Ukrainians and Venezuelans Need Guns To Be Free

The U.S. isn't coming to the rescue, so they had better be able to defend themselves.

It's hard to stand by and watch the plight of Ukraine and Venezuela, but the U.S. can do little to positively impact either situation. The thing is, they don't need us. What they do need is a way to exercise their basic property rights and protect themselves. That is, they need guns, and could have used them to prevent their current crises.

The Cato Institute's Andrey Illarionov suggested in interview this week that Ukraine is trying to be “free and independent.” In order to achieve this in the face of a Russian invasion, it must have a “complete arming of the people.” He argues that “mankind has never come up with something better” than “unobstructed gun ownership” to ensure “that a free man shall not become a slave.”

The argument that an armed society is a polite society isn't just folk wisdom. A 2013 analysis of the U.S. and Europe published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy recognized that “nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns, and that “nations which have violence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do not reduce violence, which is determined by basic socio-cultural and economic factors.”

A 2008 study by The Independent Institute's David Kopel looked at 59 countries, and “the data show[ed]... nations with the highest rates of gun ownership tend to have greater political and civil freedom, greater economic freedom and prosperity, and much less corruption than other nation."

Venezuela–where people are pushing back against notoriously high murder rates, waning freedom, and an anemic economy–predictably and unfortunately falls on the wrong side of this gun debate. Subtracting the stratospheric number of homicides and adding a foreign invasion, Ukraine also has a very bad situation.

Protests began in Venezuela as a peaceful response to corrupt and dangerous conditions. Twenty-nine people are now dead and hundreds have been injured. The military, other arms of the government, and pro-government paramilitary groups have been firing on the opposition, which is armed mostly with rocks.

This disparity exists in part because Hugo Chavez banned private ownership of firearms in 2012, asserting that it was the root of Venezuela's crime problem.

The prohibition secured the regime's place as a major distributor of violence and rendered law-abiding individuals more vulnerable than ever. The Small Arms Survey highlights the fact that “the Venezuelan military and security services serve as important sources of illegal firearms,” and according to the Venezuelan Observatory on Violence, police slay “thousands” of people each year. The fact that National Guard felt compelled to seize a toilet paper factory last year would almost be funny if it weren't a glaring sign that the country is dangerous for anyone who isn't in with the ruling party. 

The country saw nearly 25,000 homicides in 2013, up from 21,600 in 2012.  Venezuelans feel defenseless in the face of such high crimes. Both the rising murder rates and subsequent frustration, which helped spark protests, could have been avoided if Chavez had never disarmed his people.

Ukraine has restrictive laws of its own, which leave only 6.6 per 100 citizens in legal possession of firearms.

When nonviolent protests against corruption began late last year, the nation's now-deposed leader responded by further restricting rights and brutalizing people. In February, government forces started using live rounds on demonstrators, who had some guns of their own but mostly wielded makeshift weapons. The government killed around 100 people and injured well over 1,000.

Violence has not been the preferred tactic of the protesters in either country and that would be no different if they were able to defend themselves with non-primitive weapons. What would have changed, however, is government tactics. They could have avoided much bloodshed and “the worst violations of human rights in 15 years,” as NPR describes the situation in Venezuela, if government forces and their allies saw their countrymen as equals (in fire power, if nothing else) instead of easy targets. This worked to some extent in Ukraine: shortly after civilians seized a government armory, many police officers stopped fighting them and started defending them.

Now that Russia has annexed one region of Ukraine and still poses a threat to other areas of the country, the argument for gun rights only becomes stronger. Ukraine's new opposition-led government cannot effectively protect its remaining citizens, because the military is in disarray. And although people are joining the newly formed national guard so they can get their hands on some arms for protection, that just is not enough to guarantee everyone's safety.

