| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v57a45$3tgec$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:53:39 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: <v57a45$3tgec$2@dont-email.me> 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> Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:53:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a2fbad305af87c7b41015176a1534a8"; logging-data="4112844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pjMJbMKBjy4WENuR2np6NR+kmZ835DNI=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:LEBwBpRtKMPMCijL9TOvtlczvzA= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v56pft$3qb1e$2@dont-email.me> Bytes: 4835 On 6/22/2024 11:09 AM, FPP 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. > > Intent of the defendant, intent of the lawmaker... it's all relevant. > What do you think the Supreme Court uses to judge whether a law is > constitutional? *The* Supreme Court? ...or *This* Supreme Court?