题目内容
中药材专业市场只能销售( )
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Gun Rights in the US Immediately after the shooting at Virginia Tech University, Americans gathered to mourn the dead. The president and the state governor both hurried there to share the (51) . But the majority of Americans still cling to their right to (52) weapons. Strictly speaking, the US is not the only country (53) gun violence has destroyed lives, families and communities in everyday circumstance. But the US is one of the (54) countries that seems unwilling and politically incapable of doing anything serious to stop it. In countries like Britain and Canada. The government adopted stricter (55) control soon after serious gun violence incidents. US leaders, however, are held (56) by the gun lobby and the electoral system. The powerful National Rifle Association, the major supporter of gun (57) in the US, is too strong for any party to take on. Most Republicans oppose gun controls anyway. (58) the years, the Democrats have found that they can either campaign for gun control or win power, not (59) ; they prefer power. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, firearm incidents accounted (60) nine percent of the 4.7 million violent crimes in 2005. So, although opinion polls show most Americans want stricter gun laws, many don’t want to give up their arms they (61) to protect themselves. Dave Hancock, a Virginia gun lover, is one example. In an interview he said. "If one professor in Virginia incident had been carrying a legal weapon they might have been able to (62) all this." In his opinion, the massacre is an argument for more people to carry, weapons, not fewer. But at the root of Americans’ clinging to the right to bear arms is not just a fear of crime, but a mistrust of (63) , commented UK’s Guardian newspaper. One Virginia resident, who had a permit to carry; a concealed firearm, told the Guardian thin it was (64) American’s responsibility to have a gun. "Each person," he said, "should not rely solely (65) the government for protection.\
TEXT C Moral responsibility is all very well, but what about military orders Is it not the soldier’s duty to give instant obedience to orders given by his military superiors And apart from duty, will not the soldier suffer severe punishment, even death, if he refuses to do what he is ordered to If, then, a soldier is told by his superior to burn this house or to shoot that prisoner, how can he be held criminally accountable on the ground that the burning or shooting was a violation of the laws of war These are some of the questions that are raised by the concept commonly called "superior orders", and its use as a defense in war crimes trials. It is an issue that must be as old as the laws of war themselves, and it emerged in legal guise over three centuries ago when, after the Stuart restoration in 1660, the commander of the guards at the trial and execution of Charles I was put on trial for treason and murder. The officer defended himself on the ground "that all I did was as a soldier, by the command of my superior officer whom I must obey or die," but the court gave him short shrift, saying that "When the command is traitorous, then the obedience to that command is also traitorous." Though not precisely articulated, the rule that is necessarily implied by this decision is that it is the soldier’s duty to obey lawful orders, but that he may disobey--and indeed must, under some circum-stances-unlawful orders. Such has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation. In 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that superior orders would justify a subordinate’s conduct only "if not to perform a prohibited act," and there are many other early decisions to the same effect. A strikingly illustrative case occurred in the wake of that conflict which most Englishmen have never heard (although their troops burned the White House) and which we call the War of 1812. Our country was baldly split by that war too and, at a time when the United States Navy was not especially popular in New England, the ship-in-the-line Independence was lying in Boston Harbor. A passer-by directed abusive language at a marine standing guard on the ship, and the marine, Bevans by name, ran his bayonet through the man. Charged with murder, Bevans produced evidence that the marines on the Independence had been ordered to bayonet anyone showing them disrespect. The case was tried before Justice Joseph Story, next to Marshall, the leading judicial figure of those years, who charged that any such order as Bevans had invoked "would be illegal and void," and, if given and put into practice, both the superior and the subordinate would be guilty of murder. In consequence, Bevans was convicted. The order allegedly given to Bevans was pretty drastic, and Boston Harbor was not a battlefield; perhaps it was not too much to expect the marine to realize that literal compliance might lead to bad trouble. But it is only too easy to conceive of circumstances where the matter might not be at all clear. Does the subordinate obey at peril that the order may later be ruled illegal, or is protected unless he has a good reason to doubt its validity What was the rule implied by the trail of the commander of the guards
A. if there isn’t enough dopamine m your bodyB. what affects muscles all through your bodyC. which cannot be cured yetD. if you have a fixed or blank expressionE. which may be the first symptom you noticeF. what causes Parkinson’s disease A lot of research is being done to find out______.
2009年7月，全国粗钢产量同比增长12.6%。增速比上月提高6.6个百分点；钢材产量同比增长19.4%，增速比上月提高5.4个百分比；焦炭产量同比增长6.3%；铁合金产量同比增长15.1%。钢材出口181万吨，比上月增加38万吨；进口174万吨，比上月增加11万吨。钢坯进口57万吨，比上月增加19万吨。焦炭出口5万吨，比上月增加2万吨。 1～7月，全国粗钢产量31731万吨，同比增长2.9%，增速同比下降6.4个百分点。钢材产量37784万吨，同比增长7.6%，增速同比下降4，1个百分点。焦炭产量19048万吨．同比下降3.5%，上年同期的同比增长为11.3%。铁合金产量1124万吨，同比增长0.8%，增速同比下降16.8个百分点。钢坯进口323万吨，同比增加27.9倍。钢材出口1116万吨，同比下降67.3%；进口988万吨，同比增长1.6%。铁矿砂进口35525万吨，同比增长31.8%。焦炭出口28万吨，同比下降96.6%。 2009年6月，全国钢材产量的同比增长率为( )。
微信支付 
支付宝支付