Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:26:44 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <v4n78l$58s6$1@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:26:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eb8ebb2907e68765c2302819dd66ac12";
	logging-data="172934"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LoEoQmlor+NXFLnITheTsBALlwlMhCbk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H/GzJympBiWRuxeJHUYEKJcfOII=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-6A9523.21593315062024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 4662

On 6/16/2024 12:59 AM, 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.

Yes, it does ...because, in the final analysis, a law's "spirit" is all 
there is.  You may be thinking of instances where that spirit is so 
universally agreed upon that it's easily mistaken for "hard" content.