The Narrow Life Experience of Supreme Court Justices

According to liberal news outlets, those places described are exactly where people need to be armed.

Excellent article and spot-on. I personally feel that at least some of the justices want to make their decision based on a middle-ground compromise that skirts a hard decision of just doing what the supreme--law-of-the-land (as amended) demands..." -- shall not be infringed." means "shall not be infringed." unless you have committed an offense and been adjudicated a 'Prohibited Person'. Self-Protection is unalienable right bestowed by your creator onto you upon your birth.

I agree with the article and the author's interpretation of the judges' limited views. I went to a hockey game a couple years ago ... had never been to one. It was an exhibition game and also featured a youth hockey team playing before the pro teams and I went with my Grandson's Cub Scout Pack.
Regarding the comment, "For the judges, what is out of sight is out of mind. For example, they ask if we should be allowed to carry at sporting events. They claim that getting wanded at a turnstile makes us safe," I found it very inaccurate. As I got to the doors after a LONG wait, in a LONG line, I realized they were wanding people ... daggone - I had my .45 with me as normal. I repositioned it and passed through being wanded, and proceeded to my seat. Of course I was thinking that if it was easy enough for me, lawfully carrying, it would obviously be the same for someone illegally carrying.
PS: There were no signs forbidding firearms or weapons so I knew that if discovered, I could've only been turned away.