Crimea and the 2nd Amendment

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cazador1022

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 6, 2010
    208
    1
    border war zone EL PASO TX
    Crimea and the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment
    Why Ukraine should have understood the premise of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment
    As many of us have watched or heard of the recent developments in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by Russia, I could not help but to think how this situation on a smaller scale speaks to the core of why I believe in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment. Before going on, I would like to state that if Crimea voted to become part of Russia, that is for them to decide. I am not discussing the merits of the election or ethnic historical lineage that joins these geographic areas. That is irrelevant to the point I will illustrate.
    When I saw the whole drama unfold I immediately saw a connection, between the interaction of these two countries and the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. First of all, the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is not about hunting. It’s about power, who has it, and how to keep the big bully off of you by equalizing that disparity of power with firepower. How this ties in with Ukraine will become apparent in the lines that follow.
    Due to the fact that many Americans know very little, and care very little about what happens in the world (unless a Kardashian is visiting that part of the world), many people forget that Ukraine was a NUCLEAR POWER. Yes, Ukraine used to have nuclear weapons. It actually held the third largest nuclear arsenal. So, what happened? How could a nuclear armed country be bullied? At our behest, Ukraine surrendered its weapons to Russia, with the understanding implied or otherwise (government never lies so we really don’t know), that if Ukraine ever needed help WE and the international community would come to their assistance. This was part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which was signed in 1994 by the U.S. and Russia in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.
    And how does this tie in to 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment? Well, it is the same promise the government makes to U.S. Citizens every day. The government tells you, that you don’t have to worry about your safety and security because they will protect you should anything happen. After many years in law enforcement I can tell you this is a lie. However, we in the U.S. have the best law enforcement in the world, period. We will catch the bank robber, rapist, car jacker ect…but only after you have been raped, robbed, or beaten to death. But hey, don’t worry at least we will catch them...after the fact. At the end of the day you were still raped and robbed. At the end of the day Crimea is now Russia. Law enforcement is an after the fact function.
    When Ukraine gave up its personal weapons and delegated its sovereign right to defense and security to a third party it relinquished its ability to defend itself. Hence it became an easy target for Russia. If Ukraine had kept its weapons to defend itself, Crimea with or without historical cultural lineage and ties to Russia would still be part of Ukraine today.
    You see the fact is, when you delegate your responsibility to keep yourself and your family safe to a third party the way Ukraine did, you are then subject to being at the mercy of that third party. The third party then decides if and when it wants to help you or not. That decision may or may not be in your best interest. Ukraine gave Russia its weapons the same way we surrender our firearms to rely on the government for protection. Ironically the threat came from Russia and the help and defense NEVER came from the U.S. In our case the government promises to defend us but in reality it chooses when and if they assist us in time of need.
    In laymen’s terms Ukraine had the means to defend itself by merely owning a defensive weapon that her enemies could respect. When was the last time a nuclear armed country was invaded or had its sovereign soil taken? For as much as we talk about the evil IRAN and North Korea, we will never touch them because they have serious weapons. The same situation happens all the time when armed citizens merely display a firearm to thwart a violent attack, or a robbery. Bullies pick the weak or unarmed to abuse them, they never pick on someone of equal footing. The second amendment gives us that equal footing against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Maybe Ukraine should have studied the precepts of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment; maybe WE should study the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment. Your defensive firearms keep the balance of power, give them up and you are giving up your ability to defend your life, liberty and family.
    You cannot un-ring a bell. All the countries of the world have realized that it is an obligation to defend themselves, since the world policeman might or might not come to your aid.
     

    shortround

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 24, 2011
    6,624
    31
    Grid 0409
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be construed to apply to any other foreign nation or peoples.

    It is unique only to the United States of America. No other country has a belief system that the foundation of our rights are bestowed by a creator and not a political party or ruling class of men.

    Our "Bill of Rights" sets us apart from every other nation on the planet, and is the essence of the American Experience.

    To think that other peoples would think the way we do is folly. Most are indoctrinated with the idea that "government knows best."

    We are headed in that very direction when 49% of the electorate vote for hand-outs.
     

    Younggun

    Ginger Avenger
    TGT Supporter
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,014
    96
    hill co.
    Wow, y'all read that much differently than I did.

    It was not about arming Ukraine with nukes, it was about the dangers of being disarmed.
     

    Mexican_Hippie

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 4, 2009
    12,288
    21
    Fort Worth
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be construed to apply to any other foreign nation or peoples.

    It is unique only to the United States of America. No other country has a belief system that the foundation of our rights are bestowed by a creator and not a political party or ruling class of men.

    Our "Bill of Rights" sets us apart from every other nation on the planet, and is the essence of the American Experience.

    To think that other peoples would think the way we do is folly. Most are indoctrinated with the idea that "government knows best."

    We are headed in that very direction when 49% of the electorate vote for hand-outs.

    The rights articulated in our Constitution are human rights that apply to everyone in the universe (multi-verse?). Natural rights bestowed by a Creator can not be limited by geographic boundaries - by their very nature.

