我欲載之空言
北美時事曆史縱橫談
前天拉斯維加斯一個露天音樂會發生了美國曆史上最恐怖的槍擊案，接近六十位受害者死在單一個凶手的自動高速狙擊步槍下，同時還伴隨五百人的受傷。對於這樣的慘案，我本不想多談。一是因為美國的群體槍擊案實在太多，每次還都是一個套路，全國震驚，人民哀悼，默哀一分鍾，大樓下半旗，等等，等等，但無外呼是政客無作為或相互指責一番，最後馬照跑舞照跳，人都麻木了，等待下一次的屠殺；第二，控槍問題是美國社會的熱點，各種深入淺出的大討論無數，我自己也就幾個月前的國會共和黨鞭中槍事寫過控槍的討論，可以說該說的道理都說盡了。不過你是左是右是川粉或共和黨粉或NRA粉，這次麵對幾十上百死者傷者的鮮血和冷血殺手自動武器居高臨下突突突的掃射，如果還是沒有反思，那再講更多的道理也是多餘。
雖說如此，我還是在昨天的首頁上看到一篇實用妙文《遇到大規模槍擊如何自救》，忍不住拿來分享品味。作者自稱是在天安門64事件中槍林彈雨過來的，我先向您遙相致敬！任何一位當年在中國那場轟轟烈烈的民主運動中經過這個戰陣的人，都值得曆史的紀念。作者的親身經曆讓他學會聞聲而知凶險：如果槍身嘹亮，就說明子彈是奔您來的，趕緊趴下捂腦袋；而如果是開啤酒一樣的砰砰聲，那就是子彈在往別的方向跑，趕緊站起來逃命。要說這個指南夠有幫助了，但還是有淳樸的網友打破沙鍋問到底：就算平射可以預判，從32樓居高臨下射來的子彈，如何是好？
對於這個艱深的問題，可能連作者也沒有好答案，其實要我說這個問題早在15年前就有高人給出了答案。據說文學城網友大多是40-60這個年齡段的人，也許大家不少人聽說甚至經曆過2002年著名的“華盛頓狙擊手案件”（DC Sniper）。當時兩個神槍手在隱蔽中遠距離居高臨下對無辜的路人打冷槍，在短短三個星期的時間內打死10人，猜猜他們用的什麽武器？您猜對了，凶器就是所有冷血殺手的首選，半自動攻擊步槍AR-15。本次的賭城殺手steven paddock射殺59人傷五百，James Holmes在科州電影院發射一百發殺12人傷58人，加州ISIS親友團雌雄雙煞殺14人；奧蘭多的Omar Mateen使用最先進的可隱藏的“二代”AR，殺49人；最令人心碎絕望的康州NEWTOWN小學，瘋子Adam Lanza，5分鍾內打掉150發子彈，屠殺20名小學生和他們的老師，這樣精準的大殺傷力步槍是他們的最愛。
當年這個恐怖事件讓美國首都人心惶惶，生怕高速上加個油就被開了瓢兒。於是就有彈道達人，安全權威，上電視獻身說法心諄諄教導，給我的印象非常深刻，比如他們的一個建議是大夥走路不要走直線而要走“之”字形，英語叫zig zag，或者在正常行走時候突然來個神出鬼沒的急轉彎大回環，這樣子彈就算長眼也奈何你不得了。我不禁感歎，槍林彈雨之下，人民群眾的智慧是無窮的。
但是對這種智慧人民不領情反而一肚子悲情：你看看美國社會的槍支泛濫，都把孩子逼成啥樣了，路都不能好好走了，要學螃蟹！這叫解決問題治標不治本。昨天共和黨議長泡卵就賭城槍擊出來講話，又把什麽用救治神經病立法來防止槍擊的屁話巴拉罷拉重複了一遍，我感覺這和通過學螃蟹走路來防止中彈一樣的愚蠢。神經病自古就有，現在有，將來也不會少，但是神經病能在社會上堂而皇之合法買槍的，也就美國獨一份了吧？嚴格控槍，特別是象AR-15這樣威力大精度高並極易自動化的攻擊性武器，世界大多發達國家都能做到，比如歐洲的英法德，加拿大，澳洲，為什麽美國做不到？
再回到64天安門事件，現在有一個說法“中國老百姓如果能夠自由持槍，根本不會有64屠殺，生活在自由社會是有代價的”！ 64事件最初的說法是死了三千人，近年來數字慢慢下降到三百人，但是美國一年中死於槍口之下的就有三萬人，這個“自由”的代價也太大了吧？我眼前不禁浮現出一個假想國，那是一個到處充滿了仇恨和槍戰的社會，wild west, 絕對自由，可是大家為了躲避冷槍，隻好聽從專家，在大街一個個走斜線，急轉彎，或者拿大頂，翻跟頭。這場麵，往好了想，象武鬆打醉拳，往壞了想，象walking dead裏那些跌跌撞撞摸爬滾打的僵屍吸血鬼。
我們不要生活在專製的社會，我們也不要生活在一個瘋子的社會。
What you wrote befits your ID '女流之輩' incapable of logical analysis. "您的英文我研讀了若幹遍仍不明就裏" Well, you should heed the admonition of your idol cng and better your skill of being a docile "guest" of this great country. The first step is to improve your English comprehension skill by taking a community college English as a Second Language class.
