BBC新闻：奥巴马枪控提案

奥巴马呼吁国会通过枪支管制法US President Barack Obama appeared to fight back tears as he urged lawmakers to vote on gun control legislation that appears to be stalling in Congre ss.美国国会关于枪支管制的立法似乎停滞，奥巴马总统强忍住泪水敦促国会议员通过这项立法。

Speaking in Connecticut where 26 people died in a December school massacre, Mr Obama said citizens must demand action.Opinion polls have shown a majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons an d other gun control measures.But gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, have been lobbying politicians against the bill."The day Newtown happened was t he toughest day of my presidency," Mr Obama said in his speech at Hartford, not far from Newtown, scene of the mass shooting four months ago."But I've got to tell you, if we don't respond to this, that'll be a tough day for me too."Worth fighting for?The Associated Press news agency reports there were tears in Mr Obama's ey es as he described Newtown parent Nicole Hockley, who has said every night she asks her six-year-old son Dylan to come to her in her dreams so she can see him again."If there's even one thing we can do to prevent a father from having to bury his child, isn't that worth fightin g for?" Mr Obama asked, amid repeated standing ovations（起立鼓掌） from the crowd.The Democratic president called for a vote on his three gun legislation priorities - strengthening background checks on gun buyers, limiting the size of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, and a ban on assault weapons.But the US Senate recently ditched the propose d ban on assault weapons and on high-capacity magazines, saying there was not enough support for the measure.On Monday, the pre sident said curbing gun violence was more important than partisan politics."Connecticut, this is not about me," Mr Obama said. "This is not about politics."This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have be en torn apart by gun violence."Eleven parents of young children who were killed in the Newtown school shooting returned to Washington DC with the president aboard his official plane, Air Force One.They are due to lobby members of Congress who have not yet backed the gun control bill.。

奥巴马承认推动控枪法案失败：羞于做美国人(图)
2
奥巴马在10日的问答活动上承认推动控枪法案失败。

美国总统奥巴马当地时间10日对外承认其推动控枪法案失败。

奥巴马说，此时他羞于做美国人，并称作为一名父亲，他担心这个国家不能有效控枪而引发更多的悲剧。

奥巴马说，“我最大的失望在于，美国社会都不愿意采取一些最基本的措施来限制枪支，让这些危险的武器流落在一些会造成难以想象的伤害的人手上。

”
就在奥巴马讲话前不久，美国俄勒冈州刚刚又发生一起校园枪击案，一名青少年持枪射击造成一死一伤。

“我们都需要感到羞愧，”奥巴马说，世界上没有一个地方会发生如此多的惨剧。

据报道，尽管奥巴马政府的控枪议案已经在国会遭到搁置，但白宫官员表示他们仍未放弃这个议题。

2013年，奥巴马签署了23个控枪相关的行政命令，就是为了尽可能地绕开国会而采取一些适度的措施。

奥巴马称，他尊重美国宪法第二修正案所赋予的美国人持枪的权利，但他指责美国步枪协会(National Rifle Association)和部分制枪工厂向国会议员施压，让议员们不懈余力地攻击控枪措施。

“很多议员们都畏惧协会。

”
奥巴马在演讲中称，大部分美国人都支持控枪但缺乏推动的热情，而当美国一个又一个的枪击案发生后，奥巴马表示他作为一名父亲，不明白为什么受害人的家属要遭受这一切。

“为什么？为何我们不能做一些事情来防止这一切发生呢？”。

【BBC 新闻】奥巴马与国会商讨枪控法案2016-06-22Campaigning to the EU referendum in Br itain has been suspended after a member ofparliament was killed in an attack in No rthern England. The Labor MP Jo Cox wa s shot andstabbed outside the library wher e she was meeting her constituencies in West Yorkshire. She'sthe first serving Bri tish MP to be murdered in 25 years. A 52 -year-old man has been arrested.An eyew itness Clarke Rothwell said he shouted 'B ritain First' during the attack. Our politica lcorrespondent Rob Watson have this to s ay about the possible motivation. I think t here's stillconsiderable confusion because despite that eyewitness's accounts that ha ppen, othereyewitness'accounts which in a way muddy the waters whether she abs olutely definitely wasclearly the intended target of her attacker. So I just think, give n one's experience of coveringthese sourc 参考翻译因英国议员在英格兰北部遇袭身亡，“退欧”和“留欧”宣传活动被迫暂停。