    It's their responsibility to demand them and fight for them.

    The truth is the truth, whether or not anyone believes it.
     
    Last edited:

    F350-6

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 25, 2009
    4,231
    96
    If you want to discuss the right to keep and bear arms and how it effects the peoples ability to defend themselves, I'd suggest you look closer to home in your studies.

    Let's look at our friends to the South. From wiki:

    The right to keep and bear arms was first recognized as a constitutional right under Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution of 1857.[7] However, as part of the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed[8] where-by the right to keep and bear arms was given two separate definitions: the right to keep (derecho a poseer in Spanish) and the right to bear (derecho a portar in Spanish).[9] The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to keep arms (own them) but may only bear them (carry them) among the population in accordance to police regulation.[10] This modification to Article 10 also introduced the so-called ...[arms] for exclusive use of the [military]... (in Spanish: ...de uso exclusivo del Ejército...), dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered weapons of war.
    In 1971, Article 10 of the present Constitution was reformed[11] to limit the right to keep arms within the home only (in Spanish: ...derecho a poseer armas en su domicilio...) and reserved the right to bear arms outside the home only to those explicitly authorized by law (i.e. police, military, armed security officers). The following year, the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives came into force[12] and gave the federal government complete jurisdiction and control to the legal proliferation of firearms in the country; at the same time, heavily limiting and restricting the legal access to firearms by civilians.

    We all know about how the drug cartels have taken over, regardless of the gun laws. We also know that law enforcement hasn't had much luck reigning in the cartels. So some citizens finally decided to stand up for themselves, and of course the government tried to throw a fit.

    Mexican vigilantes refuse government orders to disarm | euronews, world news

    International News | World News - ABC News

    Mexican vigilante gunmen disarm local POLICE so they can rid town of feared Knights Templar drug cartel | Mail Online
     

    ChrisX

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2014
    128
    1
    Houston, TX
    Wow, y'all read that much differently than I did.

    It was not about arming Ukraine with nukes, it was about the dangers of being disarmed.


    That's the logical extension of his supposition. Ukraine gave up its nukes, Ukraine got invaded. If you have nukes, you don't get invaded. Every country should have nukes so their safety isn't at the mercy of a third party.

    If Ukraine had kept its weapons to defend itself, Crimea with or without historical cultural lineage and ties to Russia would still be part of Ukraine today.
    You see the fact is, when you delegate your responsibility to keep yourself and your family safe to a third party the way Ukraine did, you are then subject to being at the mercy of that third party.
     

    Younggun

    Ginger Avenger
    TGT Supporter
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,014
    96
    hill co.
    That's the logical extension of his supposition. Ukraine gave up its nukes, Ukraine got invaded. If you have nukes, you don't get invaded. Every country should have nukes so their safety isn't at the mercy of a third party.

    [/U]


    So your just being difficult. Gotcha.


    We don't actually know if Ukraine keeping Nukes would have cause any horrible effects (nuclear war), so I'm not sure if there is a time of reason to advocate them NOT having them, besides the fact that nukes have to ability to cause massive destruction (hence the ability to dissuade attacks).


    Now, to stretch that to the point of "every country should have nukes" is just ridiculous, nothing of that nature was said or implied, although that would make every country much more difficult to deal with in a conflict due to the ability to pose a tremendous threat to any attacker, much as the I infringed right to keep and bear arms.
     

    cazador1022

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 6, 2010
    208
    1
    border war zone EL PASO TX
    As the author of the essay I can clearly state the following: The point of the article is to state that YOU ARE responsible for your safety. Do NOT depend on others (PD, private security, ect...) to defend you. If you are ARMED you get to defend yourself vs. surrendering your means of defense in exchange for a promise of safety. I used a MACRO example since the principle that drives the 2 amendment is UNIVERSAL, the right to self defense. Except that if you give up your self defense tools...., well then you are up a creek without a paddle.
     

    ChrisX

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 10, 2014
    128
    1
    Houston, TX
    So your just being difficult. Gotcha.


    We don't actually know if Ukraine keeping Nukes would have cause any horrible effects (nuclear war), so I'm not sure if there is a time of reason to advocate them NOT having them, besides the fact that nukes have to ability to cause massive destruction (hence the ability to dissuade attacks).


    Now, to stretch that to the point of "every country should have nukes" is just ridiculous, nothing of that nature was said or implied, although that would make every country much more difficult to deal with in a conflict due to the ability to pose a tremendous threat to any attacker, much as the I infringed right to keep and bear arms.


    I'm certainly not being difficult. I'm pointing out the logical conclusion to his simplistic argument. His premise is also highly debatable, that Ukraine would not have had this issue if they had nukes. No way Ukraine uses nukes to defend Crimea and Russia knows this as well so there's no deterrent value to nukes in this case.

    In reality, all of us are significantly reliant, consciously and not, on family, friends, neighbors, our communities, city, society, country, etc. for our own safety.
     
    Top Bottom