I think a lot of the HN crowd think of laws like computer code- that it needs to be very exact. Most laws are fairly generalized with broad coverage, and the cases where they're not tend to be the exception, not the rule.

The law is like 100,000 lines of pseudo-code written by a humanities major who never took a CS class.

Libertarians have substantial, though I think not majority, representation on HN. Certain themes always seem to repeat that seem related to this. For instance, likening any form of prohibition to the failed prohibition of alcohol to suggest that all forms of prohibition are similarly doomed. This argument relies on the reader neglecting to consider the myriad of prohibitions that are going well, like CFC bans or the prohibition on building unsafe firetrap buildings. They point out one failure and ask us to extrapolate from only that datapoint, ignoring the rest.

As in this case, pointing out a hypothetical way a law could fail, to insinuate that all laws would fail.

It comes from watching Law & Order, and from decades of (elected) prosecutors painting important constitutional protections as trivial loopholes.