It is immoral to deny people the ability to take up the best tools of self-defense. Banning and restricting guns has put Venezuela and Ukraine in bad positions. Venezuela's regime obviously has no desire to cede power to the people it has been harming, but if the opposition succeeds, hopefully it will prioritize reversing the nation's ruinous gun policies. Ukraine is in a different position, and the people now have representative leadership. For the sake of itself and its constituents, that government must recognize the right to bear arms is imperative, as Illarionov contends, to ensuring that the country remains free.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Paul.||

    Hey, another chance to point out how New York has a higher gun murder rate than other much more heavily armed states.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    And this is a bad thing?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Zenon Evans: guy with an awesome name that writes awesome posts with awesome headlines.

  • ||

    How'd you get a hold of my resume?

  • ||

    You bitter clingers just have penis envy problems that a massive tool like me doesn't have to worry about. I believe in a world without guns and I can't wait for the government to come confiscate yours.

    /people like Tony

  • Lonely Stalker||

    In russia, both police and gopniks are reason for arming yourself:

    http://rt.com/news/guns-permits-russia/

    Gleb Obukhovsky, a shooting instructor and collector of guns, says people should not rely on the police when it comes to fighting crime:

    “I don't think it's safe on the streets and it's getting worse every year. I think it's time for people to learn how to use weapons to be able to take their safety in their own hands.”

    And also:

    http://rt.com/politics/gun-rus.....fense-883/

    "Pro-gun lobby wants to turn Russian homes into fortresses"

  • R C Dean||

    Pro-gun lobby wants to turn a Russian's homes into fortresses to be his castle

  • RJ The Terrible||

    +1
    Glad you fixed it for him

  • BardMetal||

    Everybody needs guns to be free. We need maximum gun proliferation, then things like genocide and slavery would be impossible.

  • iEagleHammer||

    Do you want to buy this Unicorn I have for sale?

  • RJ The Terrible||

    and how would Rwanda gone down if the thugs with the clubs and knives where met with a hail of bullets?

  • Drake||

    I definitely agree with the Venezuela assessment. Ukraine, not quite so much. I'm always in favor of private gun ownership, but what Ukraine should have done is gotten their political act together, stamped out corruption as much as possible, and created an environment for economic growth.

    Then they would have had the money for a decent military, and maybe been admitted into Nato.

    What is being suggested, a civilian guerrilla war against the Russian Army, is very ugly and didn't work in a very well-armed Chechnya.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Was Chechnya very well armed? Even if they were, it doesn't mean that Ukrainian mass civilian gun ownership wouldn't help, it just might be insufficient. Ukraine is a lot bigger for one thing.

  • wwhorton||

    Also, when you talk about how many casualties need to be inflicted on a fighting force before people back home start reconsidering the prospect you're not looking at huge numbers. Think about this: part of the argument for dropping the bomb during WW2 was that the island-hopping campaign was inflicting massive casualties. For the total of the war, the Marines, who fought mainly in the Pacific theater, suffered a casualty rate of 3.6%.

  • dinkster||

    Does that 3.6% figure account for the number of administrators and commanders vs troops, and number of troops deployed at any given time, and so on? Is it 3.6% of the boots on the ground?

  • dinkster||

    Also, is that an average over the entire campaign, including post war occupation?

  • BardMetal||

    The reason they dropped the bomb because military planners were estimating upwards of 1 million American casualties, and over 5 million Japanese casualties, and that Japanese figure might not be taking into account the number of Japanese civilians who would have chose suicide over surrender.

    Read up on operation Downfall the planned invasion of Japan.

  • Robert||

    All that proves is that it encourages the use of heavier weapons.

  • OneOut||

    Actually it is still working in Chechnya.

    It worked pretty well in Iraq also.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    I thought Chechnya had become a festering corpse, somewhat like a repeat of a 30-years-war panorama about 15 years ago?

  • Cytotoxic||

    What worked out in Iraq? America won in Iraq. Left because we were done. Russia has achieved no such level of success in the Northern Caucuses.

  • JPyrate||

    Yeah about that "Winning" thing.

  • JPyrate||

  • Vulgar Madman||

    If we have any more victorys like that...

  • R C Dean||

    We left Iraq with an elected government, under the terms of an agreement negotiated with the Iraqis.

    The fact that the Iraqis have been sliding back into barbarism doesn't change the fact that we pretty much achieved our goals.

