The US Sends Stingers and Javelins to Ukraine But Illegal for US Citizens

Executive Summary

• The US has been sending Stingers and Javelins to Ukraine at no charge.
• These weapons are illegal for US citizens to own.

Introduction

The US has sent large numbers of weapons that it denies US citizens to Ukrainians to fight the Russians. Meanwhile, the right to keep and bear assault rifles is constantly being threatened. This gets into a topic related to the original intent of having an armed citizenry and the absurd rise of the US military.

Our References

See our references for this article and related articles at this link.

The US Sends Serious Weapons to Ukraine

This video shows the billions spent to arm Ukrainians. There is no thought that these weapons are illegal for US citizens to have, and they are certainly not paid for by the US government as the Ukrainians. This means that the US citizens pay taxes to send weapons to Ukrainians that they cannot possess. How did Ukrainians rise above US citizens in both weapons rights as well as funding by the US government? Is Ukraine part of the US and is the US at war with Russia? Beyond weapons, the US shares satellite targeting information with the Ukrainian military, which is another line being crossed making it unclear if the US has declared war on Russia. 

The US Sends Weapons to Ukraine to Fight a War The US Instigated

The entire war in Ukraine, as well as the supposed necessity to send billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, could have been easily averted if the US government had not manipulated the Ukrainians into thinking they could join NATO, as I cover in the article How the US Tricked Zelensky Into Thinking the US and NATO Would Defend Ukraine from Russia.

All of this is unexplained to the US public, who have been presented this highly simplistic argument that Russia’s invasion has nothing to do with US involvement or the coup the US performed in Ukraine in 2013.

Curiously, those supporting restricting gun ownership in the US aggressively support sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. The US did the same in the war against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the US sent large numbers of Stinger missiles to Afghanistan. How is it that the majority of US Democrats want to take weapons from US citizens, weapons that they paid for, but want far more lethal weapons sent to Ukrainians? Do Ukrainians pay US taxes? Do they have some superior citizenship rights over US citizens that we are all unaware of?

All of this is part of a repeating pattern of citizens of another country receiving superior weapons rights. There seems to be no discussion of “gun control” in Afghanistan, Ukraine or any of these countries the US chooses to arm as there is in the US. Becuase in the US, the presentation of far less lethal handguns and rifles is that they should not be necessary. It is often stated by Democrat-leaning individuals that “no one needs an assault rifle.”

Biden thinks that US citizens should not be allowed to have assault weapons. But he will buy whatever he can for Ukrainians. Biden states that no one needs assault weapons — that is except for Afghanis, Ukrainians, ISIS, the Taliban, etc.. Isn’t it curious that when the US handed over perhaps a billion dollars in arms to the Taliban, none of the Taliban had to go through a background check? 

The counterpoint to this is that the US “did not mean” to drop off a billion dollars in weapons to the Taliban. But the US “did not mean” to create ISIS (to depose Assad) either. They “did not mean” for ISIS to use those weapons to attack Northern Iraq. The US also “did not mean” for the Afghani Muhajedeen to keep all of their weapons, which the Muhajedeen promptly used to fight each other after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. However, it sure seems that the US government is quite lackadaisical when it comes to who it arms versus how restrictive it is when it comes to US citizens having weapons. And it also sure seems that a lot of people in foreign countries get lethal US weapons. Where are the gun control advocates when it comes to the CIA arming foreign militaries?

More On the Javelin Anti Tank Missile

There is no Constitutional support for the US Federal government providing weapons to armies of foreign countries. The US government is neither approved to arm foreign militaries nor is it approved to maintain its own military. 

The US Was Never Supposed to Have a Permanent Standing Army

The US Constitution states that the federal government may convene a standing army for two years but then must disband this standing army. This is because the original design of the US was to eliminate standing armies which had been such a problem in Europe. Those that promote the 2nd Amendment entirely leave out the statements by the founding fathers that a standing army is a threat to the republic and leads to tyranny. This means pushing to have the US military dismantled. This would mean the US would stop intervening and ruining one country after another. US defense was to be provided a citizen soldier, and the US federal military was never to exceed the military power of any one state militia. The founding fathers could not be more clear on this point. The intent was to decentralize and democratize the common defense to the public. This is a topic I cover in the article How Did The US So Completely Violate Its Own Constitutional Rules Against Standing Armies? Along with freedom of speech, this was one of the most important innovations included in the US Constitution. Yet, only a tiny fraction of the population is aware of how the existence of the US military contradicts this.

Appreciating the Innovation of the US Citizen Soldier

This was such an innovation because militaries of professional soldiers are under the federal government’s command. However, citizen soldiers have to be managed differently. As I will discuss, such a force would not be deployed internationally to support the types of wars the US has today. The Founding Fathers opposed standing armies because they are historically, and they are, in fact, today, instruments of subordinating both foreign people and of the domestic US population. This could not be clearer in their writings in multiple areas. If this current and WW2 era and post-WW2 era scenario were understood, none of the states that signed the US Constitution in 1778 would have signed. That is how seriously the founders considered standing armies.

