Is the situation in Ukraine an example of why the USA has the 2nd amendment?

One of many reasons for it.

Sure, that and engaging in bloody civil war every now and again.

Absolutely. It gives me chills thinking about it.
Arming his people in Ukraine may be one of the most interesting moves I’ve seen in my lifetime.

Yes.

If you look at the grievances listed by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence, it’s clear that the threat of an invasion and/or a slave rebellion was on their minds. It’s also clear from the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the existence, size, and strength of a standing federal army that both sides expected the people to be able to form militia groups to fend off (or help fend off) attacks.

This much isn’t even very controversial given the opening of the Amendment (“a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”). It’s even clearer in Madison’s original draft:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

This version of the Amendment is more clearly focused on the militia aspect, to the point that it contains a “conscientious objector” clause. It also lacks the ambiguous punctuation that underlies some of the more esoteric arguments about how to interpret the versions that were eventually ratified (since different states ratified differently punctuated versions of the Second Amendment, which may or may not matter depending on who you ask).

Most of the current debate over the Second Amendment is about whether or not the protection goes further than this, which is why you see gun control advocates emphasize the “well regulated Militia” clause. This also tells us that the current debate is poorly framed. We talk about it in terms of private ownership, but it’s really more about what kinds of regulations can or cannot be put in place.

It could well be that a major part of the (Ukrainian) men that are in their forties, fifties, and sixties, have been drafted and thus be at least somewhat trained in handling arms.
I’m also not convinced that the founding fathers had a scenario in mind such as the Russians invading Ukraine, in a 2022 technological society.

How does the second amendment relate to roadblocks, Molotov cocktails, anti-tank weapons and air defense? Having a rifle will not make much of a difference. There are no longer any state militias. They have been replaced by the National Guard.

I think it may have been more so intended to support the rights layed out in the Declaration of Independence. A check on the power of our own government should it sway to far from it’s founding tenets.

Yes, but I’m not sure that would’ve made a difference in Ukraine if they had weaponized all their civilians. Ukraine is 16 times smaller than US and Russia is a neighbor that can easily enter Ukraine. It would help prolong the situation till other nations can help but it’s basically David against Goliath. So long as your enemy has plenty of bombs they can drop on you, the number of pistols won’t do much. It’s why I find it funny when people talk about the 2nd amendment. The moment any nation has to rely on its citizens to fight back the battle is mostly a losing one. Anyone who would take on a war with us isn’t going to come in shooting. They are going to come in bombing the crap out of us first.
At this point the 2nd amendment is at best for fighting among ourselves. The enemy within.

The apparent stalling of Russia’s army has more to do with bad planning and execution on Russia’s part than with arming the citizenry with AKs.
Because of the soft ground due to the time they launched the invasion, Russian forces are forced to cross the country in long columns on roads, making them easy prey for air-to ground attacks and ground based anti tank weapons and road blocks. And as we have seen, those that do dare to traverse on earth, get easily stuck in the mud and susequently abandoned. Even farmers are stealing Russian tanks with their tractors.
And for whatever reason, a lot of armour decided to sprint ahead of their air support and their supply convoys. So they leave those unprotected, while themselves running out of fuel.
Also for some reason, they seemingly still have not established air superiority. The Ukrainian airforce is still able to down Russian helicopters at will.

Also consider what kind of weapons Zelensky is asking for from the west: not assault rifles, but anti-tank and anti air weapons. And the Bayraktar armed drones from Turkey.
That tells you what really makes a difference.
(An AK is also very little help when the enemy is using artillery and missiles to shell your cities from afar, which is what Russia is doing right now.)

@LostInParadise Those things have to do with the 2nd amendment from the point of view that they don’t have guns to protect themselves and are having to make stuff up on the fly

Is this question supposed to be about why do have the second amendment or about why we should have the second amendment? Some people are answering as if it’s the first one, and others as if it’s the second one. If it’s about why we do have the second amendment, then I think @SavoirFaire‘s answer is correct. Even if the founders didn’t know about modern technology and warfare, they still knew what an invasion was and didn’t want the people to face one unarmed.

But if it’s about whether or not we should have a second amendment, then I don’t know how anything that involves mostly makeshift weapons can prove the importance of a law that allows people to own things designed to be weapons. Ukraine has pretty relaxed gun laws, yet not as many people have taken advantage of that as you might expect in a place that shares a border with an enemy. And they’ve had a lot of success even without a lot of military grade weapons.

@DharmaBum I interpreted the question as a historical one and answered it accordingly. But gun rights and the Second Amendment are such polarizing issues—and arguments about them so often wind up conflating claims about history with claims about justification—that it’s understandable why someone might want to interpret and answer it as a question about justification lest their answer be misconstrued.

@DharmaBum and @SavoirFaire It was intended to be more of a historical question, using current events as an example of an event that might have gone differently if the population had the same rights. I think @SavoirFaire did a fine job of answering it.

I think I also did an okay job answering it (probably a few other Jellies think they did too).

