Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir7znu3 wrote

Reply to comment by Spirit117 in Reported Shooting at University of Arizona by OakTeach

But why does anyone need one

−6

Spirit117 t1_ir80y6x wrote

That question is irrelevant. The fact that the NFA itself hasn't been overturned or amended says the entire govt for the last 90 years agrees that "not just anyone can have these, if you want one of these, you gotta jump through extra hoops".

I can't find a single example of a mass shooting being committed with a properly licensed NFA weapon in the USA..... because there's no reason to use one.

The closest you can get is the Vegas shooting where the dude used bump stocks, which at the time were legal to own for anyone, and have since been reclassified as machine guns and now fall under the jurisdiction of the NFA.

5

Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir81ug6 wrote

In that case, I guess we need to heavily restrict handguns, since they're the most commonly used gun for homicides in the US.

−7

Spirit117 t1_ir825yt wrote

Heller Vs DC already settled that. It says you can go pound sand :)

6

Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir82tdm wrote

I'm aware of heller v dc. I was merely using your "logic" that if automatic weapons aren't needed to commit mass shootings then maybe the weapons that are readily available to commit them need to be (well) regulated more. Also, I own guns.

−2