@@watchzerg 我也欢迎讨论，但是请不要双标，你凭什么说一个是“自我修正过程”另外一个却是“自由演绎”呢？立法论述严不严谨这我不跟你争，因为重点是判的那个人是如何去理解，从而延伸出现禁止和解禁两个完全不同的结果。同样的撞了跟没撞，不同的人也会有不同的理解。同样是由判的人的理解去决定对错，你凭什么说一个是“自我修正过程”另外一个却是“自由演绎”呢？另外撞了跟没撞这个案子在过了几年后还有后续的你应该去搜一下。 接着你说了一大堆东西来美化西方丑化中共，如果以美国为首的西方国家没有如口袋罪模糊的条款那我无话可说，问题是美国也有disorderly conduct和breach of the peace这类的罪，这样的话你的那堆大义凛然的表述，究竟在恭维谁的？？
@@mcharlie7829 你给的这两个例子也是要达成相应条件的 A basic definition of disorderly conduct defines the offense as: A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally: (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct; (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons; 这还算是比较清晰吧？主要差别还是不会有一个“其他场景”
還是加拿大的規定簡單直白沒漏洞：RCMP SOR/98-462, Schedule, Part 4, Prohibited Devices, Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 9-1: “Any electrical or mechanical device that is designed or adapted to operate the trigger mechanism of a semi-automatic firearm for the purpose of causing the firearm to discharge cartridges in rapid succession.”
