This might be my last post in this thread since I don’t think I contribute to it at all:
While I do understand why some people would want to have a handgun in their drawer just in case, I fail to see any logic whatsoever behind people arguing that we shouldn’t take automatic rifles or any sort of military-grade weapon out of the marked.
As far as I know, automatic and military-grade weapons have not been a problem and they aren’t in the general market.
I’d like to know how the hell someone the FBI thought was suspicious and whom had mental issues was allowed to legally buy guns.
This is how.
But it helps if you completely disregard the whole “well-regulated” clause which implies some sort of… well, regulation. With that part carefully excised, what you’ve got remaining is the current Supreme Court interpretation.
All we know is that the FBI interviewed (before and after the shooting) the guy who posted a youtube video to see if he knew anything about the person who posted the comment, who at least has the same name as the shooter. It doesn’t make sense what the FBI thought they would get from questioning him.
I also don’t understand the FBI’s handling of the Nassar case.
The government take away someone’s rights based on mere suspicion. There is a question whether something could have been done where many people recognized this kid was a danger.
The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.