经济学人：带还是不带 透视美国大选中的枪支问题

AP

AFTER 217 years, the Supreme Court appears finally to have settled one of the most hotly disputed questions in American constitutional law: who has the right to pack heat? The second amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The odd punctuation makes it unclear what this means. Can anyone own a gun, or only those who serve in a militia?经过217年，最高法院似乎使美国宪法条款中最具争议的问题之一得到了最终的解决,这个问题就是到底是谁有权力携带枪支。第二修正案中规定：一支管理完善的部队对自由国家安全是必不可少的，人民拥有武器和携带武器的权力不容侵犯。这句话中的标点符号令人费解，是不是任何人拥有枪支呢？还是只有军人可以拥有枪支呢？

On June 26th, five of the nine justices ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. In DC v Heller, they struck down a near-total ban on handgun ownership in Washington, DC. But they allowed for some restrictions on gun ownership. States or cities may still continue to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons, and “dangerous and unusual weapons” may still be barred. 6月26日，9个大法官中的5个做出判决认为拥有携带枪支是一项个人权利。在DC v Heller一案中，他们实际上是推翻了在华盛顿执行的对手枪拥有权的全面禁令。各州和各城市仍可继续禁止携带隐蔽武器，危险的和非常规的武器也是被禁止的。

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. “That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”“不容置疑的是一些人认为第二修正案已经过时了，因为在我们美国社会中现在军队已经是国家的骄傲，训练有素的警察保障了我们的个人安全，而枪支暴力已经成为一个严重的问题，”法官Antonin Scalia 对大众这样写道，“这可能会引起争议，但不需争议的是宣布第二修正案过时失效不是最高法院的职责。”

Gun-lovers are guardedly jubilant. More lawsuits challenging gun-control laws are now likely. The toughest such laws tend to be in cities, where liberals far outnumber hunters and gun curbs are broadly popular. Some of these will probably fall foul of the new precedent. Shirley Franklin, the mayor of Atlanta, bleakly predicts that litigation will divert resources from fighting crime.

枪支爱好者现在十分庆幸。可以预见将会有更多的挑战枪支控制法的官司出现。枪支控制法最严格的地方都在城市，因为城市里的自由主义者远远超过了猎人，并且控制枪支在城市是比较受欢迎的一种观点。还有很多违背先例的事件会发生。亚特兰大市市长Shirley Franklin悲观的指出这些诉讼案将会把有限的资源从打击犯罪方面转移。

Advocates of gun control, who credit tough gun laws with helping to reduce the murder rate in many American cities, are distraught. They must now try to figure out how to craft curbs that could pass constitutional muster, but it is not entirely clear what these might be.

枪支控制的倡议者们一直认为是严格的枪支控制法才使得美国很多城市的谋杀率降低，他们现在感到忧心忡忡。他们现在需要做的是想办法让枪支控制通过违宪审查，但如今到底该怎么办还不明朗。

The Supreme Court made two other rulings this week that delighted conservatives. It slashed by $2 billion the punitive damages that Exxon must pay for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska 19 years ago, setting a precedent that could curb future pluck-a-number-out-of-thin-air awards. And it threw out a law that freed incumbent politicians from many campaign spending restrictions if challenged by a rich opponent.

最高法院本周还有两项判决令保守人士兴奋不已。一项是Exxon因19年前阿拉斯加的原油泄露事故而必须付给Exxon Valdez 惩罚性破坏赔偿费，最高法院将其金额减少了20亿美元，这也立了一个先例就是对以后随口说说的金额可以大幅减少。第二项判决是对保护现任统治者如果受到一个富裕竞争者挑战可以免收竞选经费花销限制的法律是一个否定。

But it is the gun ruling that will send out the most ripples. Nationally, gun rights are popular, but so are modest restrictions on them, such as background checks to weed out criminals and crazy people, and waiting periods to allow angry people time to calm down. These sorts of restrictions, however, should remain safe from challenge, despite this week’s ruling. 不过，“一石激起千层浪”的还是枪支控制问题的裁决。在美国，人们普遍承认拥有枪支的权利，同时人们也是支持对拥有枪支实行温和的限制措施，比如在购买枪支时要经过背景检查，这样罪犯和精神不正常者就不能拥有，还有愤怒人士必须在平静下来之后才能购买枪支。这些限制措施，应该是不受到本周判决的挑战的。

