如果美国宣战，奥巴马会多任一届吗

该用户已被禁言

我为eg狂 发表于 2016-6-14 07:17
受教了，但唯独禁枪一说不敢苟同。你认真看过新闻的话会发现袭击者是一个准军事人员，他可以通过一些合法 ...

不是准军事人员，而是持枪保安。另有传言此人有***党籍，但没有确定报道。

另外，我给你提的这个“禁枪”（不是指全禁，而是加强管理）的说法，也正是希拉里回应该案的说法。。

加强***管理在这个问题上是相对务实可行的做法，而禁止msl入境这个。。

jsfjm

美国人还是要枪的，房子全是木头合板，一把斧子就入室抢劫了，没枪震慑不住

aivyboy

jsfjm 发表于 2016-6-14 14:51
美国人还是要枪的，房子全是木头合板，一把斧子就入室抢劫了，没枪震慑不住 ...

在美国，屋主是不是可以合法随意击毙非法闯入者？

jsfjm

aivyboy 发表于 2016-6-14 15:23
在美国，屋主是不是可以合法随意击毙非法闯入者？

必须可以，感觉所谓夜不闭户全部是建立在合法持枪的基础上。
美国不是城里几乎都看不到砖房，大多数两层小楼就一面砖墙，拿一根大棒就能砸个口子，龙卷风一吹就完蛋

该用户已被禁言

aivyboy 发表于 2016-6-14 15:23
在美国，屋主是不是可以合法随意击毙非法闯入者？

理论上并非如此。

参见。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

节录：
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law, themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.