    Unless you were foolish enough to believe that our goals included the complete reconstruction of the Iraqi culture and society. Some did, I'm sure, but by any reasonable definition, we were not defeated and we left on pretty much our own terms. Sounds like a more of a victory than a defeat to me.

  • american socialist||

    hah, spoken like a true believer neo-con. you realize, right, that libertarian /=bush era apologist, but don't worry you have lots of friends here that make the same conflation.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    Tell that was sarcasm. Please!

  • RJ The Terrible||

    *Tell me*

    Dear Reason Webmaster,
    Your comments thingie sucks the wazoo

  • Will Nonya||

    "Ukraine should have done is gotten their political act together, stamped out corruption as much as possible, and created an environment for economic growth."

    Ya! just like we have in the states...

  • R C Dean||

    What is being suggested, a civilian guerrilla war against the Russian Army, is very ugly

    Whether it would be worth it would be up to the Ukrainians, of course.* Your opinions about whether they should do it really don't count for much.

    *If, that is, they had the weapons. Since they don't, it looks like things will work out they way you think they should, and they will experience life under Putin's boot.

  • pronomian||

    It worked for the afghans.

  • Ron||

    "What is being suggested, a civilian guerrilla war against the Russian Army, is very ugly and didn't work in a very well-armed Chechnya."
    it worked for Afganistan against both Russian and now the U.S. and it worked for Vietnam and it worked for the U.S. against the British twice. I'm sure i could find more samples with time.

  • american socialist||

    Riiiight. i'm all for the right of libertarians to blow their heads off with their automatic rifles, but the notion that all Ukraine has to do is let the people have their Glocks-- presumably to take on the Red Army man-to-man-- is as fatuous an argument as i've seen here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh not just Glocks. ASSAULT WEAPONS. A SALT WEpONS EVERYWHERE@!!1.

  • JPyrate||

    =)

  • Vampire||

    A SALT weapons to PEPPER those who wish to take your life.

  • wwhorton||

    Tony, is that you?

  • RJ The Terrible||

    Mention the Devil's name and he will come.

  • R C Dean||

    amsoc, if you don't think several million AK-47s in private hands in the Ukraine would affect Russia's strategic and tactical calculations, you are a fool.

    Tack on milita armories with a hundred thousand RPGs (which are anti-armor weapons), with voluntary training, and a Russian invasion becomes very problematic.

    For Russia.

    It would force the Russians to use lots and lots of heavy weapons, for one thing, just to get across the country. That's a very different kettle of fish than driving an armored column through a country with the occasional staged crowd thwoing flowers.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Remdinder that:

    The "Red Army" is as yesterday as are "AK-47" and as is the vision of "RUSSIA INVADES! ZOMG! RESISTANCE"

    Get with the times, grandpas! Or keep watching Reagan-era shit like Red Dawn.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A post consisting entirely of bile with no supporting substance.

    And if you think that the AK-47, the most durable and reliable gun ever, is 'yesterday' then you are a total fucking idiot.

  • Acosmist||

    So, and let me just get this straight, people in a country actually, currently being invaded are BITTER CLINGER TEATHUGLICAN REAGANTARD RED-DAWN FANS?

    I just want to get straight what is being said here.

  • american socialist||

    in this particular case, where 80% of the population-- for some God-awful reason-- want to be ruled by v. putin, it wouldn't affect their calculation at all even if there were a Ukranian AK-47 in every pot. what you are advocating for, along with the commentary below, is the desirability of armed militia groups-- something that has worked out swimmingly in Syria.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: american stolid,

    in this particular case, where 80% of the population-- for some God-awful reason-- want to be ruled by v. putin, it wouldn't affect their calculation at all even if there were a Ukranian AK-47 in every pot.


    In that case, having guns will have no consequence with such a big quorum, so I still don't understand your objection against letting people have AK-47s in their homes (or Glocks, for that matter). Is like objecting to people having cars when they don't have anywhere to drive, but what's it to you?

    what you are advocating for, along with the commentary below, is the desirability of armed militia groups-- something that has worked out swimmingly in Syria.


