loveless

我諗好多人都冇認真睇過second amendment.
Person, persons, people. People 係collective body, 唔係個人。

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

我唔太識英文，但Right to bear arms之前，好似有條件。

loveless

引用:

原帖由 derp 於 8-11-2017 00:33 發表



呢個爭議點打到上聯邦法院上訴庭: US v Timothy Joe Emerson 270 F3d. 203 (5th Cir. 2001) 係個個案例入面, 上訴法院深入分析唔同學者對第一句既理解, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the se ...

Just my 2 cents. Many a time American people sit on the shoulder of giants, and just freely fuxk up. eg.since as a person, given the rights to bear arms, for a just course, to protect freedom and against tyranny as such, then why can't I buy a combat weapon resembling what soldiers have? Or a guided missile at that?

loveless

引用:

原帖由 derp 於 8-11-2017 10:03 發表


fair enough, reductio ad absurdum. 任何一種論點推到極端, 都只會變成荒謬. 我諗到底第二修正案係指個人定係集體, 定係係一個集體裡面既個人, 先有權利"葵"帶及擁有槍械 -- 以及係乜野槍械 -- 都係一個大家都不 ...

即係可以變.
亦變過.
亦可以再改變.