ADM-201 dump PMP dumps pdf SSCP exam materials CBAP exam sample questions

拥有枪支是对的吗 – 译学馆
未登录,请登录后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

拥有枪支是对的吗

Is Gun Ownership a Right?

美国公民是否应该拥有宪法所支持的枪支使用权利?
Does an American citizen have a Constitutional right to own a gun?
第二修正案所述:纪律严明的民兵是保障自由州的
Here’s whattheSecondAmendment says: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to
安全所必需的 人民持有和携带武器的权利
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
不可侵犯
shall not be infringed.”
此外 这一度于我而言就像是这句话只是保护国家武装力量的而不是个人
Now, it once seemed to me like that language only protected state militias and not individuals.
实际上 这个观点是由四个不同的最高法院大法官对2008年
Indeed, this is the view held by the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the 2008
哥伦比亚特区诉黑勒案的案件提出的这对于解决枪支问题具有里程碑意义的案件
case of District of Columbia versus Heller, a landmark case dealing with gun ownership.
随着我调查的深入 我越发认识到我最初的观点是错误的
But the more research I did, the more I came to realize that my initial view was mistaken
那些国父们实际上是在保护个体的权利
and that the Founders were, in fact, securing an individual right.
曾参与哥伦比亚特区诉黑勒案的五位大法官对持枪投了支持票
The five justices who voted to affirm the right to own a gun in DC versus Heller
说真的 他们做了正确的决定
had, indeed, made the correct decision.
现在我们再来看看修正案
Let’s look at the amendment one more time.
纪律严明的民兵是保障自由州的安全所必需的
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
人民持有和携带武器的权利不可侵犯
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
首先 我们该关注到“人民的权利”这个词语
We first need to focus on the phrase “the right of the people.”
请注意 这里指只有人民的权利是被保护的而并不是民兵组织
Note that the people are the only ones whose right is secured here, not the militia
或者国家政府
or a state government.
“人民的权利”一词在这宪法中出现过几次
This phrase “the right of the people” comes up a few times in the Constitution.
例如 修正案的第一条提到:人民和平集会
For example, the First Amendment refers to “The right of the people peaceably to assemble,
和向政府请愿的权利不可剥夺
and to petition the Government.”
以及受第四条修正案保护:人民权力受保护
And the Fourth Amendment secures “The right of the people to be secure…
不受无理搜查和扣押的权利 且不得侵犯
against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
如果修正案的制定者如此重视人民的持枪的权利
Why, then, if the authors of the Constitution felt so strongly about “the right of the people”
那他们为什么要提到“纪律严明的民兵”呢?
to own guns, did they include language about “a well-regulated militia”?
该修正案的开放性语言可以被称为正当性条款
These opening words of the amendment might be called a “justification clause.”
这样的条款常常被用来解释为什么某个权利是被保护的
Such clauses are used to help explain why a right is being secured.
但是它的生效性条款只是解释了什么权利被保护
But it’s the operative clause that explains what right is being secured.
在这种情况下 就是人民拥有持枪的权利
In this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
那么 这里的民兵组织一词又是什么意思呢
And what was the word ‘militia’ understood to mean at the time?
在1792年的民兵组织一词指的是18岁到45岁的男性白人
Well, the Militia Act of 1792 defined “militia” to mean all white males 18 to 45.
当然 在今天民兵会包括妇女和所有种族
Today, of course, “militia” would include women and people of all races, but it was
但它确实不是指小规模的国家保卫队
clearly not a reference to a small, National Guard-type group.
那为什么修正案中要提到 民兵
And what about the part of the amendment that says a militia is necessary
对美国的安全是必要的呢
“to the security of a free State”?
对此 个人持枪反对者就会问:个人持枪权
What, the opponents of personal gun ownership ask, does a personal right of gun ownership
跟这个有什么关系?
have to do with that?
历史的背景还是最关键的地方
Again, historical context is key.
在1790年 自由的州一词并不是被用来表达独立个体的州
In the 1790s, the phrase “free State” wasn’t used to mean an individual state
就像纽约和罗德岛周一样
like New York or Rhode Island.
而是我们今天所称的自由的国度——没有专制的国家
Rather, it meant what we’d call today a “free country”—a nation free of despotism.
制宪者们想要美国成为一个自由的国度
A “free State” is what the Framers wanted America to be.
他们把武装的市民作为对冲反抗专政的力量
They saw an armed citizenry as, in part, a hedge against tyranny.
拥有武器装备的市民能够保护他们自己 防止自己免受专政阶级压迫
Citizens who own weapons can protect themselves, prevent tyrants from seizing power,
以及保护国家免受国外军队的侵略
and protect the nation from foreign enemies.
但这并不意味着这权利是没有限制的
This does not mean, though, that this right is unlimited.
例如人们自由的言论长久以来都服从于一些有限的合理的规则
Free speech, for example, has long been subject to some narrow and reasonable regulations.
对拥有枪支的严格限制就如严格限制自由言论一样
But severe restrictions on owning a gun, like severe restrictions on free speech,
正如制宪者们所理解一样这将会违背第二修正案
would violate the Second Amendment as the Founders understood it.
可能你会认为今天对第二修正案的理解已经过时了
Maybe you think this understanding of the Second Amendment is outdated today, that the
宪法需要根据公众态度的改变而改变
Constitution needs to change as public attitudes change.
法律中也有允许这样做的条款:如果公众的态度已经
The Founders included a provision for doing just that: if the public attitude really has
改变 宪法也可以根据人民的改变来进行改变
changed, the Constitution can be amended to reflect that change.
但是 讽刺地是 即使我们关注当前公众的态度
But, ironically, even if we focus on current public attitudes, the case for individual
个人拥有枪支的案件却比之钱更甚了
gun ownership is as strong as ever.
民意调查一度显示超过三分之二的美国人认为
Polls consistently show that over two-thirds of Americans believe that the Second Amendment
第二修正案保护人民拥有枪支的权利
secures the right of citizens to own a gun.
这几十年来 国会和白宫不断地重申这个观点
And Congress and state governments have repeatedly reaffirmed this view, including in recent decades.
所以 第二修正案真的保护个人拥有枪支的权利吗
So, does the Second Amendment secure an individual right to bear arms?
当第二修正案被确定时就已经肯定了
It did when it was written.
这贯穿了美国的历史
It has throughout American history.
同样 直到今天它也一样保护
And it does today.
我是尤金•沃洛克 普拉格大学的洛杉矶分校的法律教授
I’m Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, for Prager University.

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

这段视频解释美国人民是否应该拥有枪支的权利以其制定是历史缘由

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

南槿

审核员

赖皮

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqGBOt32NM

相关推荐