Gunman Opens Fire At LAX 520
McGruber tips news that today at 9:30AM PST, a man removed an assault rifle from a bag at Los Angeles International Airport and opened fire. The shooter moved into the screening area, and then further into the terminal. One TSA agent was killed; roughly six more people were injured. The gunman was a ticketed passenger. (Early reports suggested he worked for the TSA — this does not seem to be the case.) Police engaged him in gunfire, and he's now in custody. His motive is unknown at this time.
Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Turtles all the way down...
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the airport every hour of the day. This is exactly the sort of justification they needed to ratchet things up.
That said, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think even a TSA agent deserved to be murdered in cold-blood.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or we could have a rational discussion about gun control...Nah
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Rational discussion" meaning "groups of people coming to the same conclusion I did."
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
Whereas since banning handguns in the UK, handgun crime has gone up (that is, crimes involving handguns, not possession of one), and all firearm crime has gone up by more. Look at the graph on this page [bbc.co.uk]. about 1/2 the way down. Handguns were banned in 1997, when gun crime was on a downward curve.
Also, see this [google.co.uk](PDF, sorry about the google cruft, can't be bothered editing) police statistics report. It shows that serious handgun crime more than doubled in the 4 years after they were banned, despite having been dropping for the previous 10 years or so, when they were legal.
I don't own a gun, probably never will, but I dislike the government telling me what I can and can't have based on poor logic. Also, It had been demonstrably shown that in the UK, barring other factors (and I doubt there were _that_ many other factors), banning handguns increased handgun crime.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Chart one on the police report you linked to shows there were fewer crimes where firearms were used in 2011 than in 1997, the year the handgun ban went into effect. That's despite the fact that
If you look at the second chart then you can even see that the "big increase" of firearm use in 2003 was nothing to do with handguns anyway, it was mostly from air guns.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, but you've been lied to.
The homicide rates [aic.gov.au] in Australia did not decline after their gun ban. Or rather, they declined (averaged), but at the same rate they were declining before. In fact, that brief spike that you see on the graph is right after the ban.
Suicides also do not show any correlation [ic-wish.org] with gun ban. Suicides by gun declined, yes (again, at the same rate they were declining prior to the ban), but suicides by hanging actually increased.
Violent crime rate [aic.gov.au], meanwhile, has increased, mainly due to increase in assaults, and in particular of sexual assault. Robbery rate actually spiked after the ban, but then went back to where it was. Everything else didn't change.
So, no. Australia did not solve anything, the laws were purely "feel good" kind of stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
So, no. Australia did not solve anything, the laws were purely "feel good" kind of stuff.
Actually the number of mass shootings has decreased by a cool 100% since the ban came into effect.
People who want to kill other people will find a way. Glassings and stabbings are quite popular in this country. Most gun crime is some thug shooting some other thug. One thing we don't get a lot of down here (or really any of down here) is indiscriminate killing of random people en mass. That seems to be a thing reserved for countries that let any loon and their dog own an automatic weapon.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Interesting)
All quite true - some criminals still have guns in Australia (though not many, as a proportion of total criminals). However they are almost invariably handguns, shotguns or single-shot rifles (not semi autos which tend to the be weapon of choice in the US it seems). Furthermore, it's very rare that they are used in random attacks or sprees such as you see in the US. Think about when you hear of a shooting in Australia these days. 95+% of the time it's criminal-on-criminal (related to bikie gangs or other forms of organized crime). Other more petty crims with guns might use them in a holdup or robbery, but rarely seem to actually ~use~ them (i.e. they use the weapon to threaten the victim). I can't recall more than a couple of instances of actual murder of an innocent person or people with a firearm in Australia (outside of organized crime) in the last decade. One in particular I recall from a couple of years ago where someone shot, intending to hit person X, but missed and hit person Y, way in the distance, who was a poor truck driver that just happened to driving past. But still, incidents like that are rare.
Source: anecdotal admittedly, but I'm a dual Aussie-US citizen who spends a decent amount of time in both countries. The situation in Australia ain't perfect of course, but I don't really care about bikie gangs shooting each other up to be honest - good riddance. You don't see criminals with guns killing indiscriminately, or the mass shooting sprees, that you see in the US.
Snopes (for anyone who cares about the truth) (Score:3)
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp [snopes.com]
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
An assault rifle fires "a dozen" shots in about one second (automatic) or at most 4 trigger pulls (3 round burst).
Unless the fire selector is set to single-shot. In which case I'd have to wonder why someone would go through the trouble of procuring an illegal firearm for themselves (assault rifles have been illegal since at least 1986) simply to use it in a manner that any legal (and easily obtained) semi-automatic rifle would suffice for.