奥巴马控枪，“雨过地皮湿”而已作者：陶短房日前，美国总统奥巴马出人意料地宣布，将绕开国会表决程序，通过总统行政命令的形式加大控枪力度。

具体措施包括扩大购枪者背景审查，及加大现行枪支管理立法实施力度等。

所谓“出人意料”，是指此番绕开国会“霸王硬上弓”的姿态。

至于奥巴马有意推动控枪本身则早不是什么秘密：2012年康州新城小学“12·14”枪击血案发生后他就这么说过做过，2013年4月在国会推动七项控枪法案表决时他也这么说过做过，去年12月2日加州圣贝纳迪诺残疾人康复中心枪击案爆发后，还没等案情成因查明，奥巴马就迫不及待大谈“应该采取措施控枪，以免类似事件一再发生”——尽管此后的事态发展表明，那是一起蓄谋已久的恐怖袭击事件，控枪与否都不一定能产生效果。

在美国，这种“共和党谈武装自卫权、民主党谈控枪保平安”的反差一直存在。

奥巴马每次大谈控枪时都不免顺带抨击一番共和党人，而共和党议员们阻挠控枪议案时也不忘挖苦一下政府的无能。

2013年失败的七项控枪法案表决结果出台后，奥巴马曾猛烈抨击共和党的“党派私心”。

如今参众两院都由对方控制，绕开国会以行政命令强推“控枪”，既能显示自己“在作为”，又能凸显共和党“不作为”，何乐而不为？美国是有悠久私人持枪传统的国家，且宪法第二修正案中明文规定“人民拥有和携带武器权利不可侵犯”。

“武装自卫权”深入人心。

每当血案发生，许多普通美国人第一反应不是憎恶枪械，而是迫不及待地去买枪防身壮胆。

2012年几桩枪案发生后，奥巴马力推的“控枪法案”曲高和寡，而原本争议不绝的5个州“开放校园枪禁”地方法规迅速获得通过，提出相似修正案的州更一下超过20个。

这些都表明，“控枪”在美国是个“原则性”的敏感问题，且支持者和反对者同样声势浩大。

正因如此，2013年立法推动失败后，奥巴马一度在此话题上偃旗息鼓，可如今他已再无任何选举压力，通过行政命令绕开国会、各州强推“控枪”，有效果是自己露脸，无效果也无需付出什么政治代价（反正也快退休了）。

奥巴马图森枪击案疗伤演讲辞1月12日，美国亚利桑那州图森举行仪式纪念枪击案遇难者，总统奥巴马拥抱遭枪击受伤女议员吉福兹的丈夫。

图/CFP美国总统奥巴马12日在亚利桑那大学的枪击案受害人悼念仪式上发表了充满感情的讲话，号召全国人民团结在一起，称不能让悲剧再导致更深的分裂。

当奥巴马向听众宣布脑部严重受伤的女议员吉福兹已经第一次睁开眼睛时，全场爆发出巨大的掌声。

奥巴马试图平息枪击案所引起的政治风暴，奥巴马称：“事实是没人确切知道是什么引起了这次惨烈的袭击，没人确切知道什么可以避免子弹射出，没人知道一个暴力、疯狂的人的思想深处到底有什么。

”[演讲全文摘选]每一个遇害者，奥巴马都能说出他们的故事那些失去亲人的家庭，那些遇难者的朋友们，这所大学的同学们，以及今晚聚在这里的公仆，还有图森市乃至亚利桑那州的人们：今晚，我来到这里，作为一个美国人，和你们一样祈祷，也将会与你们站到一起，直到明天。

