A Shot In The Dark

One of the primary reasons why the "debate" on access to guns in the United States never goes anywhere is that it tends to be argued on primarily ideological and mythological grounds. Russia has a quite large, and quite competent, army. An armed Ukrainian public can certainly make a long-term occupation of the country difficult, but that's not the same as making it either impossible, or unfeasible. After all, Russia lies on Ukraine's eastern border, and in Ukraine's eastern provinces, there is quite a bit of support for closer ties with Russia, if not outright annexation. This isn't another Afghanistan.

On the American political Right, there is the idea that the armed citizen, standing up for themselves can take on anyone's soldiers on an equal footing. That's a fantasy. Even the American Revolution, which is often viewed as an example of what patriotic citizens can do, was fought with the open assistance of other rivals of Great Britain. And part of the reason why the Confederate States of America were unable to force the Union to recognize their secession was other nations were reluctant to come to their aid.

In the end, yes, it's not really possible to subdue a population in which every man, woman and child is prepared to die fighting than to live under the rules of an occupying power. But when was the last time that happened? During the Second World War the United States was supplying the French Resistance with weapons, yet the country still required an Allied invasion to liberate it. And the German government supplying weapons to its citizen did nothing to prevent the Allies from invading and partitioning the country between themselves.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when it wasn't presumed that the United States would have a full-time, standing, army. If a nation is calling up citizens to form a military in times of need, it makes sense for those citizens to have regular access to weapons; it allows them to train (since an untrained citizen, armed or otherwise, can be more of a liability than an asset) and it makes it more difficult for an enemy force to capture the local supply of weapons when they aren't all stored in one place.

But the idea that "Russians don't have a prayer" simply because of the distribution of guns to the population of Ukraine is a fallacy. Were it that simple, President Volodymyr Zelensky wouldn't have been looking for more direct military defense assistance. But memes are designed to be punchy, not realistic.