摘自美国共和党总统参选人罗恩·保罗的《影响我们自由的50个重要议题》枪支管制一章
GUN Control
公民持枪权
The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs.1 The 9/11 terrorist attacks and rising fears about security only made matters worse for gun-control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we should not rely on government to protect us from criminals.
近年来，呼吁枪支管制的运动势头在美国有所减弱。民主党在近年的选举中显然也不再挑起这个议题，因为他们知道提起这一主张会面临政治上的失败。支持颁布新的枪支法的民意减弱，与此同时，越来越多的州采取了允许“隐藏携带”的政策。9·11恐怖主义袭击和公众对于安全日渐增加的忧虑让禁枪派的日子更不好过，因为这彻底唤醒了数以百万计的美国人民，我们不应只依靠政府来保护我们免收罪犯的侵害。
Gun-control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. But that is simply an impossibility. The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Paradoxically, gun control clears a path for violence and makes aggression more likely, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
枪支管制的拥护者告诉我们说，让枪支从社会中消失会让我们更安全。然而，这显然是不可能的。事实是，枪支的制造技术始终是存在的。我们不可能把这个发明抹掉。只要有金属加工和焊接的技术，枪支就会存在，而不管架在守法公民头上的是什么样的枪支法律。那些想要枪，而又不顾法律的人，就会有枪。反讽的是，枪支管制反而会让暴力犯罪畅通无阻，让侵犯更加容易，不管侵犯者是恐怖主义分子，还是政府。
I don’t really believe “gun-free” zones make any difference. If they did, why would the worst shootings consistently happen in gun-free zones such as schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, the antithesis of a gun-free zone. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society. Even if you don’t like guns and don’t want to own them, you benefit from those who do. It is better that criminals imagine they face an armed rather than an unarmed population.
我也不认为所谓的“无枪区”的建议有什么不一样。如果这真的有效的话，为什么那些最严重的枪击案件会不断地发生在无枪的地方，例如学校呢？相反，在枪支和刀具展览会这些有枪的地方，虽然也有事故发生，但我们从没听说过有这些挑衅式、恐怖主义式的枪击事件。需要不断地提醒大家的是，一个拥有武装的社会，确确实实也是一个文明的社会。即使你不喜欢枪支，或者不想持有它们，你也可以从其他持枪者中得到好处。罪犯在犯罪时，他们会担心面对的是有武器的人，这总比他们设想面对的是手无寸铁的人要好。
History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is an extreme case that an unarmed populace was killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it will in fact have to disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founders enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the Second Amendment.
历史告诉我们，种族灭绝是与枪支法相关的一件惨剧。以希特勒为例，他很清楚，为了实行他的“最终解决方案”，解除武装是必要的先行步骤。虽然这是一个人民被自身政府杀害的极端事例，但这表明，一个政府如果想要杀害它统治的人民，它将要首先解除人民的武装，以让他们不能反抗。当人民对政府毫无保留地信赖时，在保障人民，或是孩子安全的幌子下，人民被解除武装终有一天会发生。要清楚，不管是什么政府，不管它一开始是多么的理想，都有走向专制的可能，所以我们的建国者才制定宪法第二修正案，来确保美国人将来享有的自由。（第二修正案内容为：一支训练有素的民兵，对一个自由州的安全实为必要，民众拥有并且佩带枪支的权利不容侵犯。——译者）
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in an economic downturn. I worry that violent crime will rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities grow even more financially strained, the police will be less able or willing to respond to crime.
在我们的国家，我们应非常警惕那些试图让人民放下武器的举动，特别是在经济下滑周期。我担心在未来的日子里，暴力犯罪会猛然增加，而由于联邦和地方政府当局财政的日益紧张，警力不足以或不愿意对犯罪进行回应。
In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue-generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of nonviolent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately, been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people are highly suspect.
在很多地区，当地的警察越来越把精力投入在那些有利可图的活动，例如处罚轻微违反交通规则的行为，没收非暴力的涉毒犯罪分子的财产。你的安全，最终而且永远都是属于你自己的责任，在现在这个时候更是如此。人们拥有保卫自己的天然权利。一个把这权利从人民手中夺走的政府是极度不值得人民信任的。
Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms served as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can ultimately resist tyrannical government.
从希特勒到斯大林，独裁者们都想方设法地想要解除人民的武装，原因很简单，因为手无寸铁的人更容易控制。我们的建国者，当时才刚刚驱赶了英国的军队，深知持有武器的权利同时也是其他权利的守护者。这是在枪支管制争论中双方都经常忽略的一点。只有武装起来的人民，才能最终成功抵御专制的政府。项目组地址：http://pro.yeeyan.org/liberty-defined
版权声明：
本译文仅用于学习和交流目的。非商业转载请注明译者、出处，并保留文章在译言的完整链接。
本译文仅用于学习和交流目的。非商业转载请注明译者、出处，并保留文章在译言的完整链接。
沒有留言:
張貼留言