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 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
References: <atropos-13D763.17305115062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v51ik8$2kkd7$2@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-696A04.09292320062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v5203r$2n6c1$3@dont-email.me>
 <1oucnSmdyL0VBun7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v52knn$2qv7o$5@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-7D5EFE.19185120062024@news.giganews.com>
 <v56pft$3qb1e$2@dont-email.me>
 <lTSdnT7Heb6bc-v7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v56rdi$3qngn$2@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <qpWdnXeHkrbQbuv7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
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 <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/24 11:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/24 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <v52knn$2qv7o$5@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/20/24 5:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:32:11 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <v51ik8$2kkd7$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 11:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <s6077jpsl679hmse4jdbsf9eg38a9pf6qt@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> 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!