我难以用言语抚平你们心中突然的被撕裂的伤痛，但我知道：今晚，我们国家的希望在这里。

我们与你们一同为倒下的人哀悼。

我们和你们同样感到悲伤。

而且我们将和你们一样相信，加布丽埃勒吉福兹议员，以及其他活着的枪案受害者们，能够渡过难关。

在上周六的早上，盖比（吉福兹的昵称）、她的同事以及很多她的选民聚集在一家超市外面，行使他们和平集会、自由演讲的权利。

他们践行着民主的中心信条，那是我们的国家创立者立下的——代表人民，把他们的关切带到国家的首都。

盖比将这称为“家旁边的国会”——如同一个不断更新的政府，创立于人民，依靠人民，为了人民。

那样一个典型的美国情景，却被一个枪手的子弹击碎。

6人在周六失去了生命——他们同样代表着美国最好的东西。

约翰M罗尔，亚利桑那州联邦法官，为我们的司法系统服务了近40年，也是这所学校的毕业生。

他的同事描述他是第九区“最勤劳的法官”。

当他路过打算向吉福兹打招呼时，遭遇了枪案。

约翰依然活在他挚爱的妻子莫林、三个儿子及五个孙辈的心里。

Gun control 枪支管制Gun control枪支管制Obama fires the opening shot奥巴马打响美国控抢对策的第一枪GRACE MCDONNELL’S parents gave one of her paintings to Barack Obama. The seven-year-old, who dreamed of being a painter, was shot dead in her classroom last month. The picture now hangs in the president’s study as a reminder to act. Even in a country as ac customed to gun violence as America, the murder of 26 people, including 20 children, in a Newtown, Connecticut school last month was especially shocking. On that day a tearful Mr Obama said serious action was needed to prevent any more tragedies. On January 16th Mr Obama, along with Vice-President Joe Biden, who headed the president’s gun task-force, unveiled the most sweeping gun-control proposals Washington, DC has seen for two decades. Whether they will be implemented or make much difference is another matter.The president’s plan was inspired not just by the children killed in Newtown, but by the more than 30,000 deaths caused by guns every year. Mr Obama announced 23 executive orders, which do not need congressional approval. These include strengthening the system of background checks (which is notoriously ineffective) and providing more support to law-enforcement agencies. Another order seeks to make schools safer by ensuring that each one has an emergency management plan (most of them, including the Newton one, already do).But Mr Obama will need congressional backing for the main part of his plan: a proposal to renew an assault-weapons ban that went into effect in 1994 but expired ten years later. The ban would include, as it did back in 1994, a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, containing more than ten rounds. The trouble is that ban, especially the magazine part of it, proved impossible to enforce.States, meanwhile, have jumped the gun. Andrew Cuomo, New York’s governor and a gun-owner, signed the NY Safe Act on January 15th. The state, which already had strong gun laws, has now banned military-style assault weapons, and has mandated universal background checks, including on buyers of ammunition. Martin O’Malley, Maryland’s governor, is a bout to introduce a sweeping gun-control package which echoes many of New York’s measures. Colorado’s governor has called for background checks for private gun sales, which are currently exempt. Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, wants to limit gun sales to one a month. Of course, one can do quite a lot of damage with one gun a month.Cities, too, are taking a stand. Since the Newtown shooting, more than 100 more mayors have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the 800-strong coalition founded by Michael Bloomberg, NewYork’s mayor.Welcome as these state and city actions are, without federal backup they are not much use. They may also be vulnerable to recision by the Supreme Court. Would-be killers need only cross state lines to places with weak gun laws to get access to weapons. Nor is it clear whether the president’s plan would have pr evented the Newtown massacre. There, the shooter did not have a background check; he used his mother’s guns.Mr Obama faces steep opposition, and not just from congressional opponents: even his fellow Democrat, Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, has indicated that the assault-weapons ban will be a hard sell. While states like New York and California are moving to strengthen gun laws, other states are doing the opposite. Lawmakers in Arizona and Texas, for instance, intend to introduce bills that would loosen gun restrictions. A Kentucky sheriff has said he will not enforce any new gun laws that he deems unconstitutional.Most shockingly, gun sales have soared in recent weeks. In the month since the Newtown shooting 250,000 more people have joined the National Rifle Association, which has vowed to oppose the ban. The group is getting so cocky that it launched a free shooting app this week. For an extra 99 cents, players can use a MK-11 sniper rifle to shoot coffin-shaped targets.枪支管制奥巴马打响美国控抢对策的第一枪格蕾丝-麦克唐娜（音译）的父母送给奥巴马一副由格蕾丝作的画。

奥巴马1月17日在司法部举行新闻发布会，高调宣布自己对情报监控项目改革的决定，以期平息争议、挽回公众信任。

但其决定主要是笼统的改革意向，细则还有待今后数月内由政府部门、情报机构拟定，部分内容更需国会批准。

其要点包括：在对内监控方面，第一，奥巴马提出国家安全局对内电话监听项目开启“转型期”，暂停大规模搜集和存储美国公民电话记录的作法，寻求不由政府来存储这些记录的新方案，并下令司法部长霍尔德和情报部门在3月28日前拟定和上报新方案细则。

第二，他提议国会批准组建一个由专业人士组成的小组，参加美国外国情报监控法庭对秘密情报项目的审批过程，以代表民众保护隐私的呼声。

在对外监控方面，奥巴马承诺，情报监控必须以合法保护美国国家安全为目的，不能出于非反恐等安全需求而监控外国公众，不能对亲密盟友的领导人实施电子监控，以此挽回盟友及国际社会对美国的信心。

