9 yr. old shoots Uzi kills instructor

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:55 pm

Any one following this story?

A shooting range allows children to practice shooting at a shooting range.

9 yr. old with a instructor is shooting a uzi and the kick and come back shot the instructor in the head and kills him.

The shooting range is now closed indefinitely.

Oh, No - now the kids will have to go to boring Disneyland.

I couldn't imagine a family outing to shoot a uzi

The parent recorded the event

This experience has traumatized this 9 yr. old for life - but for you gun lovers I suppose this uzi experience has prepared her for the military?

Patsy

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:21 pm

I shot an Uzi, once. I didn't like it. It is not an easy gun to control.

This was a case of STUPID.

The parents should have had more sense, and the instructor should have seen right off that the girl could not control the thing in automatic fire.

I feel sorry for the young girl. Right after she fired the first round, it was so obvious that the instructor should have taken the thing away from her and suggested she re-think the notion.

I like guns, but I don't like people being stupid with them.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:01 pm

This was real stupid

This establishment was a Burger & shooting range (WTF)

The parents recorded the child shooting the uzi - what parent does this.

I have to question the parental guidance here - what were they thinking?

A child can't have the strength to control this machine.

And now the trauma this child has to face - unbelievable.

Patsy

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:48 am

LarsMac;1463154 wrote: ..... the instructor should have seen right off that the girl could not control the thing in automatic fire.

Really! Was he not paying any attention at all? A deadly weapon - Fully loaded - Safety OFF - a Nine Year Old Child. Duh.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:08 am

It is in the "Another fatal shooting " thread.

What strikes me here, no sympathy for the stupid dead instructor ?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:48 am

Bruv;1463159 wrote: It is in the "Another fatal shooting " thread.

What strikes me here, no sympathy for the stupid dead instructor ?

How can there be? It was his mistake (dereliction of duty) but the girl has to live with it every day of her life. It's no different than a drunk who walks into the path of an automobile. Who gets your sympathy? The drunk or the poor bugger who has to live with the fact than he knocked someone down and caused their death?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:52 am

I read one internet report where someone suggested, in all seriousness, that it would never had happened if she had been taught properly when she was five.

I had to walk away from the laptop at that point and find some method of keeping my gaping mouth shut

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:02 am

Snowfire;1463163 wrote: I read one internet report where someone suggested, in all seriousness, that it would never had happened if she had been taught properly when she was five.

Did you really read that or was it my imagination you were "reading"?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:29 am

High Threshold;1463164 wrote: Did you really read that or was it my imagination you were "reading"?

I wish it had been our imaginations. There are people who really think this is an appropriate response. And those people own guns

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:44 am

Snowfire;1463165 wrote: I wish it had been our imaginations. There are people who really think this is an appropriate response. And those people own guns

It does boggle the mind, and you need to scrutinize their faces to see if they're only winding you up.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:55 am

High Threshold;1463162 wrote: How can there be? It was his mistake (dereliction of duty) but the girl has to live with it every day of her life. It's no different than a drunk who walks into the path of an automobile. Who gets your sympathy? The drunk or the poor bugger who has to live with the fact than he knocked someone down and caused their death?

I doubt if anybody that lives more than 10 years has not done something that on recollection makes them shudder in despair at their own stupidity.

My sympathy goes to the loss of a person's life who should have known better, but on this day his judgement failed.

My sympathy extends to his parents, siblings, wife and offspring if he had any, I suspect he had some at least.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:07 am

Bruv;1463174 wrote: I doubt if anybody that lives more than 10 years has not done something that on recollection makes them shudder in despair at their own stupidity.
I have risked my own life "on a whim", if that's what you are getting at. But I have never risked the life of strangers or bystanders, and that goes DOUBLY for someone who's put his trust in me.

This shooting instructor risked the lives of a whole room-full of club member and visitors. Thank God it was his life that was lost. He was a VERY bad man.

Bruv;1463174 wrote: My sympathy goes to the loss of a person's life who should have known better, but on this day his judgement failed.

It was much worse than that. His judgement wasn't even switched "on".

Bruv;1463174 wrote: My sympathy extends to his parents, siblings, wife and offspring if he had any, I suspect he had some at least.

I'l give you that alright.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:00 am

It only serves to highlight the insanity of a Gun Culture that see the need to introduce their young to arms at such an early age. The cry goes up about the Right To Bear Arms as a matter of personal defence, yet the Uzi is recognised as an Assault Rifle & nothing to do with defence whatsoever.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:15 am

FourPart;1463192 wrote: It only serves to highlight the insanity of a Gun Culture that see the need to introduce their young to arms at such an early age. The cry goes up about the Right To Bear Arms as a matter of personal defence, yet the Uzi is recognised as an Assault Rifle & nothing to do with defence whatsoever.