    Would you prefer having a completely unarmed population being ruled by a powerful authoritarian? Again, I don't understand your problem.

  • dinkster||

    but what's it to you?

    EVERYTHING!

  • american socialist||

    i'm a socialist first and a libertarian second. i don't feel there's a compelling economic argument against personal ownership of guns-- although i feel it should be regulated to some small extent. what you are confusing i think is my contempt for the argument that we need to have guns for when TSHTF-- although i think this should be legal as well as i am not a thought policeman.

    the thing i would say is that when the revolution comes and you guys shoot up your local irs office for liberty don't come crying when the police shoot you in the face and throw your revolutionary ass in jail for the next 50 years

  • PH2050||

    "I'm a socialist first and a libertarian second like to lie to myself. FTFY.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: american stolid,

    i'm a socialist first and a libertarian second.


    Sure. I'm a vegetarian first and a carnivore second.

    Makes sense.

    what you are confusing i think is my contempt for the argument that we need to have guns for when TSHTF


    I don't make arguments based on pragmatism. I argue that people have a natural right to own any weapon they can afford and want, even bazookas.

    Where YOU seem to get confused is when you start pairing ownership with intention; if I buy a gun, must be because I want to kill. Does that mean that when I buy matches, it means I want to burn down a house? If I buy insurance, is it because I want to fake my own death?

  • DH||

    "compelling economic argument against personal ownership of guns-"

    What???

    "although I feel it should be regulated to some small extent."

    Please Mr. Socialist, tell me your acceptable regulations.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    This word 'Libertarian', it does not mean, what you think it means

  • Cytotoxic||

    armed militia groups-- something that has worked out swimmingly in Syria

    Your preference for unhindered rule by a totalitarian regime is totally unsurprising.

  • R C Dean||

    where 80% of the population-- for some God-awful reason-- want to be ruled by v. putin

    Outside of Crimea? I don't think so.

  • american socialist||

    inside crimea-- i think so. its pretty funny how quickly you libertarians have cozied up to nationalists and right-wing fascists in the ukraine. i didn't realize you all had such kinship.

  • d_remington||

    It's pretty funny how some statists are accusing libertarians of cozying up with ukrainian nazis and some other statists are accusing libertarians of cozying up with putin.

  • ||

    presumably to take on the Red Army man-to-man-- is as fatuous an argument as i've seen here.

    So you're saying that the best way a government can prevent an invasion is to take guns away from it's citizens?

    Because I read an article about choice and freedom rather than a proposition of pigeonholing people with ridiculous scenarios and the 'logic' surrounding them.

  • american socialist||

    again, please read first sentence... your stupid Michigan Militia comrades have the right to play soldier over the weekend.

  • wwhorton||

    I love amsoc's argument, btw. Why do libertarians in the US get to have automatic rifles while Ukrainians only get handguns?

    And, while we're talking about fatuous arguments, are you actually putting forth the idea that if something is difficult it should be illegal? Since having the Ukrainians fight the entire Russian army in one pitched battle using semi-auto handguns would result in a Ukrainian defeat it logically follows that no Ukrainians should be permitted to own any firearm whatsoever? So, since slaves in the 19th century US couldn't have defeated the entire American army in the field, the abolition movement should've been banned?

    You do realize that this is why nobody takes socialism seriously.

  • american socialist||

    i can't even make sense of this nonsense so i won't even try to respond.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    Try reading at sixth grade level of comprehension. Words and punctuation are hard.

  • DH||

    Just to let you know, they stopped being called the Red Army a long time ago.

    And no, it is silly to think they just need guns, they need this....

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yryV-5TfwvEj

  • OldMexican||

    Re: american stolid,

    i'm all for the right of libertarians to blow their heads off with their automatic rifles


    I'm all for libertarians blowing the heads off socialists trying to steal from everybody, but that's just me.

    but the notion that all Ukraine has to do is let the people have their Glocks-- presumably to take on the Red Army man-to-man-- is as fatuous an argument as i've seen here.


