The second amendment of the US Constitution reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Usually when an American brings up the second amendment, the focus is either on the first part, as a reason to disregard the second part, or the focus is on the second part, without much interest in the first part. Liberals and conservatives respectively, if I may paint with a very broad brush.
Until the war in Ukraine started, it would have been reasonable to think that Russia’s next war would show us how close computer simulations have been at forecasting nuclear winter. However, we have actually gotten a massive dose of evidence that the founders were equally correct in both parts of their 2nd amendment to the US constitution.
Just today I was thinking about all of the Ukrainian drones that are constantly bombarding Russia, and how Americans would respond if Mexican cartels were making similar attacks on the USA. You would have a swath of rednecks with shotguns so thick all along the southern border that a pigeon wouldn't get across; let alone a noisy lumbering drone. One example of militia, security, and “arms” all coming together to solve a problem.
Until the war in Ukraine started, it would have been reasonable to think that Russia’s next war would show us how close computer simulations have been at forecasting nuclear winter. However, we have actually gotten a massive dose of evidence that the founders were equally correct in both parts of their 2nd amendment to the US constitution.
Just today I was thinking about all of the Ukrainian drones that are constantly bombarding Russia, and how Americans would respond if Mexican cartels were making similar attacks on the USA. You would have a swath of rednecks with shotguns so thick all along the southern border that a pigeon wouldn't get across; let alone a noisy lumbering drone. One example of militia, security, and “arms” all coming together to solve a problem.
There is a quote, frequently attributed to Japan's Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Although the history books are unclear as to whether this quote is genuine or not, it makes a point that rings true considering the current Russo-Ukrainian war.
It was the militia, regular joes with guns, that stopped usurpers from Kiev from taking over Donbass in 2014. It was the lack of militias that made Russia’s Belgorod and Kursk regions so much more vulnerable in 2023; something that Russia is working on correcting.
Kiev began handing out military rifles and ammunition to the “militia” in order to protect Kiev in February 2022, they did nothing of the sort in Donbass in 2014. Another proof that Russia did not invade Donbass in 2014. In 2014 Kiev understood that if they armed the public in Donbass, the ground would turn to lava under their own feet.
It was the militia, regular joes with guns, that stopped usurpers from Kiev from taking over Donbass in 2014. It was the lack of militias that made Russia’s Belgorod and Kursk regions so much more vulnerable in 2023; something that Russia is working on correcting.
Kiev began handing out military rifles and ammunition to the “militia” in order to protect Kiev in February 2022, they did nothing of the sort in Donbass in 2014. Another proof that Russia did not invade Donbass in 2014. In 2014 Kiev understood that if they armed the public in Donbass, the ground would turn to lava under their own feet.
If the lawfully elected government in Kiev, before the coup of 2014, had armed their public, Ukraine may never have become the terrorist state that it is today. This is clear in hindsight, just as it was to the United States’ founding fathers after having fought England to keep their freedoms. Of which the last which the king tried to take away was...? That’s right, the right to keep and bear arms. Is something similar likely to happen in America today?
To be continued.
To be continued.