I'll drink to that!

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:12 pm

Has any one seen the video of this - the instructor is positioning the little 9 yr. old girl - she has the uzi in her hand - instructor positions her feet - holds her back getting ready for the kick - Mom is recording this vacation - and the gun/assault rifle comes back - vacation over. They got their hamburgers to go.

I don't know - I couldn't imagine my Mom lining up all 6 of us kids to shoot a uzi..:-5

Handing these guns out like lollipops.

Apparently there wasn't a age limit or height requirement for this fun.

What's next - every one gets a grenade?

The parents have to take some responsibility here.

Patsy

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:45 pm

FourPart;1463192 wrote: It only serves to highlight the insanity of a Gun Culture

Gun culture, whatever that is.

FourPart;1463192 wrote: that see the need to introduce their young to arms at such an early age.

OK, be easy buddy.

FourPart;1463192 wrote: The cry goes up about the Right To Bear Arms as a matter of personal defence,

Actually the right to bare arms is a check on government while asserting a "right of the people."

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:59 pm

tude dog;1463216 wrote: Actually the right to bare arms is a check on government while asserting a "right of the people."

Really? Send us a link to this here 2nd. ammendment in the Constipation y'all keep talkin' bout. I can never remember how to write "audimatic salt rifle" and I wants to check the spelling. Can you do that please?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:26 pm

High Threshold;1463218 wrote: Really? Send us a link to this here 2nd. ammendment in the Constipation y'all keep talkin' bout.

Sure, why not?

Amendment II

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.

High Threshold;1463218 wrote: I can never remember how to write "audimatic salt rifle" and I wants to check the spelling. Can you do that please?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:41 pm

Patsy Warnick;1463213 wrote: Has any one seen the video of this - the instructor is positioning the little 9 yr. old girl - she has the uzi in her hand - instructor positions her feet - holds her back getting ready for the kick - Mom is recording this vacation - and the gun/assault rifle comes back - vacation over. They got their hamburgers to go.

I don't know - I couldn't imagine my Mom lining up all 6 of us kids to shoot a uzi..:-5

Handing these guns out like lollipops.

Apparently there wasn't a age limit or height requirement for this fun.

What's next - every one gets a grenade?

The parents have to take some responsibility here.

Patsy

The despair you feel about this single particularly ridiculous event is how most Brits think about the American gun laws.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:42 pm

Aw Dawg, you must learn to read and not be so trusting and gullible.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:14 pm

Bruv

I'm not a gun person - I see no reason for one to have a weapon available certainly not a assault weapon to play with.

There's never a good out come with a gun involved.

I feel terrible for all involved here - the instructor & his family and this little girl and what she gets to live with.

This one stupid incident has now changed so many lives.

Hillary Clinton spoke about this incident on the news stated "what were they thinking"

including every one - instructor - parents - establishment - she shook her head in disbelief as most of us have since hearing of this.

It's just horrible

Patsy

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:26 pm

The wording of that Article seems to me to be open to interpretation, and the prevailing one that I see is NOT to do with the General Public being allowed to bear arms, but the ("Well Regulated") military / militia, which refers to the defence of the State - not of the individual. Therefore, I see it as being that the individual American does NOT have the right to bear arms unless they are serving in the Military.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:58 pm

FourPart;1463249 wrote: The wording of that Article seems to me to be open to interpretation, and the prevailing one that I see is NOT to do with the General Public being allowed to bear arms, but the ("Well Regulated") military / militia, which refers to the defence of the State - not of the individual. Therefore, I see it as being that the individual American does NOT have the right to bear arms unless they are serving in the Military.

"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."

Simply put, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The part about the militia is a justification.

The problem comes from the lack of regulation. Somehow, the gun nuts have confused regulation with infringement.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:34 pm

tude dog;1463222 wrote: Sure, why not?

Amendment II

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.

Where's the part about "audimatic salt rifle"? I specifically asked you to provide some indication of "automatice" - "assault" - bullet-spraying machine to mow down masses of people. You failed. Would you like to try again?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:41 pm

LarsMac;1463262 wrote: "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."

Simply put, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The part about the militia is a justification.

The problem comes from the lack of regulation. Somehow, the gun nuts have confused regulation with infringement.

So, the gun nuts are saying that the final clause about "infringement" closed the book on further amendments? Like once the ink dried there could never, ever be any further counter-comment of influence? I wonder, when that thought drifts through the air if there is anyone, anywhere who chuckles with me? Or am I alone? “It's in the book, it's in the book! :yh_rotfl

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:41 am

I am still appalled by the fact that a nine-year old child was using that type of weapon.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:49 am

LarsMac;1463262 wrote: "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."

