be if every household was armed and every Ukrainian hero had the means to fight back? Russia would not be losing the war, because the war would not exist. Putin may be brutal and ambitious, but he is not stupid. While president, Barrack Obama traveled to Ukraine and offered a boatload of American dollars if its political leaders agreed to destroy their large stores of military small arms.
That’s right. Our president tried to bribe the Ukrainians into disarming! Those guns could have been sold outright to the citizens of the country – not unlike the former DCM program in America. But arming private citizens was unthinkable to the Ukrainian regime – just as it is to those dedicated leftists on this side of the pond. Leftists everywhere share in common their great fear of an
armed citizenry. Do you suppose there’s an obvious reason for that?
Meanwhile, proud and heroic Ukrainians continue trying to defend themselves as best they can. They are but one more tragic example of what can happen to a people disarmed by their own
government. It can’t happen here you say? Think again.
Roger Koopman resides in Bozeman, Montana. A former small businessman, he served two terms in the state legislature and two terms on the Montana Public Service Commission.