sovietarmy2012

sovietarmy2012

http://www.kaixian.tv/R1/n729369c7.shtml

Tekkno

It is to protect our constitution rights! The rights to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Lolanto

他朝有日港府禁氣槍
政總都可能有咁場面

潛陣水

引用:

原帖由 Lolanto 於 11-2-2013 22:13 發表
他朝有日港府禁氣槍
政總都可能有咁場面

我覺得會似解放軍蒲頭多D

怒人甲

和平集會，表達意見，佢地都有紀律，又冇上匣

2slow

引用:

原帖由 Tekkno 於 11-2-2013 19:29 發表
It is to protect our constitution rights! The rights to bear arms shall not be infringed!

you're damx right

loveless

引用:

原帖由 Tekkno 於 11-2-2013 19:29 發表
It is to protect our constitution rights! The rights to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Exactly who is taking away your rights?

the Second Amendment reads:
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.

tell me something: by definition then why is it not whthin your rights to keep a nuclear bomb in your garage?

Tekkno

They are taking away my rights by limiting my magazine capacity and banning a certain "style" of weapons.

i remember by definition they are referring "arms" as common weapon used by the military.   Semi-automatic weapons are not even weapons used by military. why should they ban them just because they LOOK EVIL with a plastic pistol grip on it?

loveless

Then why are you not within your rights to walk around with grenades, bombs, portable nukes or maybe a portable congreve rocket for nostalgia's sake ?

better still, what was the purpose and intent for the Second Amendment?
there are only two sentences, a total of 27 words in the Second Amendment,  if we all know our rights so well, then what are the oligations that come with the right?

Tekkno

Well destructive device is another story but tell me, why do you think banning a certain kind of "eveil looking" rifle will solve the current issue?
rermeber only 300-400 people in a year was murdered by long guns. much less than other weapons such as knifes.
I am not trying to argue with you Ching but i just want to know how people on the democratic side thinks

loveless

destrutive devices are what military is about, how is that being another story?
So on one hand you define arms as military weapons, which you so fiercely oppose being taken away from you, yet at the same time you have no ojection to people not being able to walk the streets with bombs and grenades?
btw i'm not politically driven, i don't even know what a democrat is, let alone being one.

still, what was the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment?

tango10

明明是合法擁有的權利, 偏偏被違法的人引致要被奪去, 苦主為此作出示威抗議, 對華人來說是好難理解的!

[ 本帖最後由 tango10 於 12-2-2013 17:04 編輯 ]

潛陣水

引用:

原帖由 tango10 於 12-2-2013 17:03 發表
明明是合法擁有的權利, 偏偏被違法的人引致要被奪去, 苦主為此作出示威抗議, 對華人來說是好難理解的!

同雙非侵占差唔多姐, 明明我地有福利但係又比班"合法"居民奪去, 不難理解