I'm no legal expert by any means but it is my understanding that laws are supposed to have loopholes almost by design. A legal system with no loopholes which probably also means with no interpretation will be as close to dystopia as we could ever get.
Legislative intent shouldn't be gameable, just as constitutional shouldn't be either.
Courts are of course have a certain degree of interpretive freedom, but the process should result in a machinery that implements intent faithfully, and legislators change laws to change intent (and to patch holes, but in common law that usually happens through the courts too).
No law has ever been perfect (and they'll never be), and as such "gaming" them is the only recourse for lots of people negatively affected by said imperfect laws until those legislators you mention happen to change them (for the better, it is hoped). Otherwise we'll be back to living in one of Kafka's stories.
But that doesn't make sense. Laws don't have loopholes in them for the off chance that it turns out to be a bad law.
Legislation, laws, and law enforcement as technologies have always had these trade offs, and they have progressed tremendously over the centuries (or millennias).
From the Roman veto of the tribune of the plebs, to current constitutional review there are many checks and balances. But legislation as a process doesn't have inherent loopholes.
Currently for every piece of law proposed many official and civil groups warn of the potential unintended side effects of it. But then the majority usually disregards those concerns.
