Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 04:12:31 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <P8OcnfwhaeSXPiT-nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-25D624.12335314062024@news.giganews.com> <v4ih8u$336lr$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-C652A7.15471614062024@news.giganews.com> <17d91fbd5fad865f$338100$533214$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <v4kgh9$3i0t8$1@dont-email.me> <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-13D763.17305115062024@news.giganews.com> <v4llgt$3s90d$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-6A9523.21593315062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-6A9523.21593315062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 69
Path: ...!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: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 09:12:31 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4124
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17d971287c22a412$133792$675878$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4505

On 6/15/24 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <v4llgt$3s90d$1@dont-email.me>,
>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/15/2024 8:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>    trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> 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.


This made me laugh out loud since the law is all about precedence.  And 
an anonymous dipshit who didn't even pass the bar telling us what the 
precedence should be or is literally laughable, far more than literally 
driving off a cliff is.