但他强调，美国情报机构将继续针对外国政府的情报搜集工作，美国政府不会仅仅因为自己情报工作更高效而道歉。

尽管宣布了一定改革意向，奥巴马在当天演讲中也利用大半篇幅强调，情报监控对后“9·11”时代美国应对恐怖主义等威胁至关重要，自己所要做的绝不是停止这些可以保护美国人安全的监控项目，他也相信审核工作也并未显示出美国情报体系曾寻求违法或触犯公民隐私。

奥巴马也在讲话中再次谴责了“棱镜门”事件告密者斯诺登的泄密行为。

Remarks by the President on Review of Signals IntelligenceDepartment of Justice, Washington, D.C.January 17, 2014At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the “The Sons of Liberty” was established in Boston. And the group’s members incl uded Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. In the Civil War, Union balloon reconnaissance tracked the size of Confederate armies by counting the number of campfires. In World War II, code-breakers gave us insights into Japanese war plans, and when Patton marched across Europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. After the war, the rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence gathering. And so, in the early days of the Cold War, President Truman created the National Security Agency, or NSA, to give us insights into the Soviet bloc, and provide our leaders with information they needed to confront aggression and avert catastrophe.Throughout this evolution, we benefited from both our Constitution and our traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances -- with oversight from elected leaders, and protections for ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a cautionary tale of what couldhappen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers, and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. And in the 1960s, government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. And partly in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against Communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.If the fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands on our intelligence agencies. Globalization and the Internet made these threats more acute, as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence, as well as great good. Moreover, these new threats raised new legal and new policy questions. For while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups on behalf of a foreign power.The horror of September 11th brought all these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement, and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks -- how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists and traveled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities, and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack.It is hard to overstate the transformation America’s intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. Instead, they were now asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.And it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we’ve made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or his funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, and our capacity to repel cyber-attacks have been strengthened. And taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocentlives -- not just here in the United States, but around the globe.And yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach -- the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security -- also became more pronounced. We saw, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a Senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate.Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office. But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties.First, the same technological advances that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. And at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the gov ernment collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against U.S. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique, and the power of new techno logies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.And finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate. Yet there is an inevitable bias not only within the intelligence community, but among all of us who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less. So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate -- and oversight that is public, as well as private or classified -- the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. And this is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillanceprograms after I became President. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale -- not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job -- one in which actions aresecond-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic -- the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails. When mistakes are made -- which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise -- they correct those mistakes. Laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends, the men and women at the NSA know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber-attack occurs, they will be asked, by Congress and the media, why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA and our other intelligence agencies through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation.Now, to say that our intelligence community follows the law, and is staffed by patriots, is not to suggest that I or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution, and while I was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place.Moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, I believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we’ve maintained since9/11. And for these reasons, I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. Of course, what I did not know at the time is that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day.And given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or his motivations; I will say that our nation’s defense dep ends in part on thefidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.Regardless of how we got here, though, the task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require. We need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber-attacks are not going away any time soon. They are going to continue to be a major problem. And for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the American people, and people around the world.This effort will not be completed overnight, and given the pace of technological change, we shouldn’t expect this to be the last time America has this debate. But I want the American people to know that the work has begun. Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. I consulted with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by Congress. I’ve listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates, and industry leaders. My administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolution. So before outlining specific changes th at I’ve ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this process.First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications -- whether it’s to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts. We are expected to protect the American people; that requires us to have capabilities in this field.Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries -- including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures -- are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, and intercept our emails, and compromise our systems. We know that.Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world’s only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities, and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.Second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance and more and more private information is digitized. After all, the folks at NSA and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors. They're our friends and family. They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram, and they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded, and emails and text and messages are stored, and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones.Third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes; that’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer and your smartphone periodically. But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends on the law to constrain those in power.I make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most Americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the crude characterizations that have emerged over the last several months. Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties.The challenge is getting the details right, and that is not simple. In fact, during the course of our review, I have often reminded myself I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents like Dr. King, who were spied upon by their own government. And as President, a President who looks at intelligence every morning, I also can’t help but be reminded that America must be vigilant in the face of threats.Fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me -- and hopefully the American people -- some clear direction for change. And today, I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek tocodify with Congress.First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances; our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies; and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team.Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities, and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities -- including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas, and the Section 215 telephone metadata program.And going forward, I’m directing the Director of Na tional Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General, to annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications, and to report to me and to Congress on these efforts. To ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am also calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.Third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under Section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that’s important for our national secu rity. Specifically, I am asking the Attorney General and DNI to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702.Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on what's called national security letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. These are cases in which it's important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority.I have therefore directed the Attorney General to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite, so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. We will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about theorders that they have received to provide data to the government.This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months -- the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke: This program does not involve the content of phone calls, or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and lengths of calls -- metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.Why is this necessary? The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers -- Khalid al-Mihdhar -- made a phone call from San Diego to a known al Qaeda safe-house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but it could not see that the call was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. And this capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to that effort.In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead -- a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retained for business purposes. The review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.Having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the fut ure. They’re also right to point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.This will not be simple. The review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the otherhand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what is essentially a government function but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability -- all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.During the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advances. But more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work.Because of the challenges involved, I’ve ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of the current three. And I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency.Next, step two, I have instructed the intelligence community and the Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this metadata itself. They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28th. And during this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.Now, the reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. And I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some members of Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters so that we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. Here, I have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. But I agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate, and I’m prepared to work with C ongress on this issue.There are also those who would like to see different changes to the FISA Court than the ones I’ve proposed. On all these issues, I am open to working with Congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forwa rd, and I’m confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every American.Let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas, andfocus on America’s approach to intelligence collection abroad. As I’ve indicated, the United States has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. Our capabilities help protect not only our nation, but our friends and our allies, as well. But our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the United States respects their privacy, too. And the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to know what they think about an issue, I’ll pick up t he phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance. In other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.For that reason, the new presidential directive that I’ve issued today will clearly prescribe what we do, and do not do, when it comes to our overseas surveillance. To begin with, the directive makes clear that the United States only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary folks. I’ve also made it clear that the United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, or race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. We do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. commercial sectors.And in terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, cybersecurity, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion.In this directive, I have taken the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for t he American people to people overseas. I’ve directed the DNI, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop these safeguards, which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information, while also restricting the use of this information.The bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security, and that we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. This applies to foreign leaders as well. Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. And I’ve instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward.Now let me be clear: Our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information。