"Leave for God sake"? 黔驢窮其技，以潑婦罵街充數。
That is all you have left for your argument, parroting these racial (it is the Chinese American you have been talking about all along) epithet the likes of "go back to your country" and "go back to where you come from", isn't it? It is either some really pathetic last straw in your desperation for any comeback or a Freudian slip betraying your deep seated racial inferiority complex.
Apparently you have nothing to counter my argument except these irrelevance, self-contradiction and fulmination.
The only difference between a naturalized US citizen and born one is the qualification to be the President of the United States. How is that relevant to the duty of each citizen to support and defend the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment that each of us, you yourself included, has sworn his allegiance to? Irrelevance of your argument aside, even on the point of qualifying for being President, you are contradicting yourself. You are talking about Chinese Americans, that include the native born Chinese Americans. Are you stripping their rights to qualify as the President, because they are born "guests"? If this is not blatant racism, what is? That really goes where with "leave for God's sake", doesn't it?
And "guests"? You are out of your senile mind. By what power do you have the gall to relegate some citizens to second class or third class? Let me remind you --- in case you have forgotten the lessons you learnt when you applied to become a citizen of this great country ---
once someone swore his allegiance to the CONSTITUTION --- capitalized in case you can see this solemn word ---- becomes a citizen, he is the rightful master of this great country. The President and other government officials are public servants serving at his, the master's, pleasure. Each citizen has the rightful duty to ensure the government and its officials toe the line of the Constitution!
老兄最後一句話真是絕了。
To make it even clearer, I excerpt here the oath you took up when you became a citizen of the United States of America, by choice, I hope, to remind you your duty of being a citizen of the United State of America: I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. You are not swearing to support and defend the government of the US, but the Constitution. Doing otherwise, is as you say, treasonous. Surely it is our duty to ensure the government is acting in accordance with, not against, the Constitution. The threat to overthrow tyranny with arms is one essential means to keep the government in line with the Constitution.
@cng:
Are you talking about Chinese American or Chinese in general, including the Chinese in China? Your article and comment are confusing.
Judging from your response, you are talking about Chinese American. OK, let's talk about Chinese American then. Your argument still does not stand. Have our ancestors and contemporaries, in China, not suffered from tyrannies enough, from the likes of Qing dynasty and the Chinese communist party? Tyranny is tyranny wherever it is. In fact, it is all the better when tyranny is somewhere else than where you are, and some time else than when you are, so you have the luck to study and observe the horror from afar and think of ways to prevent it from taking place here and now.
Being a US citizen by choice, is to choose and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, the foundation of this union. In case you have not done your homework when taking up your citizenship and read the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, I excerpt it here especially for you "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In case you do not know what the word treason means, I will spell it out for you. Blatantly violating the Constitution is the very definition of treason.
Sure, most people abhor violence. There is unfortunately evil nonetheless in this world. There are people who think nothing of using violence. The Las Vegas massacre is a case in point. I do not think you are na?ve enough to think otherwise. There is always a tendency for government to overstep its bound. To make the union “more perfect” as you say, we need to use peaceful means. But all you have is toothless complaints and words, you are one weakling worthy of no respect. Peaceful means is a means only when it is backed up with credible threat of violence ensured by the possession of arms. Otherwise, the government will think nothing of trampling your rights and the Constitution will be but one toothless parchment. Indeed, “overturning ‘tyranny’by violence is the last thing you should even think of”. It will be the last resort, a credible and essential resort nonetheless.
