Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:52:45 +0000 User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Cancel-Lock: sha1:O309nFECNS/s0WOhB/SdHgufosY= Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: BTR1701 References: <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:52:45 +0000 Lines: 92 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-8gFdA2dOR1eWPoq7YhHwK3Mr3nr3vaZF11e/QtGCc6lFAv7zNPfs5NCddAlzieDEgfatJDqmp7CPU41!XaN9X53owT6vdfw/PNWZOLIb1jOfiETp7Fbz3ycDsUb3dVzHiXzxb66iyaK4ZF8nFtRp735k4A== 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: 5767 FPP wrote: > On 6/22/24 11:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote: >> FPP wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 10:18 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. 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. >>> >>> 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!