Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FPP Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:42:42 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn. Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="072282864a3da7810fb240dbac999e40"; logging-data="4021783"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xiI4P2O8F45EB57zi7iIv" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:PqNHcu5KXYVQk1Ol57sw5mkqPCM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6073 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. Ummm... you won't because your INTENT is to do nothing and use it as a wedge issue. See? -- On May 30, 2024 Donald J. Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 felony counts in New York City... so I took this picture in my side yard. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0 "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC Bible 25B.G. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0