Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.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: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:26:44 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 69 Message-ID: References: <17d91fbd5fad865f$338100$533214$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:26:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eb8ebb2907e68765c2302819dd66ac12"; logging-data="172934"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LoEoQmlor+NXFLnITheTsBALlwlMhCbk=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:H/GzJympBiWRuxeJHUYEKJcfOII= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4662 On 6/16/2024 12:59 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > moviePig wrote: > >> On 6/15/2024 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. >> >> Unfortunately, your "letter of the law" is a false god, a pipe dream. >> Because any word's meaning invariably depends on one or more *other* >> words, and so on ...you eventually need someone to "know" (i.e., to >> *interpret*) whatever basic thing someone else has tried to say. > > Even if true, that doesn't mean a law's "spirit" takes precedence over > its text. Yes, it does ...because, in the final analysis, a law's "spirit" is all there is. You may be thinking of instances where that spirit is so universally agreed upon that it's easily mistaken for "hard" content.