Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:33:45 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:33:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="abddbbe2509c3aa1c6b780ec1f73f6e4"; logging-data="3597955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SvB/sP+QkoU/X3Z4mQqf4ZmSIwtCK9b8=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:n4V1gIY8+ICbId1wx3uCHn1iNl4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3349 On 6/28/2024 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law Gosh, it *seems* to really be a thing... > You're now actually making my case for me. Well done!