王晶

Originally posted by Lee3 at 2007-4-22 09:18 AM:0 d" ?5 ?. X) x1 @* f; r
4 H/ f" k6 o/ @+ v& y, U; O6 X! l' K4 @$ y

1 b1 E3 Y4 I& O4 z1 Gwell I have to ask you about drunk driving, since most countries' drinking age is 18 and the US is 21. Does your country ban alcohol when drunk driving kills people? No, and are there more incidents of drunk driving killing people than guns, definitely. Just because our 2nd amendment allows Americans to buy guns doesn't mean it's a bad law or obscure law or any less safe. In fact, it's MUCH safer to have a law that allows people to buy guns. For one, people will buy guns no matter what, the problem with that is you have no legal way to track who has what gun. In America, you get a background check before you can get a gun, and there's a 3 day wait. After that you are in a database so if the gun you own(numbered of course) shot someone, you'll get questioned/arrested/jailed. I don't see that happening to the people who have guns in China.
% k# g2 ^/ l* ]6 |  h' D$ S5 e
$ F( O" D9 P( J' L$ T. z" KAnd secondly, when you give rights to people, there will be a small number who will abuse those rights. Of course, when you don't give rights to people you don't have to worry about it, but then that won't be a democracy. America's a democracy, and that's why they have such laws, of course I'm not saying it's perfect because there are people who break laws or worse, find loopholes, but it's a system that works for us and it gives the people a chance to fix those loopholes and make life better. That's what makes a civilized country, where politicians have to be responsible to the people they are governing over, and a means of fixing loopholes or archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The 2nd amendment will NEVER be irrelevant as long as people have guns.

" K- h- r0 `$ {
! `3 Q# f5 i$ |0 F/ t  Q- x& J' n$ u2 o: k
如果你要渣車 首先要考車牌 要經過指導 考試合格
  _) x& q  B0 x* D8 a% L* ^而且你身體無問題(視力等等) 你先可以渣車出街
( f' W' I; E! B但係係美國 買槍 會唔會限制你先經過指導 要証明身體狀況無問題是准買呢?
! C( n. y8 H  [  D% Y" c9 F好肯定係無 條韓國仔痴線既都買到槍 已經係一個好大既溜洞 1 y( f) [% G9 D. N6 Q0 \4 z& h, V
所以你用醉駕同合法持槍去比較 係唔恰當 & c0 I+ ]/ _' N! [* [; S
危險駕駛可以至命 賣槍比心理唔正常既更危險 點可以唔重新檢討有關法律???6 Z& `: T3 f* O
而且你話我知 有監管槍械既地方 邊度出現過學園槍擊案呢?
/ P  q$ o4 U- U2 ]+ L2 F- `無錯 如果一d有立法監管槍械既地方 你想要有槍你都可以透過黑市買到槍   J& t! v7 [+ b. [  `* N, v: G' X
但係你可唔可以依家買一支比我睇下??香港幾耐先會出現一單同槍械有關既案件  r, y0 ?) N% F
你又睇番美國 幾耐有一單 每隔幾個月就一單校園擊案 $ c9 J& V! H1 R! v. k( Q$ v% G) o/ y
我唔明d友仔點可以話 同賣槍管制寬鬆無關

Lee3

Originally posted by 王晶 at 2007-4-22 05:31 PM:
0 V/ \  C$ A$ f$ ]5 h2 n5 Q2 [- }! K9 l" J' G9 q9 H
8 Y) [% x2 w+ u8 _2 g1 y$ L: ^

$ K5 `) T# k' l3 @9 w如果你要渣車 首先要考車牌 要...