美国枪支管控的历史及其发展前景探究【摘要】震惊世界的华盛顿枪击案，使人们再度关注美国的枪支管控问题。

美国公民的持枪权有着深刻的历史来源和法律背景，利益集团争斗、党派力量博弈、修宪遇阻使得枪支管控在现阶段困难重重，但通过经济手段已经其他一些技术手段的运用，枪支管控的力度将被提升，可以说枪支管控是历史发展的大趋势。

【关键词】枪支管控；宪法第二修正案；持枪权一、案例导入——华盛顿枪击案2013年9月16日上午8时20分美国华盛顿发生了一起骇人听闻的枪击案。

此次的枪击案不仅发生在美国首都，更发生在戒备森严的军事重地。

在堪称“美国心脏”的案发地海军海洋系统司令部总部大楼，所有人不仅凭证进出，而且要接受多次安检，警戒程度直追五角大楼。

海洋系统司令部总部是美国海军五大司令部之一，共有6万名工作人员。

出事的大楼容纳约3000名员工，除了海洋系统司令部，海军作战部长也在此办公；事发地点距白宫不到4.8公里。

如此高警备级别的海洋系统司令部居然发生枪击案，造成包括枪手在内的13人死亡、14人受伤[1]，不仅令全美甚至令全球为之震惊。

二、案例背后——枪支管控问题此次的华盛顿枪击案再次显示了枪支暴力在美国的泛滥程度，把人们的目光再一次引向枪支管控问题，有望使之前被搁置的有关枪支管控的讨论再成热点。

据统计，美国总统奥巴马上任后已发生19起重大枪击案。

枪击案的频频发生，使人们不得不面对枪支案背后的无法逃避的有关枪支管控的问题。

在美国，有枪的家庭已接近半数，在南部更是高达70%。

美国每年发生的枪杀事件多达100余万起；美国每年有1.5万人死于枪击事件，6.5万多人被枪击伤，另外还有1.5万人左右开枪自杀身亡。

美国人自己也承认，有可能随时遭遇枪击，就是身为总统也难过“枪关”，美国建国之后的42位总统中有8位都是遭遇枪击身亡的。

这些案件里面就包括了震惊世界的大案——肯尼迪遇刺案和林肯遇刺案。

另外，美国人心目中的英雄、民权运动领袖马丁·路德·金也是死于枪杀的。

奥巴马执政最后两年的筹码美国11月4日的国会中期选举以共和党大获全胜落下帷幕。

共和党不仅夺取了参议院的控制权，而且在众议院的多数党席位也进一步扩大。

民主党在2006年掌握了国会参众两院的领导权之后，在2010年奥巴马总统的第一任期内丢失了众议院的控制权，2014年又丧失了参议院的控制权，从而使民主党完全失去了在国会的主导地位。