Maybe he's military, and it's his service weapon. Or maybe the news outlets are in a race to see who can offer the most hysterical coverage.
Re: (Score:3)
First, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle." There are bolt action, semi-auto, full auto, and (as you mentioned), 3-round bursts, trigger mechanisms, none of which are exclusive to rifles. Assault is something you can do with a firearm (or knife, or hands), not a characteristic of the weapon itself. Calling something an assault rifle is almost as ridiculous as calling a children "suicide bomb delivery platforms." I say almost because there's no question that the firearms people often think of as
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Until then, it's not a discussion, it's just you telling me "you don't need a gun because I said so", and me responding back with "fuck off".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or we could have a rational discussion about gun control...Nah
Don't waste your breath. Not even the death of tens of children has had any effect whatsoever in "kicking the second amendment right where it belongs". That is into the wastebasket of History.
Americans love guns. Good for them. Have them deal with the aftermath of these anounced tragedies.
Re: (Score:2)
People here keep saying more guns held by people trained to use them would make things safer, but it doesn't seem to have worked. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
My permit, OTOH, allows me to carry a weapon inside the passenger terminal of an airport. The TSA wouldn't let me past security with it, but I can carry it loaded until I check it for the flight, and if I forget it's on me and accidentally carry it in, it's not a violation of state law.
Re: (Score:3)
Airport = "gun free zone," just the same as schools and malls tend to be, which is where these "events" tend to happen.
Since it was a so called "gun free zone," pretty much the only lawfully armed people there would be the police. (There are some very limited exceptions.) For some reason criminals seem to ignore both social convention and signs forbidding the bringing weapons into areas so marked. The law abiding, assuming they didn't overlook it, would disarm before entering such a place. I'm sure that
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my point Airports are full of armed guards and police... At least UK ones are. Men and women, with guns, loaded, maintained, trained in their use and ready to act. Didn't seem to help here.
Re: (Score:3)
The experience in Heathrow was far, far different than any experience that I've had in American airports. It felt like there was a level of professionalism in London that I've never seen in American airports since the aftermath of September 11th. Honestly I felt like there was more professionalism before the Jihadis changed the sta
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Australia banned such weapons and mass shootings dropped from 1 every 18 months to 1 (arguable) in 17 years. The strategy does indeed work.
(The total number of firearms is higher than ever. It's the types that matter.)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Assault rifles don't exist until someone commits assault with a rifle. At that point, any rifle is an assault rifle.
Any time I see a news article or press release with the term "assault rifle" in it I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know anything at all about guns. A quick scan of TFA, BTW, does not name or picture the weapon. For all we know, it could be a deer rifle with a black stock, a Warsaw Pact semiauto AK, any of dozens of M4/M14/M16/AR15 semiauto clones, or a really tricked out Ruger 10-22 (and a lucky shot on the one kill). A more attentive reading might tell us more, but I doubt it.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you know a .22 short fired from a revolver can penetrate 12-inches of wetpack with roughly a 1-inch wound channel?
Sure, .22 is a tiny caliber - but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, you just have to hit the right things to get an immediate kill with it. Whether you die before the barrel cools, or you bleed out over the course of several minutes - dead is dead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your government has nukes, artillery, tanks, bombers, etc. Are you going to demand access to these too? After all your logic seems to be 'whatever government can has, I want too'.
Any objective reading of the second amendment would seem to indicate that that is the case. If you don't like it, you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to violate your constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
No...the perpetrator used an "assault rifle"...which people in the military call "small arms" which are banned for hunting deer with because of their inability to kill them cleanly.
Say what? .223 were banned for its inability to kill, why is a bow legal?
Can you elaborate, and provide sources. I am not aware of specific rifles being banned for deer hunting. Nor am I aware of cartridge rules, other than a centerfire requirement. If a specific cartridge, say the
Disclaimer: I'm in Oregon, and have not researched all state's hunting laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, GP is blabbering on without a clear idea of what he's talking about, but given that the military (and IMO only legitimate) definition of the "assault rifle" is a rifle or carbine that is (1) select-fire and (2) chambered for an intermediate cartridge, he's not quite wrong about the deer-hunting thing. (Most states actually forbid use of legally-owned select-fire weapons for hunting, but we'll focus on part 2.) Note however, that "small arms" in military parlance includes everything from handguns to sn
Re: (Score:3)
More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the airport every hour of the day.
What you meant to say there was:
More like, prepare for this to look like a warzone as US airports start to resemble third-world combat zones. Soldiers with assault rifles on their arms staking out every US airport entrance and jeeps on patrol around the US airport every hour of the day.