The general intent was to have most able-bodied free men access to the same arms a typical infantry soldier would have been issued. That’s pretty much what we are seeing in Ukraine with them handing out AK platform rifles to citizens. Many are disadvantaged by not having been previously exposed to using them though. There is a lot of language around the 2nd when it was drafted about encouraging people to keep ammunition and to develop and maintain skills around using their firearms. There were multiple reasons but the bottom line was to keep any gov’t or foreign entity from either taking over or stripping citizens of their rights. As part of the bill of rights the 2nd amendment is intended for citizens, not gov’t or the national guard or any other non personal entity. IMO you can’t divorce that right from individuals without doing the same for the rest of the bill of rights. People want to debate that but @SavoirFaire is correct in saying the debatable portion is about what rules we can or cannot put into place. Even back then there were strict rules and ordinances in places relating to where you could carry a firearm. It’s not really that different now.

Here is a good overview focused on the Russian Airforce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WGcfkqzUI4

But speaking of militias, when was the last time the US needed a militia to fend off an invading army? Are there any neighboring countries that might want to invade the US any time soon?

@RocketGuy So your stance is that letting John Q. Public fall into ignorance about how to even use a gun is good? So when we do get invaded (and in a world as interconnected as this one it doesn’t even have to be a close neighbor) they can figure it out then? Just one point of emphasis…the last time we had a foreign invader into the US was the move by the Japanese that brought us into WWII. Last time I checked, Japan is not really a neighboring country.

Ignorance?! Most US John Q Public have not had training to use their guns. At best just have a permit. Countries with effective gun laws require training and even a good reason for having a gun e.g. Canada and Australia. If you think the 2nd Amendment has a training requirement, you are sadly mistaken.

We have the world’s largest military by 20x – Navy and Coast Guard (in case of naval incursions), Army and Marines (in case of land incursions, Air Force (in case of aerial incursions), and Space Force (for a bird’s eye view of any major incursions). If they can’t repel invaders, our backyard militias won’t have a chance.

@RocketGuy Countries that require a reason to own a gun, i.e. Australia, just rounded up people and put them in camps for the crime of not getting vaccinated. Last time I checked, that’s called tyranny.

And most people that own a gun (legally) in this country DO understand how to use it and have had a minimal of training at least. No, not all, but most. Most law-abiding individuals want to know how to use it safely, what the laws are surrounding it, etc.

But your statement brings about an interesting question then. If you believe our military could repel any invader, are you in favor of boosting financial support for the military? Or do you believe that cutting military is a good thing?

Traditionally invading armies don’t do very well against an armed public of guerrilla fighters on their own land. They may take it but they won’t have an easy time holding it.

@seawulf575 – there are no foreseeable threats of invasion and we spend 20x more than any other country on our military. Perhaps we could spend only 19x more, and save the rest for something else.

No household is complete without one of these. Not much training should be required since it uses guided missiles. Do you think the 2nd amendment would allow it?

@LostInParadise get two; one for front door and one for the back.

We, individuals, are our own militias so – yes. No prob.

@LostInParadise Now we are into the extent of the 2nd Amendment. That opens a whole other line of consideration I’m not looking at with this particular question. But here’s a thought: if Ukrainians were allowed to, and indeed did, own those, do you believe Putin would have been so gung-ho to invade them? And would they have been beaten up like crazy while trying to just steamroll every Ukrainian city?

Still can’t connect the dots . . . !

Ukraine holding back Putin’s Storm Troopers that have extra points if the try to kill pregnant women and children https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-europe-2bed71c00916d44ea951c5809b446db3 !

@Tropical_Willie But that is the question really. Yes, Putin pretty much walked into Ukraine and did whatever he wanted. In the USA we have the 2nd amendment. It was put into place, I believe, so the citizenry could be prepared to defend themselves in the event of a foreign invader. Ukraine has no such law. Were our founding fathers foreseeing a time when the public may need to defend themselves from invaders and/or tyranny when they crafted the 2nd amendment?

No.

The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent a loophole whereby slavery could become de facto impossible to maintain. The institution of slavery required slave militias where armed white men would patrol slave quarters searching for weapons that could be used in a rebellion. Without such militias and with very high ratios of slaves to whites in the antebellum South, the risk of slave revolts were a constant fear. The 2nd amendment was added as a safeguard that such militias couldn’t be disarmed by federal law, effectively ending the ability to maintain a subjugated population. It’s similar to the Three-Fifths Compromise in that it was added to appease the southern states.

@gorillapaws Except when it was written there weren’t “southern states”. There were 13 colonies. The first states didn’t happen until after the Constitution was signed. The “southern” colonies were GA, SC, NC, VA, and MD. But at that time slavery was pretty much everywhere. Its not like there was a technologically developed north against a agriculturally developed south.

The “very high ratio of blacks to whites” is misleading as well. It was close to what we have in today’s society, only slightly higher. About 18%.

And while all the Bill of Rights was a product of a series of discussions, debates, and compromises, the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution poke a hole in the idea that the second amendment was only for slave militias. Also, that concept completely ignores what the country had just gone through. The DoI states that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. So to claim that the 2nd amendment really only applied to slave militias is childishly naive or completely left wing activist. Because the same wording (All men are created equal) applied to blacks as well as whites. We see that demonstrated in all subsequent efforts to establish equality for blacks (and women, and Asians, etc). So the 2nd gave blacks the rights to keep and bear arms as well. Not to mention the country just fought a war with England to establish its own independence. And militias played a part in that, as did the idea that civilians were often the victims of invading troops. And while George Washington initially did not want blacks as soldiers, when Rhode Island created the first all black fighting force, he didn’t argue…he was desperate for men. So there was evidence there that the term “militia” applied to blacks as well as whites.