Now, singling out the Chinese American citizens for divest them of the right conferred by the US Constitution because of some cockamamie excuse regarding their ancestry is by defintion 1) treasonous 2) racism.
cng 發表評論於 2017-10-05 12:34:17
回複 '零不是數' 的評論 : “說槍殺人的,為什麽不控製人呢”
人無法控製，思想自由，人有當神經病的自由，但是不該有掃射他人的自由。
你說的是2012年的Sandy Hook. 不是有人說那是假的嗎，我們的糊塗老川還讚過那人呢!
許多人活在Alternative universe, 連事實都不承認，或不敢麵對，控槍何其難!
如今凶手用bump stock殺人59，GOP,連NRA現在都不得不同意禁止BUMP STOCK，早知今日，何必當初？
人類是如此愚蠢，隻有看到同類被屠殺才會清醒一點？
"華人祖上沒有奴隸主，跟著起哄擁槍反抗暴政，是屬於被洗腦而不自知。" Are you serious? Are you saying slavery is the only source or cause of tyranny? The Qiang dynasty, the Chinese Communist Party are not examples enough? "被洗腦而不自知" You must be talking about yourself.
美國曆史上擁槍反抗“暴政”,有兩次，第一次，奴隸主要從英國獨立，成功了，第二次，奴隸主保衛自己私產，失敗了。由於這個曆史原因，白人右派手裏沒大殺傷武器，不踏實，可以理解。
華人祖上沒有奴隸主，跟著起哄擁槍反抗暴政，是屬於被洗腦而不自知。
人無法控製，思想自由，人有當神經病的自由，但是不該有掃射他人的自由。
說到點子上了，夏威夷控槍最嚴，槍死率最低，為啥？海外孤島，非法運槍不易。
Voiceofme的回複就是很好回應。不滿意就走？你以為是在農貿市場買菜呢，入籍宣誓怎麽宣的？
極右派的觀點是：持槍自由，不能禁槍。包括極右派的共和黨人，還有步槍協會，軍火商等利益集團。
但是，現實問題是，已經在民間的幾億條槍怎麽辦？如果沒有一個合理可行的辦法處理這些槍，一切禁槍的主張，都像是不經思考的夢話。
禁槍的主要問題是：如果壞人有槍，而好人沒有槍，那好人就是任人宰割，毫無還手之力。這是大眾考慮的問題，而政客們富豪們因為有保鏢，不需要考慮這些。
不久以前，主張禁槍的CNN女主播，在旅館被黑歹徒持槍搶劫，甚至麵臨強奸和殺害的危險。多虧了有持槍證冰攜帶槍支的丈夫拔槍反擊，不但救了女主播，而且打死了歹徒。從此以後，女主播公開說，誰再跟她提禁槍，她就直接開罵。
可能走中庸之道比較可行：嚴格審查購槍資格，嚴格打擊軍火走私，嚴格打擊黑市買賣，嚴格控製和追蹤槍支（給每一把槍都上GPS跟蹤裝置），特別是大火力和大殺傷力的槍支。
其他一些考慮：提高槍支的價格，加上智能化追蹤，甚至給每一條槍加指紋驗證，必須是槍主才能使用。
芝加哥今年已經槍殺500多人了(十倍於這次,大家都麻木),有幾個破案?判死的為零(伊州沒死罪).
控製槍會有效果,但最近提出來的具體的任何一條立法對那一年三萬多人都是隔靴搔癢.全麵禁止不可能.
下一篇討論下這個。
================================
這類的局部禁槍用處不大，因為太容易把槍從一個城市偷運至另一個城市。真正起作用的是全國禁槍， 畢竟從海外偷運要難得多了。
比如 槍不殺人，是人殺人。 沒有槍，人是不能這麽大規模殺人的。 再說既然人是無法控住的，為啥不控製槍呢？
比如擁槍可以反暴政。 即使民眾擁槍， 也無法和國家這個龐大的機器抗衡。槍能對付坦克？原子彈？
同意你說的， 人都麻木了。成家常便飯時，人們連震驚都沒了。