Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:01:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 72 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:01:33 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3923 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17db4b50d6073830$211550$2724781$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4320 On 6/20/24 9:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , FPP > wrote: > >> On 6/20/24 5:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:32:11 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/20/2024 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/19/2024 11:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>> shawn wrote: > >>>>>>>> Yes, you are definitely technically correct. (The best kind.) That >>>>>>>> said you can see why people consider the bump stock to be the >>>>>>>> equivalent of turning a weapon into an equal to a machine gun. It >>>>>>>> isn't a machine gun but it ends throwing lead down field much like >>>>>>>> one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've seen people who can pull a trigger all on their own pretty damn >>>>>>> fast-- certainly at a speed that most hoplophobes would consider >>>>>>> "machine gun adjacent". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we make it illegal for a human to pull a trigger faster than a >>>>>>> certain rate? Or force anyone who can do it accurately faster than a >>>>>>> certain rate to register their finger with the BATF as a "machine >>>>>>> gun"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think eventually the law will be updated to include bump stocks >>>>>>>> but who knows how long that will take. As no one who was involved in >>>>>>>> writing the original act likely foresaw the possibility of a bump >>>>>>>> stock. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you look at the 15-sec. video I posted? I submit that what you're >>>>>> seeing for *both* guns is a single function of the trigger *finger* -- >>>>> >>>>> Even if true, the statute is silent on what the finger is doing, so >>>>> it's irrelevant. > >>>> A human finger is implied by "a single function of the trigger". >>> >>> No, it's the functioning of the trigger that's at issue, not what causes it >>> to function. (Other things can cause a trigger pull besides a finger.) > >> So describe the intent of the law. Go ahead... what was the law >> designed to do? To regulate and prevent. >> >> Have at it. > > I don't care what a bunch of politicians (all with their own agendas) > intended. How white supremacist of you. This reinforces my opinion that you were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6th and should be in prison for it. When I look to what's required of me legally, I only ask what > does the law prohibit me from doing. > > When I drive, I don't spend time wondering about all the intents of the > various lawmakers that set the speed limit at 70MPH. I only care that I > can drive up to 70MPH without having to worry about a ticket. > > If we decided court cases based on intent, then a talented shooter would > indeed have to worry about registering her index finger with the > government as a "machine gun" if she could fire fast enough to mimic a > machine gun. Something that even you dismissed as silly elsewhere in > thread.