Very often in life I would find myself strongly disagreeing
and upholding the totally opposite point of view about the
actions and behavior of those, whose deeds seemed to me
rather disadvantageous and harmful to the entire community
or society. These kind of actions were mostly coming from
government authorities, and quite obviously, there was not
much that could have been done in order to refute or
override them. Therefore, not only once, the idea of having
adequate power and authority to ban these kind of pernicious
practices, would appeal to me. 
      For the purpose of decreasing the crime rate, that was
the top concern of the Ukrainian citizen, in 1994, some
misguided politicians in government adopted the legislation
repealing the previous amendment and thus, abolishing the
constitutional right to own the handguns. Banning the sale
of firearms seems to me a most malicious and reckless deed,
that instead of safeguarding and protecting, endangers more
the entire society.
	The Government justified this act by saying that it
would protect the innocent citizens. But it failed to even
entertain the notion that the enactment of this law would
come to protect the right of those who violate the rights of
others. It has never occurred to authorities that vicious
criminals, in spite of this legislation, will still manage
somehow to get the firearms. 
	Innocent people, however, will suffer, because they
will be less likely to obtain handguns in order to protect
themselves and their families. Therefore, it would not be
hard to imagine the carnage of the citizens, should there
not be any guns in their homes. The criminals would walk in
at any time they desired, they would take whatever they
wanted, rape whom they wanted, and shoot whoever would
resist.
	The Government defended the enactment of this law by
declaring that people could not be secure as long as there
would be handguns around; they could not be secure when
three million people in the country had shotguns stuck in
the glove compartment of their cars, bedside drawers,
pockets and kitchen cabinets. But could they be secure if
some criminal would try to take away somebody's car under
the threat, rob and rape somebody in the street or try to
burglarize somebody's home, knowing that they would not have
any guns to protect themselves? The prompt and correct
answer is "NO".
	The government was established to insure that none of
our rights would be violated or taken away. It seems to me
that the government, by infringing the right of people to
keep and bear arms, has failed to provide its citizens with
privilege of safety in their homes or the right to be able
to walk freely in cities and towns. If I had enough
authority and power to change the laws, I would definitely
attract and repeal this legislation, that seems to be rather
dangerous than protective. By doing so, I would bring
safety, security and freedom to the entire society, because
my point is that criminals would obtain the shotgun anyway,
so why should not normal people have a chance to protect
themselves by having a little insurance under their bed in
the form of a gun.