. y9 D* o: R8 c6 A

# ~8 y8 E% V  ?8 |, G* Roh really, you seem to know MUCH about American gun laws, hm let's see   E" j$ w# b. A8 ~/ Z* c
now according to Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and explosives:
1 `5 ?5 m1 O6 E3 z9 a" G6 x(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]$ a* T% Q$ W; S0 F5 J
: y0 E9 ^  R; e9 ]* p$ m
Yes, a person who –! z9 t- G  Q# q9 T

6 s& ^" y# f; a  s    (1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;4 |% }3 c$ B6 g/ |: ~
$ ~# X: k; h/ \# l7 W  J9 j: x
    (2) Is a fugitive from justice;1 x$ p- F+ D, l) D
1 o% F  j$ ], [$ J$ T2 v
    (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;1 V2 b& |; W2 L5 @& {. d9 b

4 T$ }/ b# V# g" q0 {    (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
. T+ E  T0 Q+ y; p# K$ Z$ j; F, Z
. A6 H( i# B9 A/ h3 [    (5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
; |8 N' @, K9 a/ @1 \* w; W) Y/ \. v* R1 j. q9 Z2 V, O
    (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;# x# h& L+ R7 s$ N8 {
: `9 T$ D4 `0 T" X- s1 j7 ]! N' ]
    (7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
9 B& w  e6 W8 E7 D
2 d1 F- `7 g. r7 B6 j4 m    (8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or1 G' |) H+ f. T  H5 u

" g( U3 h  J' p' I9 q1 h; ?9 E0 [    (9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence( z; W9 g- T9 @
  T. p; l7 B+ }9 k
    (10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.) J. D: q4 b4 [! Q/ a: |

9 a, C% j7 k( PA person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.& w& l/ w; n5 F6 C- m( k& J

1 i- @  `* a9 ^' rSuch person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.4 S  S3 _7 s, h. m  F2 Z! {. @

9 u* O; X! E% O/ }: X) e4 D) h9 S[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]/ a, l. j5 B, s0 Y/ n
! A# X- H. f, w8 V8 f! }5 r, u' t
oh what? now does that make you ignorant? yes. yes it does.

qqwqqwqqw1

美國太易得到槍,
/ }. G# E; G- I' t1 ]3 m佢根本無想過禁,
7 v1 ^! l7 ^0 [美國好多地方晚黑都靜英英~* W/ n; `) r# e$ R  W  o) U
用槍打劫成日發生,當然無可能全部上新聞,報警都無用
; |; j$ F0 @9 O(美國無差人係條街到,唔似香港)
$ Q6 h) `3 X7 B# o飲酒開槍都仲有,
: ~/ \. v& s' F5 y係中國係香港有槍都食大茶飯啦,唔得閒打劫小市民~
$ }4 _! J& {1 m/ i: S1 `7 K, e) L. D2 z
校園槍擊案最錯一定係開槍果個人啦,唔好賴,
6 Y3 Q" \+ n& n1 X* m+ d2 @得佢有壓力咩,個個都有,個個都殺人咩?
$ w9 z5 o3 S: Y# n& l8 U. r仲有校園用手槍,咁多人撲上去制服佢一定唔會死咁多人(頂多死一兩個,AK無野講=w=")
3 o! }8 ~. E$ H. }0 o. t" m不過無計啦,人人都覺得自己條命最貴,咁就一起死lor~

yorker

我覺得又無咩好反思.....
6 Y& W: G# L3 l/ x- Z5 f1 {
$ p8 A, `% ?( E& Z你話如果佢係俾人笑, 俾人烚,
* W8 h# a/ {9 T  x! t4 o1 w+ b點解唔去打果d人1身?  唔夠打可以練大隻d至去打. ﹙我係度講緊咩呢==）
# _$ u7 ]! S9 q) l& e3 W而且點解佢會受到長期欺壓? 點解佢又解決唔到呢個問題?
" J" S4 Y& m( K6 [如果係無人幫佢, 咁又會唔會佢個人本身就有問題?( \4 Y/ A9 w: l4 a
有d咩深仇大恨要用到死黎解決? 我懷疑.
+ j% e# o; z" T4 g5 y4 a0 w/ Z' f) q6 H& l1 o- D# k$ E1 u: S0 R1 _
; R/ V+ x: n6 u+ e; a
ps. 被取笑被整蠱, 同精神分裂無必然因果關係, 我覺得

ming8964

當人權和自由成為絕對真理, 犧牲幾個無辜又幾咁閒呀!!!

GTOGTO

通常玩整蠱都係互相* e( b( l+ ^/ h5 F# V2 l
專攻一個人大家都一定有問題