experience shooting (it's a rural area) but I think there may have been a couple of beginners.

ETA: I think it's a great idea, and the kids love it. They had a lot of success.

That's what it's all about. These kids should be drilling and marching with their militia, as the Second Amendment was intended.

Wow.

Ok. its time for a little constitution/bill of rights 101.

There are two documents at the heart of this.

The first is the constitution. The constitution is essentially a document of authorization, granting congress and/or government, certain powers. Congress IS actually granted certain powers regarding 'the militia', and if they 'intended' anything regarding the militia, that is where they most certainly would have said so (authorized it).

The second document, the one actually at issue here, is the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is essentially a governmental "hands off" list. 'Congress shall make no law...", and so on. You can argue that no right is absolute, but that's beside the point. It is crystal clear, and no reasonable argument to the contrary can be made, that the intent of the bill of rights is to restrain exercise of power by government.

It very plainly says so in the preamble to the bill of rights itself, penned by the framers themselves:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

In short, if you're reading a restriction on government power contained within the bill of rights, as a blessing for government to restrict rights of people, you're reading it completely horribly and perhaps even deliberately wrong. And don't bother with the typical 'rw interpretation' BS. I'm interpreting the amendment in line with the preamble to the bill of rights itself, and theres nothing 'right wing' about that.

... about as much as that odd guy mumbling to himself waiting for the 151 bus and is just as wrong.

Try to keep up with court decisions in the past two decades.

As it was known to be a threat to liberty and to the constitution itself. So pretty much every able bodied man was to possess arms suitable for war and the knowledge to use them so that they might be "called up" up in times of need. That is what is meant by "a well regulated being necessary to the security of a free state". This meaning and intent is further entrenched in many state constitutions. In Ohio, for example, our constitution reads:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Similar words are found in many many state constitutions across America. So any discussion of "well regulated militias" needs to start with the understanding that our forefathers abhorred large standing armies and would not be overly happy about the present day US military status quo. I'm certain they wouldn't be keen on scrapping the second amendment in favor of this status quo.

All able bodied males between ages 18 to 45 belong to the unorganized militia. All able bodied females between the ages of 18 and 45 who have completed basic military training are also part of the unorganized militia.

It opens up competitive venues for those who might not otherwise succeed in other Sports. Having competed and coached two teams at the local level, I can assure you that it takes as much determination and concentration.

My grandsons love skeet and trap. Wish their schools and stat had a program like this!

who are willing to shoot on the school team.

I personally know an eighteen year old girl who got one of the scholarships.

and learning one of America's great sports.

There has been a well-documented surge in the numbers of girls and women taking up the shooting sports. Perhaps there is also an "untraditional" component here.

Jerry Miculek's wife and daughter come to mind as well as some of the Corporate sponsored trap shooters. "Holy Terror" (SASS moniker) was a 13 year old girl the first time she won End of the Trail.

FWIW, I've found that the women in my classes are generally much better shots than the men. Better ability to focus and concentrate on things like sight alignment, sight picture, grip and trigger control.

They don't come to the line with a lot of bad habits and misperceptions, like some of the men do.

As women move into "previously male-dominated" jobs and vocations, it stands to reason the slow but inexorable tide would reach into the shooting ranges. This trend may reflect some success in restoring, or taking control of, the image of the shooting sports; it can't hurt that women are in the forefront of this over all effort.

... so Title IX requirements are satisfied. I don't know if the teams are separated into Men's and Women's teams, or combined. I don't think there's any great advantage of one gender over the other in skeet/trap. There may be advantages in slow target shooting.

sort of an X Game phenomenon where new competitions are created to better suit then interests of younger folks. I hope the t.v. theme musics change; I'm tired of the retread heavy metal/swamp/country crap that accompanies a DEER HUNT, for chrissakes.

This was the norm for high schools in the 70's-80's. Declining interest killed it for my high school.

Back when I was in high school (2000-2004), I was on the rifle team. I even got to bring my rifle to school on the bus and then lock it down in a vault that was run by the JROTC instructors.