It was August 2005. Only seven months after becoming the senator of Illinois, Barack Obama flew to Donetsk, a city in Eastern Ukraine. His travel companion was Indiana Senator Dick Lugar, the only Republican who has an F rating from the National Rifle Association. The two were touring Ukrainian weapons sites.
The two men traveled from there to Kiev to meet President Victor Yuschenko to make a case that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program should be expanded. Instead of just covering nuclear weapons, Obama and Lugar thought it should also cover small arms and ammunition. The civil agreement was signed by George Bush later that year and 400,000 small arms were lost in Ukraine. This year, when Russian tanks rolled into Crimea they were met with little resistance or defense.
The Ukrainian Conflict is terrible and real, but it is also an allegory for giving up your own self-sufficiency. We can learn a lesson. When you don’t defend yourself, it allows other people or institutions to coerce you.When a group has a monopoly, whether it is a monopoly on money, violence, or information, it results in inherent tyranny and oppression.
To give away your right to bear arms is like giving up your vote or your privacy; it’s allowing other 
establishments to have unfettered power over your being. It’s another dangerous crack in your personal protection, autonomy, security, and freedom.
The citizens of Ukraine know what consequences come from giving away personal liberties. The state strictly regulates guns. Only law enforcement and hunting enthusiasts were allowed to purchase rifles. Ukrainian citizens had only three millions weapons, both illegal and legal. Due to the restrictive laws in the country the gap in firepower between to the people and the state was staggering.
Without defense there was no reason for the state to be concerned about the power of the people. When the people began protesting it was no surprise that they were fired upon by background snipers and security forces with AK-47s. This launched the country into a civil war.
It is a common tactic and threat amongst oppressive regimes to take the guns away from the people. I’m sure you’ve heard it all before; from the Nazis to Stalin to modern day North Korea, states that endeavor to better control the people have an easier time when they pass laws in the background to prevent people from owning firearms.Every state thinks that it has the best ideology and political standpoint and the privilege to force that ideology. Of course, history shows us that no state has been flawless and many have been dangerous. The American government is no exception; from the Kent State Massacre to the Haymarket Incident, the federal government has never been afraid to point guns at its own citizens for political reasons.
Of course, at every point in history people have hoped that they’ve reached an era where their government will finally do what’s moral. They hope that they’ve reached an age of sanity and freedom. I think that’s a reasonable hope. I also think it’s reasonable to assume that a stranger won’t walk into your home at night, yet I’d suggest that your home still have a lock.
Since a government has regained momentary power in Ukraine they are once again trying to take away personal gun rights. They have even started an amnesty program so that people can turn in their illegal guns without consequence. This is in part to impress the European Union, a group who requires that the state regulates guns in order to be part of the union. The leader of a gun organization in the region, George Uchaykin, says, “This was done to make a monopoly… but no one can protect himself.