    Because Afghanistan 1980-1989 never existed, right? If your proggie 5th grade teacher didn't mention it, then it never happened, amirite?

  • american socialist||

    that was a cia operation through-and through. i'm glad you were for funding Al Queda and the Taliban before those things fell out of fashion. i like to go retro too. the situation in Afghanistan argues something to the opposite of what you are arguing, but go ahead-- make my day-- and argue that a superpower conflict is the reason why everyone, everywhere should have a pet bazooka.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: american stolid,

    that was a cia operation through-and through.


    So? Are you saying that sans the CIA, there wouldn't be people entrepreneurial enough to smuggle weapons to the rebels? Do you think ONLY the CIA is capable of creating rebel armies? Don't be ridiculous.

    the situation in Afghanistan argues something to the opposite of what you are arguing,


    I don't see how. In fact, it perfectly illustrates my point, which is why you're engaging in obfuscation and red herring-throwing.

    but go ahead-- make my day-- and argue that a superpower conflict is the reason why everyone, everywhere should have a pet bazooka.


    Is that a dare? Because it is not much of a dare. I argue that everybody that wants one, should be able to have a bazooka, even if only to use it for 4th of July displays. I also argue that everybody should know how to knap flints, cast shot and make powder, as precaution in case the SHTF. I also argue that everybody should read Stranger In A Strange Land.

    I mean, what kind of dare is that?

  • american socialist||

    i'm arguing that the mujahadeen didn't have a prayer to Allah of defeating the Red Army without billions of dollars in American and Saudi funding for their insurgency.

    Yes, but bazookas as fireworks displays would be silly. what you are arguing for is that you right-wingers should have sufficient firepower at your
    disposal to cause maximum casualties like your fellow travellers did at Waco and Oklahoma City. i find it an argument so contemptuous that i can't quite put it in words, but do continue on with your longings for domestic terrorism.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: american stolid,

    i'm arguing that the mujahadeen didn't have a prayer to Allah of defeating the Red Army without billions of dollars in American and Saudi funding for their insurgency


    You've got to be kidding me. In what world do you think you live? Even without the Saudis and the Americans, there are plenty of people willing to sell and even donate weapons to the fighters of Allah.

    Yes, but bazookas as fireworks displays would be silly.


    People do silly things all the time. Yours is not a sound argument.

    hat you are arguing for is that you right-wingers should have sufficient firepower at your
    disposal to cause maximum casualties like your fellow travellers did at Waco and Oklahoma City.


    I am arguing that everybody has the right to have enough firepower to defend their lives against aggression. As far as history goes, what happened at Waco was an example of government overreaction against a group of people that broke no laws. What happened at Oklahoma City was not the act of a "right-winger" but of a deranged individual who was certainly NOT defending himself from aggression. Why or how can you pair the right to possess arms with wanting to engage in murderous rampage is something I find mind-boggling. It is clear you're not interested in a discussion but on insulting people and pontificating.

  • american socialist||

    You're argument in the 2nd sentence reads like something Tim McVeigh would have said. You hold up people that liked to use their kids as human shields and I find them repellent. You think killing 4 ATF agents in cold blood is no crime!?

  • ||

    You think killing 4 ATF agents in cold blood is no crime!?

    Where the hell do you get "in cold blood"? The raid was planned and their cover was blown. The agents had their blood type written on their arms. Hard to get much more hot blooded than that.

    You act like the Davidians ran into these agents a the local diner, gunned them down, and left. Rodriguez, the ATF agent who's cover was blown, was allowed to leave the compound.

    In any event, who fired first?

    More importantly, just like Ruby Ridge and even the Dorner incident. Who broke more laws and killed or injured more innocent/uninvolved people, the "criminals" or the officers of the law?

  • PH2050||

    Damn. Why didn't I have any cool adults like you around when I was growing up? I had to sneak reading Heinlein because my God Warrior mother felt non-Christian literature was ALL DARK-SIDED!!!

  • seguin||

    Taliban didn't exist until 1992.

