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 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
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> <v4s1kl$1c3jr$5@dont-email.me> <atropos-B5B6C7.14031818062024@news.giganews.com> <v4t1nu$1ig6v$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-5889D5.18473418062024@news.giganews.com> <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-C71DF5.19385218062024@news.giganews.com> <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-A285B6.12133319062024@news.giganews.com> <v52k9c$2qnl3$12@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:11:22 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-BC5D88.19112220062024@news.giganews.com>
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 <v52k9c$2qnl3$12@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On 6/19/24 3:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <v4v8jq$23o16$1@dont-email.me>,
> >   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 6/18/2024 10:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <v4tfnl$1ons5$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/18/2024 9:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <v4t1nu$1ig6v$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/18/2024 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <v4s1kl$1c3jr$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.