Talk about the Second amendment!

[JackLuis]

This is what our founding fathers dreamed of.

Well, probably not, but Girls with Guns like these need to be seen!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Someone needs to teach her a little about gun safety. Finger off the trigger sweetie, finger off the trigger when not pointing it downrange.

I wonder how many cameradudes were killed in this production?

So many things wrong with that video the least of them is her.

Although I did like how she used her boob to cushion the recoil of the weapon.

 

[stephen55]

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.

She's hardly well regulated, her uniform is not militia issue and she is more of a threat than a help to the state in it's security but By God, she has the right to bear arms.

Everybody duck and cover.......

 

[JackLuis]

I rather think that it was a Hollywood gun, although it did show some recoil.

Oh that I should have access to a pair of this caliber, and probably a smooth bore too. Oh how sweet!

 

[R. Richard]

The careful observer will also note that the girl is frequently shooting in one direction and looking in another. What, me worry about gun safety?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The founding fathers were a little "conservative" in their use of words.

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.

This statement should have been written, as the mean at the time the constitution was written was this:

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.

In other words the right of a Militia to exist and the citizens of the state to be armed shall not be restricted by the government.

Back then the Militia was the people of the state. They needed the right to bear arms in order to be in the Militia when called. They also needed those arms for providing food for their families. So the founding fathers, in order to keep the country from becoming a police state, gave the citizens the right to bear arms. An armed citizenry is a deterrent to a totalitarian govenment.

 

[LaRocha]

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.

She's hardly well regulated, her uniform is not militia issue and she is more of a threat than a help to the state in it's security but By God, she has the right to bear arms.

Everybody duck and cover.......

Shout out to the real meaning of the Second Amendment and what it actually says, 'Right to keep and bear arms as part of a state militia.' The National Guard has existed since 1636, yes! those militias haven't gone away. Unless you're a guardsman, you have no protection under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment exists to separate state and federal power, not citizen and State.

 

[JackLuis]

Shout out to the real meaning of the Second Amendment and what it actually says, 'Right to keep and bear arms as part of a state militia.' The National Guard has existed since 1636, yes! those militias haven't gone away. Unless you're a guardsman, you have no protection under the Constitution to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment exists to separate state and federal power, not citizen and State.

The Second was put in to protect the militia, needed to defend the nation for foreign aggressors and also allow the people to defend themselves against a Government gone mad. It was compromise language that covers both cases and recognizes that the authority of the Government is delegated by the people.

 

[DeeZire]

The founding fathers were a little "conservative" in their use of words.

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.

This statement should have been written, as the mean at the time the constitution was written was this:

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.

That's interesting Zeb. You're saying that anyone can change the punctuation of the Constitution to make it say whatever they want it to say? I'm no grammarian, but even I know that "Shall not be infringed" is not a sentence. Isn't a sentence supposed to have a subject?

 

[LaRocha]

The Second was put in to protect the militia, needed to defend the nation for foreign aggressors and also allow the people to defend themselves against a Government gone mad. It was compromise language that covers both cases and recognizes that the authority of the Government is delegated by the people.

I disagree. The Continental Army was proof that the nation could form an army and defend itself against foreign aggressors. Whence disbanded the militias returned home and back to the normal course of things, while parts of the Continental structure remained to form the Army a year later, 1784.

The Continental Army was more than just a group of militias from the Colonies, it was an entirely new entity and the structure itself hasn't changed much since. The Army of America is supplemented by the citizens army in times of conflict, those militias which became the first Guard Units in Mass. are still called upon to fight with the federal Army.

The language of the Second Amendment is very precise, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State/Union. It's necessary that along with the professional Army there is a supplemental citizens army for times of conflict. There would be no occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq without the state militiaman/guardsmen. The American Army existed for about seven years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

It's a state's rights issue, not an individual rights issue. To protect state militias you need militiamen who are armed and who can't be disarmed by the federal government. If you're not a member of the National Guard, you have no right to arms under the Bill of Rights.

 

[oggbashan]

Her shooting is not "well regulated".

Og

PS. The Continental Army of the American Revolution were better shots and much better woodsmen than the British troops of the time who were armed with inaccurate muskets.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Nonsense.

The 'militia' is every adult male in the United States; the Regulated Militia is what we now call the National Guard.

Check it out flea-brains.

 

[oggbashan]

Nonsense.

The 'militia' is every adult male in the United States; the Regulated Militia is what we now call the National Guard.

Check it out flea-brains.

Why only male?

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

 

[oggbashan]

The unorganised militia sounds like the UK's World War 2 Home Guard - the only military unit ever to kill more of its own side than the enemy.

God help America if the unorganised militia is called out...