  • R C Dean||

    a superpower conflict is the reason why everyone, everywhere should have a pet bazooka

    Unless you are counting Ukraine as a superpower, this makes no sense.

  • R C Dean||

    a superpower conflict is the reason why everyone, everywhere should have a pet bazooka

    You realize, of course, that this is actually the basis of the very successful Swiss model, yes?

  • american socialist||

    the nazis were afraid of the swiss army-- not yoddlers equipped with muskets. your problem is you can't distinguish between the actions of an individual and of a standing army.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: american stolid,

    the nazis were afraid of the swiss army-- not yoddlers [sic] equipped with muskets.


    The Swiss Army is composed of all able-bodied males from the four cantons, meaning yodelers armed with muskets.

    But keep making an ass of yourself - it's very amusing.

  • pmains||

    I like to think he is referring to the power of invisibility. That's the superpower I would choose, and it makes about as much sense as any of amsoc and Lonely Stalker's ramblings.

  • Paul.||

    Riiiight. i'm all for the right of libertarians to blow their heads off with their automatic rifles, but the notion that all Ukraine has to do is let the people have their Glocks-- presumably to take on the Red Army man-to-man-- is as fatuous an argument as i've seen here.

    One of the things that's misunderstood about internal civil wars is that it's a bunch of guys with glocks taking on F-15 eagles, or MIG-29s.

    Also, it's not always about the fighting after the war starts, its about the reluctance of the tyrannical state to START A FIGHT in the first place, if 360,000,000 of your subjects are armed.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    What the commie dirtbag doesn't realize, is that the majority of any army is support.

  • JPyrate||

    It worked against people like you in Afghanistan during the 80's. Of course they were religious nutters, but don't let that get in the way of your narrative.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    When it comes to willing to die for a cause, religious nutters do have an advantage.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    "Ukraine is in a different position, and the people now have representative leadership."

    LOLWUT? Sounds like someone has been shooting krokodil. I guess if one listens to Kerry & Consorts long enough, eventually the brains falls out.

    Reminder that this is the leadership in which those friendly people show up that quite likely ordered protesters sniped at to bring the situation to a boil?

    In February, government forces started using live rounds on demonstrators

    [Citation needed]

    Now that Russia has annexed one region of Ukraine

    Crimean people would take up arms against Russian forces?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Reminder that this is the leadership in which those friendly people show up that quite likely ordered protesters sniped at to bring the situation to a boil?,
    Are the lizard SpaceJoos funding them

    In February, government forces started using live rounds on demonstrators

    [Citation needed]

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor.....ers-police

    Crimean people would take up arms against Russian forces?

    They might yet. Tatars aren't happy.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Whom can we believe? Unfortunately the "Graun" is on the same level of believability as "rt.com"...

    http://rt.com/news/ashton-maid.....tonia-946/

  • Cytotoxic||

    RT is a state propaganda outlet. They publish lies for useful idiots like you to regurgitate. Even the Guardian-one of dozens of outlets reporting that Ukrainian cops are the ones who fired on protesters-has more credibility.

  • ||

    Ukraine is in a different position, and the people now have representative leadership.

    Is there compelling evidence of this? AFAIK, Ukraine is more corrupt than Putin's Russia and the 'representative leadership' didn't exactly come to power in the cleanest of electoral power transitions. Any evidence that effective equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood isn't in charge of the remainder of the Ukraine?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Ukraine is more corrupt than Putin's Russia

    I haven't seen any evidence of this and to the extent Ukraine is corrupt it seems to have a lot to do with the guy who got kicked out.

    Any evidence that effective equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood isn't in charge of the remainder of the Ukraine?

    The lack of Islamic law? Common fucking sense?

  • ||

    The lack of Islamic law? Common fucking sense?

    I more meant a populist movement that quickly became unpopulist through rather overt political malfeasance.

    I completely understand and agree that Yanukovych was corrupt. I'm dubious that he was the sole sources or that his ouster significantly diminished corruption.

  • Cytotoxic||

    his ouster significantly diminished corruption.

    Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

  • ||

    Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

    That's the sort of libertarian policy that gets my vote!