Simply put, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The part about the militia is a justification.

The problem comes from the lack of regulation. Somehow, the gun nuts have confused regulation with infringement.
I still read that as being the "The People" are those that are in the Militia. Those that serve in the British Military are British People. That doesn't mean that all British People are in the Military.

The British (Military) "People" have the right to drive armed tanks through the cities. Do you think the British "People", on the whole have that right?

At the time of the Declaration, America was a newly formed country & its Militia was made up of the rebellious people - the Militia. Once this became organised properly it was seen that the overall Right to Bear Arms had to be controlled, which is probably why the reference to a "Regulated Militia" was even brought into it - otherwise, why bring them into it in the first place. Why not just simply say "The People".

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:37 am

@Fourpart

The need for "the People" in the form of "A Militia" to be armed in the American Constitution is that the citizenry were afraid of a dictatorship or at least taxation without representation, following their falling out with the British, so to protect their freedoms, they believed it proper for each American to possess weaponary to resist government persecution of it own people.

The irony is that Law enforcement officers now are equipped to combat the threat from an armed population. Also the arming of a population curtails people's right to life, liberty and security of person.

So the only way to protect your liberties is to be be in an arms race with your own government......but they have all the money.......crazy aint it?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:38 am

FourPart;1463274 wrote: I still read that as being the "The People" are those that are in the Militia. Those that serve in the British Military are British People. That doesn't mean that all British People are in the Military.

The British (Military) "People" have the right to drive armed tanks through the cities. Do you think the British "People", on the whole have that right?

At the time of the Declaration, America was a newly formed country & its Militia was made up of the rebellious people - the Militia. Once this became organised properly it was seen that the overall Right to Bear Arms had to be controlled, which is probably why the reference to a "Regulated Militia" was even brought into it - otherwise, why bring them into it in the first place. Why not just simply say "The People".

By "Declaration" should I assume you refer to the Declaration of Independence"? If so, at that time America was a group of colonies, populated by British subjects unhappy with the way they were being treated by the Crown. Had they, at that time been restricted from keeping and bearing arms, the Crown's mercenaries would have simply gathered up all of the rabble-rousers and locked them up.

As stated before, the first part of that sentence is a justification for the second part.

And in the days when the amendment in question was written, and ratified, every able-bodied male was expected to be a member of the Militia.

As for your tanks, our military must have permits from the city to drive a tank through town. And the driver must prove qualified to operate said vehicle.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:27 am

I have seen the billboards for that gun range on a few occasions. It is one of those places where the billboards start miles away in either direction. It seemed that their primary focus was on tourists. Since Arizona has some of the weakest gun laws in the country, it probably appears to be a rather exotic experience for tourists from other states.

They have several types of machine guns, with the Uzi being the smallest. One of the many things I don't understand is why the instructor and/or parent chose the Uzi for the little girl to shoot. They had 50 calibre machine guns securely mounted on tripods that would have been much safer and not have the control issues of the Uzi.

In the Massachusetts case a few years back, where the 8 year old boy was killed in a similar Uzi accident at a gun show, they charged the parent with at least felony for allowing/encouraging the kid to shoot an Uzi.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:47 am

Wandrin;1463292 wrote: ... One of the many things I don't understand is why the instructor and/or parent chose the Uzi for the little girl to shoot ......

Yes. This is one of the thousands of things I don't understand about it. Another is why the instructor was standing outside of the child's arm's-length (+ barrel-tip) radius?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:10 am

Wandrin;1463292 wrote: ... One of the many things I don't understand is why the instructor and/or parent chose the Uzi for the little girl to shoot ......

I doubt that the "instructor" made the choice for her.

Either the parents made the choice, which I find totally unbelievable. The girl may have thought the Uzi to have some "exotic appeal"

Many young people think it "cool" after having seen many crime movies where people have all sorts of amazing gunfights with the things. They are small, and appear to be lightweight, so a young person might think they are easy to handle. There is a scene in "the Matrix", I think, where one of the characters takes out a whole cadre of bad guys with an Uzi in each hand.

I just hope those parents can afford to pay for the Psychiatric counseling that young lady will need for a while.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:31 am

During my military training, our instructors NEVER stood anywhere except behind us once we had the clip in our hands. Watching the video, the instructor is standing beside the girl and actually leaning in! As to letting children fire automatic weapons, I don't even believe they should be legal for any civilian. The only person who needs a weapon like that is a soldier in combat.

But then, America is completely, absolutely bat-sh1t gun crazy.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:31 am

Patsy Warnick;1463153 wrote:

The shooting range is now closed indefinitely.

Patsy

That's false.

The gun range closed briefly following the shooting, but had reopened as of Thursday. Its owner said the facility was "booked pretty solid" for the Labor Day weekend.