失去对国会控制权的奥巴马政府在今后两年内如何运作，成为人们普遍关心的问题。

按照美国历史上的常规，美国总统在第二任期内的中期选举中，如果失去了对国会两院的控制权，就意味在剩下的两年任期里，总统将是一个“跛腿鸭”总统，在政策上将无所作为。

当然也有例外，比如美国前总统里根就打破了这个常规，在其最后两年的执政中，以较高的民意支持率结束了其总统任期。

那么，奥巴马最后两年的执政路线图将会是什么？是心甘情愿当一个“跛腿鸭”总统，无所作为，还是作出最后努力，使自己在美国的历史上留下一点“政治遗产”，这应该是奥巴马正在或者说已经认真考虑过的问题。

从奥巴马在中期选举之后的讲话来看，奥巴马对国会新的政治格局面似乎已有心理准备，对今后两年的路如何走似乎也有所打算。

11月5日奥巴马在白宫新闻发布会上说，他不会成为“跛腿鸭”，在今后两年，他会“忙得很”，因为他已经没有寻求连任的包袱与压力，他会努力干好每一天的工作，他的首要目标是“使美国更安全，使更多的美国人分享美国的繁荣“，到他的任期结束时，他会说：“我们的工作做得很好。

”奥巴马还说，他从参加投票和三分之二没有参加投票的选民中获得了信息，“是我们关注发展经济的时候了”。

他说他已与参众两院的共和党领导人通了电话，并向他们表示，他期待在今后两年里与新国会密切合作，共同努力振兴美国经济。

看来，奥巴马在今后两年将把主要精力集中在推动美国经济发展方面，这无疑是一个聪明的选择。

其一，美国经济目前正在出现好转的局面，为振兴美国经济打下了基础。

根据美国联邦储备委员会预测，2014年美国经济增长率可能会达到3%左右。

起底全美步枪协会作者：来源：《新传奇》2018年第10期有人说，步枪协会是运作最成功的美国本土流氓黑社会，连现任总统都不给面子。

要知道，它拥有超过千万的注册会员，与此同时，成员遍布美国政治、社会各阶层，这里面有八位曾经当过总统。

让特朗普“认怂”一直自称为美国全国步枪协会“铁粉”的美国总统特朗普近日上演了一出“变脸”戏码，一度让共和党人不知所措。

2月28日，遭遇校园枪击案的佛罗里达州道格拉斯中学重新开门当天，特朗普突然转变论调，大谈控枪，甚至指责同党人士不敢提高法定购枪年龄是因为“害怕得罪步枪协会”。

在当天的会谈中，特朗普放话道：“他们（步枪协会）对你们有巨大的控制力，他们对我没那么大的力量。

”特朗普甚至要求在特殊情况下，警方应该在得到法院批准前就“提前没收枪支”。

协会的最高级别成员、智库独立研究院的研究主任科佩尔则谴责特朗普“说的每个字都是背叛”。

特朗普本人正是步枪协会成员。

在2016年总统大选中，步枪协会为支持特朗普砸下了3000万美元。

宣誓就职后，特朗普多次在公开场合为步枪协会发声，这次180度大转弯让美国媒体将特朗普的表态视为其想与步枪协会决裂的信号，纷纷要求步枪协会就此作出回应。

随后，特朗普发出推文，宣布自己在椭圆形办公室与步枪协会进行了“很好的会谈”。

对于特朗普最终向步枪协会示好，《华盛顿邮报》认为，出尔反尔这样的事对特朗普来说并不陌生。

八位会员曾当过总统1861年美国南北战争爆发。

论兵力，北方是南方的两倍以上，但一打起来，北军总要付出两倍甚至三倍的伤亡代价，还老吃败仗。

战后北军军官总结认为：不是因为我们无能，而是南方佬太会玩枪——美国南方人自古就有所谓的“持枪游侠”文化。

认识到这一点后，北军老兵中有人跳出来说：我们要让北方人，不，全美国人都学会玩枪。

喊出这一口号的人是威廉·丘奇，战时是《纽约时报》的随军记者。

他四处奔走，筹建步枪俱乐部，拉来了北军名将伯恩赛德当步枪协会的首任理事长。

奥巴马抵达枪击案发生地首站赴医院看望受害者J 奥巴马讲述枪击案中患难与共的故事白宫称当前不考虑修改美国现有枪支管理法律美国奥罗拉举行守夜活动哀悼枪击案受害人(图)奥巴慰问枪击案受害者家属称感同身受一起流泪中新网7月23日电综合报道，美国总统奥巴马当地时间7月22日(北京时间7月23日晨)抵达科罗拉多，探望导致12人遇难、58人受伤的奥罗拉枪击案受害者及其家属。

据报道，奥巴马所乘专机在科罗拉多州落地后，第一站是奥罗拉的科罗拉多大学医院，他在那里看望枪击案受害者及其家属，向罹难者致哀并向幸存者表示慰问。

随后，奥巴马还将和当地官员会晤。

7月20日发生在科罗拉多州丹佛市郊一座影城《蝙蝠侠：黑暗骑士崛起》首映现场的枪击案导致12人死亡，58人受伤。

奥巴马和他的共和党竞选对手罗姆尼都暂停了竞选活动，并取消了在科罗拉多州的竞选广告。

奥巴马已在每周的电台讲话中呼吁，为丹佛枪击案受害者祈祷和反省。

他希望美国像一个大家庭一样团结一心，并承诺将把肇事者绳之以法。

奥巴马20日还下令全美降半旗6天，向枪击案死难者致哀。

这是奥巴马上任以来第二次专程前往枪击案事发地看望受害者及其家属。

2011年1月12日，奥巴马曾飞赴亚利桑那州参加图桑枪击案追悼会，该起枪击案导致6人遇害及包括国会众议员吉福兹在内的13人受伤。

在奥罗拉的行程结束后，奥巴马将于当晚前往加利福尼亚州旧金山，开始为期三天的竞选行程。

这也将是他在20日因枪击事件暂停竞选活动后首次重返竞选征途。

尽管美国民主党历来支持加强枪支管控，但奥巴马被指自其上任以来在控枪方面几乎毫无作为。

在这次科罗拉多枪击案中,他甚至连“枪支”二字都尚未提及。

枪支管制在美国是一个十分敏感的问题，由于美国宪法第二修正案确保了民众持有和携带武器的权利不受侵犯，加上民调显示支持持枪权的民意支持率要高于管制枪支的支持率，特别是“拥枪派”背后有一个强大的组织——全美步枪协会，其会员达到400多万之众，具有极强的游说能力和政治影响力，因此两党总统候选人都不敢轻易谈及“枪支管制”问题。