Og

 

[LaRocha]

The Militia Act of 1903 is where Second Amendment loons get confused. The militia doesn't include every able-bodied male citizen 17-45 until Uncle Sam claims the right to conscript every last man in America after the Spanish-American War. Conscription exists during the Civil War, but it's basically a non-factor until Theodore and the Gang decide America is going to be an Imperialist power.

 

[driphoney]

Does it matter that when The Founders wrote The Constitution every family had a firearm? That this would have been their frame of reference? And that they had just built a para-military (militia) organization outside of legal authority (The Crown) in order to overthrow The King? Perhaps they did have a concern that citizenry always have at their disposal to fight back against an unpopular government?

It's all moot now, anyway. It's so darned hard for a rifle to go up against a tank.




Please tell me I didn't just get political. Oh God. Ya'll are a bad influence.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Militia Act of 1903 is where Second Amendment loons get confused. The militia doesn't include every able-bodied male citizen 17-45 until Uncle Sam claims the right to conscript every last man in America after the Spanish-American War. Conscription exists during the Civil War, but it's basically a non-factor until Theodore decides America is going to be an Imperialist power.

Read the law shit for brains.

 

[sr71plt]

Anyhow, the original posting was a fun diversion.

 

[LaRocha]

There was no general military draft in America until the Civil War. The Confederacy passed its first of 3 conscription acts 16 April 1862, and scarcely a year later the Union began conscripting men. Government officials plagued with manpower shortages regarded drafting as the only means of sustaining an effective army and hoped it would spur voluntary enlistments.
But compulsory service embittered the public, who considered it an infringement on individual free will and personal liberty and feared it would concentrate arbitrary power in the military

And this is during the Civil War. I guess people cared more about federal infringement back then.

 

[JackLuis]

I disagree. The Continental Army was proof that the nation could form an army and defend itself against foreign aggressors. Whence disbanded the militias returned home and back to the normal course of things, while parts of the Continental structure remained to form the Army a year later, 1784.

The Continental Army was more than just a group of militias from the Colonies, it was an entirely new entity and the structure itself hasn't changed much since. The Army of America is supplemented by the citizens army in times of conflict, those militias which became the first Guard Units in Mass. are still called upon to fight with the federal Army.

The language of the Second Amendment is very precise, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State/Union. It's necessary that along with the professional Army there is a supplemental citizens army for times of conflict. There would be no occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq without the state militiaman/guardsmen. The American Army existed for about seven years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

It's a state's rights issue, not an individual rights issue. To protect state militias you need militiamen who are armed and who can't be disarmed by the federal government. If you're not a member of the National Guard, you have no right to arms under the Bill of Rights.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." that is what it says, And that is how the courts have interpreted it. The National Firearms Act, has made some infringements, yet it has never been seriously challenged in court and seems acceptable to most people.

The right to bear arms is part of the inalienable rights of man. Of course this also means that man has the right to be wrong. too.

 

[Liar]

The founding fathers were a little "conservative" in their use of words.

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.

This statement should have been written, as the mean at the time the constitution was written was this:

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.

In other words the right of a Militia to exist and the citizens of the state to be armed shall not be restricted by the government.

Don't think you have to re-write it. With the original punctuation, it's actually a list, isn't it?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

(as well as)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

(are two things that)

shall not be infringed.

Meaning they are just two stuffs that shall not, for one reason or the other, or for separate reasons, be infringed. The correlation of the two does not mean there's nessecarily a connection. Maintining that having a well regulated militia may not be the reason why people have the right to bear arms.



Why yes, I'm a syntax geek.

 

[driphoney]

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Thanks. That's really interesting.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There was no general military draft in America until the Civil War. The Confederacy passed its first of 3 conscription acts 16 April 1862, and scarcely a year later the Union began conscripting men. Government officials plagued with manpower shortages regarded drafting as the only means of sustaining an effective army and hoped it would spur voluntary enlistments.
But compulsory service embittered the public, who considered it an infringement on individual free will and personal liberty and feared it would concentrate arbitrary power in the military

And this is during the Civil War. I guess people cared more about federal infringement back then.

What exactly do you think it is that makes a draft legal?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Does it matter that when The Founders wrote The Constitution every family had a firearm? That this would have been their frame of reference? And that they had just built a para-military (militia) organization outside of legal authority (The Crown) in order to overthrow The King? Perhaps they did have a concern that citizenry always have at their disposal to fight back against an unpopular government?

It's all moot now, anyway. It's so darned hard for a rifle to go up against a tank.




Please tell me I didn't just get political. Oh God. Ya'll are a bad influence.

Tanks are only good against other tanks...while they may decimate infantry, they are really no threat to guerrilla units that hit and run. Tanks are only good in a stand up, lines delineated battle. In an urban environment they will be ignored by the guerrilla units who will attack points of command and control.