Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On 6/15/24 7:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:So, with a "machine gun", you don't have to keep your finger on the trigger ...whereas, with a bump stock, if you remove your finger the gun stops firing, i.e., what we call (as it were) a "dead man's switch"...In article <17d9412e82a8a311$8843$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,I'm going to cut you some slack here Twat. Ordinarily I would respond with you being a dickless stupid white supremacist bastard, but instead I'm going to respond what I just posted to the group, Harvard Law professor and Constitutional Scholar Laurence Tribe's tweet on the subject:
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.
The 1934 Firearms Act bans civilian ownership of a “machine gun,” defined as a weapon that can fire “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b). A semi-automatic weapon requires the shooter to pull the trigger after each shot, but a weapon modified with a bump stock does not. “As long as the shooter keeps his trigger finger on the finger rest and maintains constant forward pressure on the rifle’s barrel or front grip, the weapon will fire continuously.” See 83 Fed. Reg. 66516.
But six Justices who will soon have blood-soaked robes overrode the ATF’s common sense conclusion that keeping pressure on your trigger finger long enough for your gun to fire 13 times PER SECOND is a “single function” as Congress used that term. The fact that the six were taking aim at the administrative state and not at those whom the next crazed shooter will kill by firing 800 rounds per minute with each pull of his trigger finger may enable them to sleep at night, but it shouldn’t.
Prof. Tribe said this so well I was in awe, and that doesn't happen much. You can crawl back into the woodwork now unless you have some more verbal vomit you want to share.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.