英语演讲原文：奥巴马演讲为了孩子减少枪支暴力事件的发生奥巴马演讲为了孩子减少枪支暴力事件的发生It has now been three months since the tragic 1 events in Newtown, Connecticut. Three months since we lost 20 innocent children and six dedicated 2 adults who had so much left to give. Three months since we, as Americans, began asking ourselves if we're really doing enough to protect our communities and keep our children safe.For the families who lost a loved one on that terrible day, three months doesn't even begin to ease the pain they're feeling right now. It doesn't come close to mending the wounds that may never fully 3 heal. But as a nation, the last three months have changed us.They've forced us to answer some difficult questions about what we can do—what we must do—to prevent the kinds of massacres 4 we've seen in Newtown and Aurora 5 and Oak Creek 6 , as well as the everyday tragedies that happen far too often in big cities and small towns all across America.Today there is still genuine disagreement among well-meaning people about what steps we should take to reduce the epidemic 7 of gun violence in this country. But you—the American people—have spoken. You've made it clear that it's time to do something.And over the last few weeks, Senators here in Washington have listened and taken some big steps forward. Two weeks ago, the Senate advanced a bill that would make it harder for criminals and people with a severe mental illness from getting their hands on a gun. An idea supported by nine out of ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners.The Senate also made progress on a bill that would crack down on anyone who buys a gun as part of a scheme to funnel 8 it to criminals–reducing violent crime and protecting our law enforcement officers.Finally, the Senate took steps to reinstate（使恢复）and strengthen a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, set a 10-round limit for magazines, and make our schools safer places for kids to learn and grow.These ideas shouldn't be controversial—they're common sense. They're supported by a majority of the American people. And I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote. As I've said before, we may not be able to prevent every act of violence in this country.But together, we have an obligation to try. We have an obligation to do what we can. Right now, we have a real chance to reduce gun violence in America, and prevent the very worst violence. We have a unique opportunity to reaffirm our tradition of responsible gun ownership, and also do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people with a severe mental illness. We've made progress over the last three months, but we're not there yet.And in the weeks ahead, I hope Members of Congress will join me in finishing the job—for our communities and, most importantly, for our kids. Thanks.■文章重点单词注释：1tragicadj.悲剧的，悲剧性的，悲惨的参考例句：The effect of the pollution on the beaches is absolutely tragic.污染海滩后果可悲。

