Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:14:05 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban References: <17d91fbd5fad865f$338100$533214$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:11:22 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 122 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-mElj4+AAC8DjPJrnwuFofs8FHwzK5QdWXu0scArgYDObG1GwRHWP/FS9xSCRl2z1dz4Nk5UGJpLdGAG!2uQJaPV28A9C92LgbvDjtUU38KTiII7UD7qUb/eLmL06/q8IGqz7nIBKxOR2z7y0PkRQfSu4vfw9!TRA= 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: 7428 In article , FPP wrote: > On 6/19/24 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > > In article , > > moviePig wrote: > > > >> On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>> In article , > >>> moviePig wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 6/18/2024 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>> In article , > >>>>> moviePig wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 6/18/2024 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>> In article , FPP > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>, > >>>>>>>>> trotsky wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:46 AM, moviePig wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 4:20 AM, trotsky wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 5:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> From wiki: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The current National Firearms Act (NFA) defines a number of > >>>>>>>>>>>> categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively > >>>>>>>>>>>> known as NFA firearms and include the following: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Machine guns: > >>>>>>>>>>>> "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be > >>>>>>>>>>>> readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, > >>>>>>>>>>>> without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. > >>>>>>>>>>>> The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such > >>>>>>>>>>>> weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, > >>>>>>>>>>>> or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in > >>>>>>>>>>>> converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of > >>>>>>>>>>>> parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the possession or under the control of a person."[10] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, bump-stocks are patently a "workaround" for a law whose > >>>>>>>>>>> intent is patently obvious. Not exactly a triumph of sanity. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "A work around" is accurate. And the spirit of the law is far more > >>>>>>>>>> important, obviously, than the letter of the law > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Oh, cool! I see Hutt the Fuck-Up Fairy has visited us again! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, Hutt, you're unsurprisingly about as absolutely wrong as you > >>>>>>>>> can be yet again. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The letter of the law is obviously paramount in the context of > >>>>>>>>> jurisprudential determination as evidenced by the 1000-page statutes > >>>>>>>>> we have coming out of Congress, millions of pages of administrative > >>>>>>>>> regulations, and the multi-page click-thrus of tiny and near- > >>>>>>>>> hieroglyphic legalese that you have to agree to just to use a > >>>>>>>>> piece of software. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If all we needed to concern ourselves with was a law's "spirit", > >>>>>>>>> then none of that would be necessary. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'd elaborate further but I don't have the time or the crayons to > >>>>>>>>> explain it to you. Jeezus, Hutt, if I wanted to kill myself, I'd > >>>>>>>>> climb your ego and jump to your IQ. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And how does using a bump stock differ from a fully automatic machine > >>>>>>>> gun? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With a bump stock, for every round fired, a separate trigger pull > >>>>>>> occurs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> With a machine gun, one one trigger pull is required to fire multiple > >>>>>>> rounds. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also, the rate of fire of a bump stock-equipped rifle is significantly > >>>>>>> slower than a rifle firing on full-auto. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, this 15-sec. video is a lie? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brrecvXhRVc > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know what you're talking about. You can clearly see the bump > >>>>> device using the recoil (and Newton's Third Law) to reset the trigger > >>>>> after every round. > >>>> > >>>> What I'm seeing is a NOT "significantly slower" rate of fire. > >>> > >>> The bump device I used produce a fast rate of fire but not as fast as > >>> full-auto rifle. Perhaps this is a different model that works more > >>> efficiently. > >>> > >>> Regardless, the law passed by Congress did not differentiate "machine > >>> gun" from other guns by how fast it shoots, so the rate of fire is > >>> actually irrelevant to the issue. > >> > >> Yes, we've already established that a determined judiciary can do an > >> end-run around even the clearest legislative intent. > > > > They didn't end-run anything. They only reiterated-- since our > > government seems to have lost its way and needs a reminder-- that > > Congress is the only body granted the authority by the Constitution to > > legislate in this country, not administrative agencies like BATF, and if > > Congress wants to change the definition of "machine gun" to incorporate > > bump stocks into it, it can do so at any time. However, BATF has no > > authority to do it for them. > > > Congress did legislate. The intent of the law was pretty clear. > Honest people would admit that... so, of course, you klowns don't. The intent is irrelevant. It's also not even discoverable. Congress is made up of 600+ different people, all of whom have different intents when voting for legislation. To say any given law has only one intent is nonsensical.) What Congress actually wrote is what's determinative.