Flew out of an airport in Croatia a few months ago, a country that has about, oh, a million times more experience with violence and terror than the US. A passenger asked an airport staff member whether he had to take his shoes off during the check-in process. The staff member said no, but if he was carrying firearms he had to notify them.
When was the last time you heard of a hijacked aircraft (or whatever the TSA are supposed to be dealing with) in Croatia?
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been saying for the longest time, terrorists don't need to get on the plane. Now they just need to blow them selves up getting into the security line. What then is TSA going to do? It's a cat and mouse game and unfortunately the TSA isn't going to win
Re:Great... (Score:4)
naked airlines... finally we can get the bible trumpeters on board in the name of war on terror
Re: (Score:3)
I'd guess that only about fifteen percent of people are in the right condition to look good while naked. That means most viewers would only want to see about seven to eight percent of people, in totality, naked.
I really don't want to see Naked Airlines. For every Christina Ricci there'd be five Rosie O'Donnells.
Re: (Score:2)
And *nobody* really wants to sit in an airplane seat just vacated by the previous occupant, now matter how appealing they might have looked.
Re: (Score:3)
So they just have an airplane fetish then? If you want to instill fear proving to people that they have nowhere to hide, that nothing can protect them, would seem awfully effective to me. That is why suicide bombers in busy security lines is pure genuis. There just is no defense against that. Machine gunning the line is not quite as effective, but it's not half bad either.
Re: (Score:3)
"If they just want to kill people, there are plenty of other places to do that at lower risk. "
They don't want to just kill people, they want to terrorize people. That's why they are called terrorists.
The security line is what is claimed to keep you safe from terrorists. Attacking it specifically demonstrates that it makes you *less* safe. And to crib the joke from another comment, there's no security line before the security line, so the risks of getting caught are lower than trying to get actually inside
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll assume this is a real question from someone that doesn't know the quote.
There is a legend of how the universe is constructed that the Earth lies on the back of a giant turtle. But wait, what does the turtle stand on? Ummmm, well another turtle. OK, what does that stand on? Eventually you get to "turtles all the way down".
It's become a phrase in some situations where you wave away a hard problem by having more and more layers of the same, turtles all the way down.
deplorable (Score:2)
A leader of the union representing TSA officers deplored the incident.
i agree it is deplorable... and so is the TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
"i agree it is deplorable... and so is the TSA."
Isn't it just a bit curious that this didn't happen a long time ago?
It's amazing sometimes what a lot of Americans will tolerate for the sake of letting the government "keep them safe"... especially given the government's terrible record of doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be half as offensive if what the government did were in some way related to keeping us safe. The TSA is the least convincing theatre troupe I have ever encountered.
Harder than killing him... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Harder than killing him... (Score:5, Funny)
It could just be poor marksmanship.
Re:Harder than killing him... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Screening areas as terrorist targets (Score:5, Insightful)
How many years have people been complaining that the only the thing the long lines at the screening areas do is make for a target rich environment? Attacking waiting points for security lines is a time honored practice in some parts of the world, the only surprising thing is that it took this long for it to occur here.
Security theater isn't just an inconvenience, it's a security risk in and of itself. I used to travel for a living and I have easily seen times in major airports where there were thousands of people queued up to go through the security checkpoints. It's a target rich environment where you can't miss for trying in some airports.
It's time to end security theater and demand real security.
Re: (Score:2)
After the big mall shooting in Africa, I'm surprised this hasn't happened on a bigger scale already.
Re: (Score:2)
There are innumerable other "target-rich environments" elsewhere, that don't have police and armed guards swarming all over the place.
Shopping malls, movie theatres, ANY stores on Black Friday, or a few days before Christmas, restaurants during diner, the DMV, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to end security theater and demand real security.
Your solution is???? non-existent. It is very easy to point out problems but much harder to come up with a solution. Having checkpoints is much less dangerous than not having them. They could be faster but doing away with them is not the answer either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget that the people waiting in TSA lines are not Important.
Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently in this case it was more of a "bystander-rich environment". All those passengers kept getting in the way of his objective of shooting TSA people.
"He saw me. He looked at me with a quizzical look and said, 'TSA?' And I just shook my head. So he moved on," Saryan said.
Impossible! (Score:4, Insightful)
a man removed an assault rifle from a bag at Los Angeles International Airport and opened fire.
Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!
Re: (Score:2)
Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!
Exactly! This person should have been caught at the inter-state border crossings. He was probably crossing over from Oregon.
Re:Impossible! (Score:4, Insightful)
Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!
