[antiRepublicrat]

I missed the "necessary use of a firearm" clause in the 2nd amendment.

It's not needed. I don't know any gun owner who would advocate the irresponsible use of a firearm, and shooting for no good reason with other houses in close proximity isn't responsible use, nor is it a responsible exercise of our 2nd Amendment right.

I like it when idiots who misuse firearms get busted. The corollary to that is that those who use them responsibly should be left alone by the government. Instead of course the government uses the irresponsible idiots as an excuse to restrict the rights of the responsible.

[Durus]

I don't know that "irresponsible use of a firearm" exists in this situation and neither do you. You don't know what the backstop was, how close the closest neighbor was, the BAC of the shooter etc. Still you assume that he must be in the wrong. There is no report of anyone being hurt or any property damage to anyone (Else's) home so where is the irresponsible use?

If someone wants to shoot up their TV, as long as no one else is hurt, it's none of your business regardless if you agree with the action or not.