【新唐人2012年12月18日讯】美国校园枪击惨案再度引发了全美公民对于枪支问题的关注和讨论。在中共《央视》等各大媒体的大肆报导下，少数中国民众开始对美国政府“不禁枪”表示不理解。但很快，网民们得出一个令自己惊讶的结论：美国不禁枪是因为，美国政府赋予美国人民推翻暴政的权力。
1789年，美国政府为了防止出现手无寸铁的人民，面对政府军队的镇压，束手无措，因此，在美国宪法第二修正案中规定：“人民持有和携带武器的权利不受侵犯。”当政府已经不再代表人民利益时，人民有权拿起枪推翻它！这条规定使得美国人民,对于保护自己的私有财产和土地信心大增。
美国华府人权律师叶宁：“如果这个政府滥权，其它的手段都不能使得滥权的做法改变的话，那么人民就有权推翻这个政府，这样的话就有必要使得人民拥有武装自卫的权利，那么在这个意义上，美国宪法第二修正案提出来的时候，根据的就是这样一个政治哲学。”
实际上，美国人民从来都不愿意放弃拥有枪支的权利，甚至可以说，美国民众是爱枪的，他们认为枪不是一种工具，而是一种权利，而禁枪则是在剥夺他们捍卫自己私人财产和自由的权利。所以即使发生康州校园枪击惨案，4万多名美国网民联名请愿，也只要求美国政府颁布法案严控枪支，而不是禁止枪支。
多数美国民众认为，枪虽然有可能危害社会，但罪犯毕竟是少数，为了这少数的人，剥夺更多人的权利，才是不可理喻的。美国历史上有多位总统被枪杀，美国政府也只是出台一系列加强枪支管制的法案，依然没有剥夺美国人民拥有枪支的权利。甚至在枪击案中大难不死的前美国总统里根，也是反对加强枪支管制的一员，在他眼中更重要的是人民的利益。
叶宁：“人权宣言当中指出，为了使人民不至于铤而走险，（如果）最后使用武力来推翻政权，那么人权就必须得到尊重，有这么一个规定，那么所以在这个意义上，美国禁止人民拥有枪支的权力，是很难改写第二修正案的这种宪法性的规定，最多只不过在对枪支的管理会加上一些更加严格的规定。”
美国人有种说法叫：“枪不杀人，人杀人”。因此很多人认为，道德沦丧和信仰的缺失，才是造成犯罪激增的根本原因。
叶宁：“美国还有另外一种说法，就是说很多美国人认为凶杀案件，他不是武器造成的，凶杀案件是罪犯造成的。”
枪可以用来杀人，也可以用来抵抗。为什么在美国听不到强拆、强占土地的案件，因为美国公民的私人领土受到侵犯的时候，他们可以开枪捍卫。
所以，美国允许公民持枪，是为了保证公民的两个自由：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。
如果美国政府因为出现枪杀案而禁枪，那么中共政权是不是应该禁止所有的刀具呢？
尽管中共媒体大肆宣扬美国枪支自由给社会造成了危害，但“美国为什么不禁枪”的理由，喉舌媒体却只字不提。
叶宁：“中国的领导者对他统治下的人民是绝对不放心的，他绝对不允许给中国人民武装的权力，在中国如果人民拥有枪支的话，我想共产党的天下是坐不稳了，所以牵扯到这样核心利益的情况下，中国是绝对不会允许老百姓拥有枪支的权力。”
叶宁还指出，只有民主国家的百姓才有持枪的权利。美国政府对于统治这个国家，有一种长治久安的基本信心，这种信心来源于对法制的保障，和对人权的尊重。
采访/陈汉 编辑/张天宇 后制/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When the government no longer represents the interests of the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.