Family of instructor killed at Arizona gun range does not blame girl | Reuters

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:45 am

Mustang

That's current news - as of the date of incident it was stated closed indefinitely?

May be they stopped serving the hamburgers indefinitely?:wah:

Patsy

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:12 pm

Saint_;1463308 wrote: During my military training, our instructors NEVER stood anywhere except behind us once we had the clip in our hands. Watching the video, the instructor is standing beside the girl and actually leaning in! As to letting children fire automatic weapons, I don't even believe they should be legal for any civilian. The only person who needs a weapon like that is a soldier in combat.

But then, America is completely, absolutely bat-sh1t gun crazy.

Im glad you said that.......Im biased.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:03 pm

We are all civilized here, right?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:11 pm

Patsy Warnick;1463312 wrote: Mustang

That's current news - as of the date of incident it was stated closed indefinitely?

May be they stopped serving the hamburgers indefinitely?:wah:

Patsy

Indefinitely just means "for an unspecified period of time."

Probably closed long enough to clean things up, and for all the annoying reports to get bored and go find the next "tragic event"

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:36 pm

Lars

I understand not permanent - but one could only hope - after all it was just a human life taken, and others destroyed.

Perhaps after the complete investigation it will be permanently closed.

Patsy

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:46 pm

As I mentioned in the other thread, the link there reported that the range had changed its policy to a 5' height limit & a minimum 12 year age limit.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:42 pm

Patsy Warnick;1463352 wrote: Lars

I understand not permanent - but one could only hope - after all it was just a human life taken, and others destroyed.

Perhaps after the complete investigation it will be permanently closed.

Patsy

Probably not. They have written it off as an "Industrial Accident" The guy's Worker's Comp will take care of his medical bills and it's On with the show.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:44 pm

High Threshold;1463263 wrote: Where's the part about "audimatic salt rifle"? I specifically asked you to provide some indication of "automatice" - "assault" - bullet-spraying machine to mow down masses of people. You failed. Would you like to try again?

Here's what you wrote.

High Threshold;1463263 wrote: Really? Send us a link to this here 2nd. ammendment in the Constipation y'all keep talkin' bout. I can never remember how to write "audimatic salt rifle" and I wants to check the spelling. Can you do that please?

I took it that your point is there is no mention of automatic weapons, so it was no trouble to make it clear there are no restrictions.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:07 pm

FourPart;1463249 wrote: The wording of that Article seems to me to be open to interpretation, and the prevailing one that I see is NOT to do with the General Public being allowed to bear arms, but the ("Well Regulated") military / militia, which refers to the defence of the State - not of the individual. Therefore, I see it as being that the individual American does NOT have the right to bear arms unless they are serving in the Military.

District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary

Holding and Rule (Scalia)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A quote from the decision.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People. The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people. The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state. 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house—what he called the law of “self preservation. 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:30 pm

Yet from the 1st link...

Dissent (Breyer)

The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

It appears that it's not as cut & dried as all that after all.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:50 pm

Interestingly, Switzerland has one of the highest Gun Ownerships in the world (probably only behind America), yet also one of the lowest in Gun Crime.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this, therefore, demonstrate that it's not necessarily not so much the presence of the gun itself, or the culture that promotes them?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:14 am

FourPart;1463384 wrote: Interestingly, Switzerland has one of the highest Gun Ownerships in the world (probably only behind America), yet also one of the lowest in Gun Crime.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this, therefore, demonstrate that it's not necessarily not so much the presence of the gun itself, or the culture that promotes them?

At the very bottom it says....

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[20] However, the annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52, which is higher than neighboring countries
Which to me means that if there are guns available they will be used, so more guns more use, less guns less use.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:26 am

Bruv;1463386 wrote: At the very bottom it says....

Which to me means that if there are guns available they will be used, so more guns more use, less guns less use.

Makes a lot of sense to me.
Except that in Switzerland it seems to have the opposite effect on a world wide basis though.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:33 pm

FourPart;1463381 wrote: Yet from the 1st link...

It appears that it's not as cut & dried as all that after all.

Looks cut ant dried to me. There is a rebuttal to that assertion.

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

We can start parsing the words of that decision between the Justices, which holds no interest to me, and I doubt you.

I am happy that finally a decision has been made.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:03 pm

You can make America one big theme park Disneyland, Vegas, now..........Gun Tourism

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:22 pm

Bruv;1463416 wrote: You can make America one big theme park Disneyland, Vegas, now..........Gun Tourism

"Tourists from Australia, Europe or Asia, where civilians are barred from many types of guns, long to indulge in the quintessentially American right to bear arms."

AH HAH!! Oh, the Humanity!