Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:10:23 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban References: <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:07:52 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 40 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-zSHo/rkKCCSCg0z7tSm4QuF7w/+4VPCSoZMxcpMJAOOEmLOljYM44drpS1rZBwUpOMsWvQF1CaKFz+o!R/aGjdtjVlZ5Fr0NnawoOYupGtAFXPhip3yd2CYL7E9sn+sqCJAN9pHUuQP70+JRrsr/9bNrheTG!MlQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 2969 In article , FPP wrote: > On 6/22/24 11:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > > FPP wrote: > >> On 6/22/24 11:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>> FPP wrote: > >>>> They decide law based on intent all the time. It's a staple of the > >>>> system. > >>> > >>> Cool! Let's go with intent, then. Which means all those millions of > >>> illegals pretending to be refugees and just reciting the magic words to > >>> game the system can be summarily denied and deported because the intent > >>> of the refugee law was never to allow millions of people who don't > >>> qualify as refugees to game and overwhelm the system and flood > >>> unchecked into the country. > >>> > >>> Regardless of what the law actually says, its intent was never to > >>> create the current border crisis we're currently experiencing, so we > >>> can ignore what's written and just go with intent. > >>> > >>> I'm really starting to warm up to The Law According to Effa! > >>> > >>>> What do you think the Supreme Court uses to judge whether a law is > >>>> constitutional? > >>> > >>> Umm... the Constitution. > >> > >> Ummm... pass the border bill your side wrote. > > > > No need. We already have the intent of the Immigration and Naturalization > > Act! > > > Then why hasn't anyone said that, besides you? Because deciding cases based on intent isn't really a thing. Something I was trying to illustrate with sarcasm. You're now actually making my case for me. Well done!