So is murder, so not only did he not use a gun, but he didn't kill anyone either, right?
So not only is 'gun control' moot since only criminals will have guns, but we may as well repeal murder laws since criminals will ignore those too, right? Indeed, why have laws at all, since it just means more things on the books for criminals to ignore?
Is that argument you are making? Because that's what it sounds like.
Re:Impossible! (Score:4, Interesting)
Take your straw man and go home
So, seriously then, what was your argument?
Because if the "if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns" mantra wasn't it, then I'm genuinely curious what point you were making.
And if that mantra was the point, then my Murder example may be hyperbole, but the point is valid. Making anything illegal doesn't stop the criminals from doing it. It never has, and it never will.
It does however give society a chance to catch a murderer-to-be with gun prior to using it. Naturally, a determined would-be murderer has any number of other options from knives to knitting needles and we can't realistically ban all of them, and should not try to. But a ban on a weapon whose designed function is to kill or incapacitate lots of people at range quickly might save lives, if the weapon is detected before its used.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They have not been illegal. All you need is a $200 tax stamp to own one (and the usual, no felony, etc.) All the assault rifles that are legal for purchase were manufactured before 1986 when the machine gun registry was closed. The states have the right to decide that they don't want machine guns at all but there is no federal prohibition.
Conspiracy theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Locked in a room and forced to a Justin Beiber & Miley Cyrus singalong with William Shatner as a special guest?
Firearm Legal Status (Score:5, Informative)
An assault rifle, by definition is a machine gun. The gun used at LAX wasn't (as best we can tell from the available information). So the first sentence in the summary is inaccurate.
There's speculation, based on a photo on Twitter that the rifle is a Ruger Mini-14, in which case it may not have qualified as an "assault weapon" as defined by Federal Law. Under Feinstein's last [failed] assault weapon ban, the Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible stock was banned, but the other Mini-14's were ok. It would depend on whether or not the stock folds/collapses.
Under California law, the pistol grip, and ability to accept a detachable magazine are sufficient to classify it as an "assault weapon."
Looks like high capacity magazines were used, although they may have had inserts to render them legal (i.e. limit them to 10 rounds). If they are large capacity and he owned them before 2000, they're legal. Otherwise they would only be legal if they were limited to 10 rounds (or fewer).
We can say with high confidence that a semi-automatic rifle was used. Under the previous Federal assault weapon ban, and the more recent failed Federal effort, this rifle may or may not have been considered an "assault weapon." Under California law this rifle is an assault weapon. The magazines may or may not have been legal.
Delusional and Angry (Score:2)
There are many reasons why this fellow started to shoot people. Given how terrible service is on airlines these days in "cattle class", long lines, TSA agents who want to "touch my junk" (the pedophile who touched mine when I was a kid was enough), late flights, no-fly lists, and more horrors, it's no wonder that this guy goes nuts. He's probably a frequent flier on United.
But wait... (Score:2)
How did he have a gun in the airport?
Guns are banned there, the sign CLEARLY says so.
I mean, that's why pretty much nobody else was armed, right?
Tory from Mythbusters was there (Score:2)
Apparently; Tory Belleci from MYTHBUSTERS was there, and called in to CNN not that long after the incident was being covered by the network. Not sure if other Mythbusters were there also as I couldn't hear the entire conversation (TV is on low at work).
So, could be an interesting next season???
And where was... (Score:2)
One of those stories (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys have a massive cultural blind-spot when it comes to this stuff. It's incredible.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed - the problem is nutcase people, not the tool. BUT ... the tool in this case is capable of killing more quickly, more effectively and at a greater distance than almost any other tool out there. You're somewhat removed from the act of killing, unlike a knife where you have to get up close, messy and personal. Mentally I think it's a lot harder to stab someone than shoot them - a higher degree of craziness is needed.
Furthermore, a gun is designed specifically for the purpose, unlike a car or a bat or a
Re: (Score:3)
True. But no two countries on earth share a common history and culture ... that's kind of why they are different countries to begin with. Yet almost developed countries, despite their differing cultures, have tighter gun controls and agree that this does more good than harm. It's not like there's some countries on one side and a roughly equal number on the other. It's pretty much the US who stands alone on this one (which is a common theme - see also: metric system).
So yeah, America is different from other
Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Another shooting in the USA ... yeah yeah whatever. I really don't care anymore. You guys shoot yourselves up and scream about the 2nd amendment to your hearts content, sure as the sun rises tommorrow there will be another shooting soon and you won't do shit to change it
One thing for sure kiddies - it ain't news for nerds or stuff that matters, if it was, something constructive would be done. After all this time we have to conclude you idiots like it this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite earlier reports, he was NOT a TSA employee, but just a ticketed passenger.
