Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
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
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.