Why Were Arms Aggressively Encouraged by the US Colonies and the Early US Federal and State Governments?

The original purpose of the right to bear arms has several supporting reasons, which I get into in the article The Complicated and Confusing History of the 2nd Amendment. Still, the strongest supporting reason is to provide for the common defense. It is only the right for personal defense in an ancillary way and is absolutely not to be used against the federal or state government. But this right was also accepted long before any of the colonies became states and created state constitutions. Regarding the supposed right of US citizens to use arms to overturn their government, there have been several rebellions in US history, including the Shay Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. The US Federal Government did not accept the right of these rebellions and smashed them quickly, and in the case of Shay’s Rebellion, used mercenaries to do so. The famous statement of Thomas Jefferson about the blood of tyrants and patriots being necessary to be periodically shed is not part of the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. The US government and US public lost their collective minds at a very minor threat to the US Federal Government on Jan 6th, which was unarmed. Imagine the response to an armed insurrection. But why isn’t the tree of liberty to be periodically watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants? Some might say, “Well, I did not agree with the reason for Jan 6th.” However, do you think that you will always get to vote on whether there is an insurrection? It seems much easier to think of Jefferson’s statement in the abstract than agreeing on it with it if it were to actually happen.

It is curious how frequently gun owners in the US propose that the founding fathers wanted US citizens to have weapons to overturn the government when it no longer served the people how a) they don’t look at the history of rebellions in the US, and b) they can’t seem to explain why the US government has not already been overturned as it stopped serving the people long ago.

This is a topic I cover in the article The Revolutionary Elite’s Double Standard on Insurrections.

Changing the Agreement the Federal Government Made With the US States to Ratify the Constitution

The US Federal government has usurped this authority which belongs to the public from the public and limits the weapons that are legal to possess to handguns and rifles. However, the promise by James Madison, as stated in the Federalist Papers, is that the Federal military would never grow more powerful than any state militia.

Now that the US has 49 nuclear submarines and spends what the rest of the world does combine on its military, how is that promise honored?

A Tail That Now Wags the Dog: A Military Controlled by Defense Contractors

The US has such a powerful federal military. However, the tail has wagged the dog in the post-WW2 era. The defense complex now promotes continual war. The deployment of the US military has for decades been deployed without approval from Congress — something else which is also stipulated in the Constitution, and it is more responsive to corrupt defense contractors than the US public. US citizens constantly learn we are bombing countries we had no idea we were bombing. The US is currently bombing Somalia.

When was this discussed?

The US is currently occupying 1/3 of Syria.

This video explains that the US was paid by Gulf States to perform regime change in Syria. Is this something supported by the US constitution? 

The US now occupies Syria. This war is mostly fought without media coverage. The US DOD and State Department control what wars are covered and which are not. Therefore, the US can engage in multiple wars around the world and can prevent these wars from being covered. 

Eisenhower Predicted All of This

Eisenhower predicted exactly what would happen. A military-industrial complex that has nothing to do with US National Security. This speech is shocking because Eisenhower was one of the hero generals from WW2, and this is a lifelong military man warning the US public of this threat. 

This disempowers the public and creates a monopoly on military power for the Federal Government. And the defense industry presents this usurpation as “patriotic.”

What James Madison and the Federalists Promised The States

This long term condition is explicitly is what was promised would not happen by the Federalists and is how James Madison was able to get the states not to leave the union when the states were “bribed” to stay by adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1881 — a set of rights that most of the founders and nearly all of the Federalists stated, “was not necessary.” This ridiculous position was held even though each of the states — previously colonies, had their own Bill of Rights.

James Mason and the Concept of The Citizen Soldier

James Mason believed more than perhaps any other founding father that the “militia” was for all intents, every able person – that is except for slaves. James Madison owned hundreds of slaves himself at the time, and he would be arming them. This is because armed slaves stopped being slaves. All of this is something I covered in more detail in the article George Mason’s View of a Militia as All of the People.

Was George Mason a Founding Father?

I referred to Mason as a founding father. However, in most sources, Mason’s position as a founding father varies. Mason is often not referred to as a founding father, but only a delegate to the US Constitutional Convention. Mason was written out of his rightful position because he opposed the Federalists. Mason refused to sign the US Constitution because he refused to sign as in 1778, it did not have a Bill of Rights. All of the Federalists are now promoted as founding fathers. However, the anti-Federalists were far more accurate than the Federalists on what would happen if the US Constitution was ratified. 

Conclusion

The current enormously overpowered and resource consumptive US military that the US has today and has had really since WW2 is not the original design of the US. It is unconstitutional and ignores all of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution on this topic. The idea that the US habitually arms foreign countries are absurd and another massive departure from the Constitution. How all of this is swept under the rug is quite amazing. This indicates that for all the talk of respect for the Constitution, the US public actually knows very little about it.