Flying out of LAX always makes me want to shoot someone, too. (Too soon?)
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever his deeper motive is, it's all too likely to be whitewashed.
Or simply fall into the (really rather common) category of 'Yes, it's a motive; but nothing you say can really convey why it would be so motivating."
Not all affect states can be conveyed verbally, especially to people who haven't experienced them. All you can do is use hollow allusions to them.
Do we all know what words like 'hate', 'jealousy', 'frustration' mean? Sure. Do we know what they mean in the sense used by somebody who would offer one or more of them as an explanation for why he would face ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's because some nerds travel by airplane.
Maybe it's because Slashdotters have been pointing out that the line at the screening checkpoint is, itself, a target, and they have unfortunately been proven correct.
I seem to recall there are a number of gun-rights advocates in the Slashdot community, who may be concerned about a legislative (over?)reaction to this atrocious act.
Then there are people like me who check Slashdot a lot more often than they check mainstream news sites, and learned about the shooting just now.
I don't mean to be too hard on you, because your question is legitimate. My best answer is, "news for nerds" is in the eye of the beholder and sometimes the editors will post a story that doesn't interest you, but does interest someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gunman (Score:5, Funny)
OMG NO! We can't allow ANY magazines of any kind. if you're bored at the airport, you'll just have to read a pamphlet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody really cares what you do with your hair, just so long as nobody dyes - suicide blondes are right out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok. The TSA has loads of pamphlets.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get me started... next thing you know some states are going to ban possession of nuclear weapons. They don't understand that if nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
Yes, and do we really want our outlaws more heavily armed than our inlaws?
Re:damn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What kind of gun? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad it's only six. It's really hard to believe there weren't more. A guy with an assault weapon aimin' to misbehave at a busy airport terminal? You'd think there would be dozens dead and many more injured.
Re:Those poor people (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you need to see a wine list of all the people that you, too, can't stomach to consider as "people", to remind you of how wrong you're being? Or would you prefer to be treated as a person?
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny because people who get a decent paying job where bureaucrats want them to touch strangers' junk stop being people. It has nothing to do with the bureaucrats and the people who think security theater works.
Re: (Score:2)
> Looks like some sociopath finally noticed that a slow security checkpoint just means there's an easy
>crowd in an unsecured area.
Maybe they should put a security checkppoint in front of the line to protect the people in the line?
> What little empathy I can muster for anyone in LA
I just take comfort in knowing how nice Arizona bay is going to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're a dick. That's all.
No and you want to know whay ? Because feeling sorry time and time again doesn't fix the problem. Every time a tragedy like this occurs, we hear people being sorry, politicians shedding crocodile tears and then what ? Nothing changes because Americans and the NRA are so in love with their weapons that they blame everything EXCEPT guns. So we put the blame on films, we put the blame on videogames, we put the blame on sex, we put the blame on hocus pocus etc... But we never have the political resolve to fix
Re: (Score:2)
So we put the blame on films, we put the blame on videogames, we put the blame on sex, we put the blame on hocus pocus etc
You forgot to mention that we put the blame on guns.
Re: (Score:3)
You could, yes. But that's never what you see happening, incidentally.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, someone using bare hands to stab with a kitchen knife and no training, would likely end up with self-inflicted wounds. Getting blood on it from the first victim, making the handle slippery is common, then the second, without a guard (as few kitchen knives do), they will slip and cut their own hand wide open. It's common in stabbing perpetrat
Re: (Score:2)
What does AR stand for if it isn't Assault Rifle?
It could stand for Abe Romney for all I know, but I assumed all along that it stood for Assault Rifle.
Re:Article summary sucks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>why educate yourself when you can just assume and be wrong!
I am not heavily invested in this topic. I'm heavily invested in slacking off by commenting on Slashdot during work hours.
But now I know. Thank you.
Re:Article summary sucks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not kill the guy? (Score:5, Informative)
He was shot and is in critical condition. Happy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That guy exercised the *shit* out of his second amendment rights.
Seems you haven't read the amendment:
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.
There are many who debate the nature of the right it does recognize, but few, if any, would argue that it documents a right to discharge their firearms in such a manner.
You might be referring to The Declaration, which does encumber citizens with a duty to use their
Re:The NRA must be pleased (Score:4, Informative)
but few, if any, would argue that it documents a right to discharge their firearms in such a manner.
But a whole bunch of people spend a whole lot of time and money making sure that nutjobs have access to guns that fire 60 rounds per minute.