If the decision reassures law-abiding gun owners that their weapons are safe, it could help Barack Obama, since those gun-owners will feel safe to be swayed by other things they might like about him, such as universal health insurance. But if it reminds them that big-city liberals want to grab their guns, that could hurt him badly. Reporters will pester him about whether he agrees with the decision, and which gun restrictions, exactly, he supports. 如果这个决定令守法的枪支拥有者确信他们的武器是安全的，这对奥巴马是有利的，因为枪支拥有者会感到因为奥巴马具有的某些素质而改变他们的立场是安全的，就比如普遍覆盖的健康保险。但如果这令他们想到大城市中的自由主义者会收缴他们的枪支，将对他们是一个极大的伤害。记者们会不断追问到底奥巴马支不支持这个决定，以及他到底支持什么样的枪支控制条例。

Gun owners are disproportionately (though by no means entirely) white, southern and rural—a group Mr Obama has trouble appealing to. Bill Clinton found it hard enough in the 1990s, despite his charm and similar background. On the stump, he defended his proposal to ban assault weapons by pointing out that you don’t need an Uzi to hunt deer. “I never saw a deer in a Kevlar vest,” he would joke.

枪支拥有者在美国虽然不都是但绝大多数都是白人，生活在南方，生活在农村地区的人，这一群人也是奥巴马很难打动的人群。比尔·克林顿在1990年代也遇到同样的困难，尽管他也和这些枪支拥有者有着相似的背景，并且风度翩翩。在他的巡回演说中，他指出人们不需要一支UZI来打一支鹿，他还开玩笑的说，我从来没有在Kevlar vest看到过鹿。这样来为自己禁止进攻性武器的立场辩护。

Mr Obama finds it tougher to strike the right note with rural whites. Face to face, he is persuasive—he won plenty of votes in rural Illinois when running for the Senate. But this is a national race, and he cannot meet more than a tiny fraction of voters in person. So it is easy for his opponents to paint him as a condescending liberal.

奥巴马发现要打动乡村地区白人选民的心比较困难一些。面对面的来说，他是很有说服力的，在竞选参议员时，他在Illinois州的乡村地区拿到了不少选票。但这次是全国性大选，他能够面对面接触到的选民只有很少的一部分，所以他的反对者要将他描绘成傲慢的自由主义者是很容易的事情。

John McCain, Mr Obama’s opponent, is hardly the gun lobby’s darling. Heretically for a Republican, he favours background checks for those who buy guns at gun shows. But the National Rifle Association (NRA), the main gun lobby, vastly prefers him to Mr Obama. He made a point of going to the NRA’s annual convention last month, where he spoke movingly of a 74-year-old woman who defended her home from a marauder who threatened to set fire to her garage. 奥巴马的对手麦凯恩显然也不能是主张拥有枪支的院外游说集团青睐的人物。不过在共和党内他仍是一个异端，因为他主张对那些在枪支秀上购买枪支的人进行背景核查。不过全国枪支协会，美国主要的枪支拥有者院外游说集团，在奥巴马和麦凯恩之间仍倾向于选择麦凯恩。麦凯恩在上个月参加该协会的年会时发表了一个演讲，他在演讲中动情的讲到一个74岁的妇女是如何对抗一个威胁要防火焚烧车库的暴徒保卫自己家园的故事。

An American’s individual right to bear arms may now be secure. But the NRA still frets that lawsuits blaming gun-makers for the actions of criminals who use their products could bankrupt the industry. The vote-scaring slogans practically write themselves. Read my lips: no new guns!

美国个人携带武器的权利现在是安全了，但是美国枪支协会仍然忧心一些指责枪支制造者导致了使用他们武器的犯罪行为的官司可能是枪支制造业危如累卵。那些威胁选票的口号其实是他们自己的写照：

The vote-scaring slogans practically write themselves. Read my lips: no new guns! 此句不太懂