  • Monty Crisco||

    I think we've seen the resistance that can be conducted against a much better equipped and trained army (the US) by a much less sophisticated society (the Afghans)that is armed so I don't necessarily buy the whole "You can't take on the REd Army" argument. With a sufficiently armed and motivated populace practicing appropriate guerrilla tactics, I think you can.

  • Lonely Stalker||

    Well, yeah but Afghanistan is rough country, people are used to the rough environment, the tactics are "hit and run" and making life of the occupation forces uncomfortable -- and there is Saudi and Pakistani help forthcoming.

  • R C Dean||

    Let's ask the Marines if they would rather fight in an urban environment or in a mountainous environment.

    Pretty sure I know which one they would pick.

  • Ron||

    They will fight wherever there is a fight to be made. They don't give a shit about anything else.

    I'm channeling My long gone grandfather who was a Marine.

  • ||

    I don't necessarily buy the whole "You can't take on the REd Army" argument. With a sufficiently armed and motivated populace practicing appropriate guerrilla tactics, I think you can.

    The Winter War is a shining example of how, with a sufficiently armed and trained local populace you can, rather handily, beat up the Red Army and steal their lunch money.

  • Will Nonya||

    If only we had some sort of recognized protection of this right in our country.

    Meanwhile back at the ATF raid planning meeting...

  • wwhorton||

    Yeah, you'd think if it was such a good idea it'd be enshrined in our Constitution or something.

  • From the Tundra||

    You mean where it would be universally recognized and respected?

    That would be cool!

  • Jon Lester||

    Those Maidan people did have guns, and started shooting (with help of mysterious snipers) before the police and interior ministry troops were authorized to defend themselves. The only shooting incident reported from Crimea lately was also done by as-yet unidentified snipers, at least one of which is supposedly in custody, and it didn't escalate beyond that. You should be looking at the human rights situation in Kiev at the moment, where MP's are attacking TV executives.

    Seriously, I expect better here than the willful ignorance and selective belief in western news coverage that's typical of teams Red and Blue. You know full well that if there were more happening in Crimea, then evidence of it would be getting out by social media via proxy servers, just as we saw in Egypt and Iran.

  • Lyle||

    You're a fucking idiot. Just drink that Putinista propaganda up, if you must.

    Shame on you.

  • LarryA||

    A 2013 analysis of the U.S. and Europe published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

    The article, in Harvard JLPP Vol 30 No 2, was published in Spring, 2007.
    http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/vols-30-34/#302

    I have seen it cited several times recently as a "new" study. Such is the interwebs.

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    I wonder how Russia would have handled knowing that every household was well armed and willing to engage in an urban war. How the Russian soldiers would have felt knowing they could be shot at any time from any window.

    You see that is why we need to continue the Second Amendment. Not just for personal protection. From protection against tyranny. Whether that tyranny comes from another country or your own federal troops.

    Barry, might want to pay close attention as the people of the Ukraine are rebelling and do not even have the Second Amendment. I've predicted in my fiction what happens in a collapse of a nation--a collapse which we are heading to more every day. And the knee jerk response will be that of New Orleans in Katrina. To confiscate firearms of the law abiding. Be warned Barry, the people of the America will give you a great deal more trouble than the unarmed in the Ukraine.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  • Robert||

    There's no point to this. If you could get it, you wouldn't need it. Unde4er what circumstances could those people have gotten guns? Only if they were sufficiently free that they wouldn't need them. This article is like saying the way to get rich is to get money.

  • Ron||

    I think we all understand that, what the article is is a warning to us and other countries not give up their weapons, if they have them, otherwise they will end up like the Ukraine or Venizuala. Of course I think the U.S. is about the last country to have gun rights, for now anyway.

  • SAL||

    ^what Robert said. Every nation has the government it deserves.

  • Jackand Ace||

    For sure.

    "The US is not coming to our rescue. We need more guns."
    -Mahatma Gandhi

  • Lyle||

    Reason should fundraise for guns to send to Ukraine and Venezuela.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement