【新唐人2012年12月18日訊】美國校園槍擊慘案再度引發了全美公民對於槍支問題的關注和討論。在中共《央視》等各大媒體的大肆報導下，少數中國民眾開始對美國政府「不禁槍」表示不理解。但很快，網民們得出一個令自己驚訝的結論：美國不禁槍是因為，美國政府賦予美國人民推翻暴政的權力。
1789年，美國政府為了防止出現手無寸鐵的人民，面對政府軍隊的鎮壓，束手無措，因此，在美國憲法第二修正案中規定：「人民持有和攜帶武器的權利不受侵犯。」當政府已經不再代表人民利益時，人民有權拿起槍推翻它！這條規定使得美國人民,對於保護自己的私有財產和土地信心大增。
美國華府人權律師葉寧：「如果這個政府濫權，其它的手段都不能使得濫權的做法改變的話，那麼人民就有權推翻這個政府，這樣的話就有必要使得人民擁有武裝自衛的權利，那麼在這個意義上，美國憲法第二修正案提出來的時候，根據的就是這樣一個政治哲學。」
實際上，美國人民從來都不願意放棄擁有槍支的權利，甚至可以說，美國民眾是愛槍的，他們認為槍不是一種工具，而是一種權利，而禁槍則是在剝奪他們捍衛自己私人財產和自由的權利。所以即使發生康州校園槍擊慘案，4萬多名美國網民聯名請願，也只要求美國政府頒布法案嚴控槍支，而不是禁止槍支。
多數美國民眾認為，槍雖然有可能危害社會，但罪犯畢竟是少數，為了這少數的人，剝奪更多人的權利，才是不可理喻的。美國歷史上有多位總統被槍殺，美國政府也只是出臺一系列加強槍支管制的法案，依然沒有剝奪美國人民擁有槍支的權利。甚至在槍擊案中大難不死的前美國總統里根，也是反對加強槍支管制的一員，在他眼中更重要的是人民的利益。
葉寧：「人權宣言當中指出，為了使人民不至於鋌而走險，（如果）最後使用武力來推翻政權，那麼人權就必須得到尊重，有這麼一個規定，那麼所以在這個意義上，美國禁止人民擁有槍支的權力，是很難改寫第二修正案的這種憲法性的規定，最多只不過在對槍支的管理會加上一些更加嚴格的規定。」
美國人有種說法叫：「槍不殺人，人殺人」。因此很多人認為，道德淪喪和信仰的缺失，才是造成犯罪激增的根本原因。
葉寧：「美國還有另外一種說法，就是說很多美國人認為兇殺案件，他不是武器造成的，兇殺案件是罪犯造成的。」
槍可以用來殺人，也可以用來抵抗。為甚麼在美國聽不到強拆、強佔土地的案件，因為美國公民的私人領土受到侵犯的時候，他們可以開槍捍衛。
所以，美國允許公民持槍，是為了保證公民的兩個自由：一是推翻暴政和抵抗侵略的自由﹔二是免受不法侵害的自由。
如果美國政府因為出現槍殺案而禁槍，那麼中共政權是不是應該禁止所有的刀具呢？
儘管中共媒體大肆宣揚美國槍支自由給社會造成了危害，但「美國為甚麼不禁槍」的理由，喉舌媒體卻只字不提。
葉寧：「中國的領導者對他統治下的人民是絕對不放心的，他絕對不允許給中國人民武裝的權力，在中國如果人民擁有槍支的話，我想共產黨的天下是坐不穩了，所以牽扯到這樣核心利益的情況下，中國是絕對不會允許老百姓擁有槍支的權力。」
葉寧還指出，只有民主國家的百姓才有持槍的權利。美國政府對於統治這個國家，有一種長治久安的基本信心，這種信心來源於對法制的保障，和對人權的尊重。
採訪/陳漢 編輯/張天宇 後製/王明宇
Why The U.S. Does not Issue Gun Bans?
The the recent campus shootings in America,
public concern and discussion was provoked over the lawful possession of firearms.
China’s CCTV reports lead many Chinese people
to be confused about the absence of “gun ban” in America.
However, Chinese netizens soon come to a conclusion that
the U.S. government does not issue a gun ban because
the government protects people’s rights to overthrow tyranny.
In case American people might face government suppression
without weapons to fight back,
the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution of
1789 prescribes,
“The rights of the people to keep and carry weapons
should not be violated.”
When the government no longer represents the interests of the
people, people have the right to take up guns and overthrow it!
This provision greatly enhanced people’s confidence
in protecting their private properties.
Ye Ning: (human rights lawyer in Washington D.C.)
“If a government abuses its power and there is no other way to
stop it, then people have the right to overthrow the government.
Therefore, it is necessary for people to have
the right of self-defense with arms.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
is thus based up on such a political philosophy.”
In fact, American people have never been willing to
give up the right to possess firearms.
Instead, they even love guns, not as tools, but as a right.
A gun ban would be the deprivation of their right
to defend their private property and the right to freedom.
Even when the campus shooting massacre in Connecticut
caused over 40,000 internet users to petition,
what they ask is only that the U.S. government enact laws
to strictly control guns, rather than to prohibit the use of firearms.
Most Americans believe that although guns could be harmful,
the criminals are only a minority of society.
It is incomprehensible to deprive people’s rights to a gun
just because of these criminals.
In the history of the United States,
a number of presidents were assassinated,
but the U.S. government only introduced a series of bills
to strengthen gun control, without ever issuing a gun ban.
Even former President Ronald Reagan,
who survived an assassination through shooting, opposed strengthening a gun control.
In his eyes, the interests of the people were more important.
Ye Ning: “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” says,
human rights must be respected,
so that the people will not take the risk to
overthrowing a regime by force.
In this sense, it will be very hard for the United States to issue
gun bans against the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
It can only add some more stringent regulations
over the use of firearms.”
There is a saying in America that “Guns do not kill people;
people do.”
Many people believe that the moral decay and
lack of faith is the cause of the gun-crime surge.
Ye Ning: “Another saying goes, homicide cases
are not caused by weapons but by criminals.”
Guns can be used to kill, but also protect.
Why do we not hear about forced demolitions in the U.S.?
When private properties are violated, the U.S. citizens have
the right to defend themselves with guns.
So the United States allows citizens to possess guns
in order to ensure two freedoms:
freedom to overthrow tyranny;
and freedom to resist unlawful infringement.
If the U.S. government issues gun bans because of gun crimes,
would the Chinese Communist regime ban all knives?
Despite CCP mouthpiece media’s exaggeration on the harm of guns,
they never explain why the United States does not issue gun bans.
Ye Ning: “China’s leaders cannot trust the people
under their rule.
They would never allow the people to possess guns
in China. If they do, I believe CCP’s rule would be unstable.
Under such a situation, CCP would absolutely
not allow its people to possess firearms.”
Ye Ning also pointed out that only in democratic countries do
people have the right to possess arms.
The U.S. government has the confidence to rule this country,
and the confidence comes from respect for rule of law and human rights.