Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:59:19 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <v573dn$3s5sk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <atropos-13D763.17305115062024@news.giganews.com> <atropos-7D5EFE.19185120062024@news.giganews.com> <v56pft$3qb1e$2@dont-email.me> <lTSdnT7Heb6bc-v7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:59:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38586e4b900edccc9e578beee4abad4e";
	logging-data="4069268"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YEdwivrMN5xe59pSu9IYgRSYJbWRsM+Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PoFgf7jF61uVBqjBzj6appjhaFc=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3433

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 6/20/24 10:18 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . . 

>>>>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

Aargh. Don't moviePig the language. Asylum seekers, not refugees.
Refugees are persons displaced by war and natural disaster for whom temporary
arrangements for shelter have been made in another country. They aren't
seeking asylum and, in theory, they'll return home.

>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!

I, uh, thought that the way the law is supposed to be administered that
if they cannot express a credible fear that suggests they might have a
valid claim for asylum, they do not get admitted even temporarily into
the United States.

>>What do you think the Supreme Court uses to judge whether a law is 
>>constitutional?

>Umm... the Constitution.

Dear ghod, the entire world is a straight line to Fred Phelps.