美国枪案何时了？美国政客似乎很不愿意讨论枪支问题。

那些反对枪支管制的人会说，孤立的事件跟枪支政策关系不大。

但是不管怎样，枪支越少，我们的国家就越安全。

这无关宪法第二修正案，而是懦弱的政客把合理的管控措施排除在外。

——《华盛顿邮报》纽敦是美国东北部康涅狄格州一座宁静的小镇，人们很难将这里同震惊世界的枪击案联系起来。

纽敦镇桑迪胡克小学14日发生校园枪击案，造成包括枪手在内的28人死亡，其中有20名是5到10岁的儿童。

这是美国历史上死伤最惨重的校园枪击案之一。

枪支管制话题重返舆论风口浪尖。

美国主要媒体15日都在重要位置大篇幅报道康涅狄格州枪击案，并就此展开激烈讨论。

枪支管制被政治利用,极端个人自由凌驾于社会责任之上美国《华盛顿邮报》在题为“难以想象的悲痛”的社论中说，我们知道老套的一切，但我们还是要为枪支问题，或是为政客甚至都不再讨论的枪支问题进行争辩。

这一社论无奈地表示，包括该报读者在内的许多人认为，枪支政策与个别案件无关，枪击案悲剧不能被用于政治目的。

《纽约时报》的社论题为“在康涅狄格的死亡”。

社论认为，美国共和党人永远不会支持枪支管制。

每次悲剧发生后，一些人都会在网上提出荒唐的建议，称如果每个人都有枪情况会好些。

太多的民主党人生活在对枪支游说团体的恐惧之中，将不会支持禁枪。

奥巴马总统说，他将采取“有意义的行动”，这一天何时到来？1999年在哥伦拜恩发生枪击案后，这一天没有到来。

2007年弗吉尼亚理工大学或今夏在科罗拉多州发生枪击案后，这一天都没有到来。

当我们更多地听到枪支管制的谈论但什么作为也没有时，我们就更不相信这一天能够到来。

《纽约时报》专栏作者罗斯·多塞特曾撰文指出，美国的政治中有一种趋势，基于个人权利的观点总是胜过提倡社会责任的呼吁。

这种趋势是美国人的生活中固有的，在上世纪60年代的社会变革之后更是得到加强。

美国日益增强的个人主义，以及倡导权利的讨论战胜了其他形式的道德和政治观点。

奥巴马每周演讲20130119_是控枪的时候了（中英对照）第一篇：奥巴马每周演讲20130119_是控枪的时候了(中英对照) Now Is The Time to Take Action Against Gun Violence(January 19, 2013)是控枪的时候了(2013年1月19日) Hi, everybody.This week, I announced a series of concrete steps we should take to protect our children and our communities from gun violence.大家好.本周,我宣布了一系列我们需要实施的具体步骤,来保护我们的孩子和社区免受枪支暴力的伤害.These proposals grew out of meetings Vice President Biden and his task force held over the last month with more than 200 different groups – from parents and teachers;to law enforcement and sportsmen;to religious leaders and mental health professionals.出台的这些政策源于拜登副总统和他的特别小组上个月与200多个不同组织的会谈,包括父母和教师,包括执法官员和运动员,包括宗教领袖和心理健康专业人士.And in the weeks ahead, I will do everything in my power to make them a reality.Because while we may not be able to prevent every senseless act of violence in this country, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce it – if even one life can be saved –we’ve got an obligation t o try.在未来的几个星期,我动用总统职务的所有力量,确保举措取得效果.因为我们可能无法避免国内的每一起无意识的暴力事件,但即便我们只有一件事情能避免暴力,即便只有一个生命可以拯救,我们也有义务去尝试避免.My administration is taking a series of actions right away –from strengthening our background check system, to helping schools hire more resource officers if they want them, to directing the Centers for Disease Control to study the best ways to reduce gun violence.我的政府现在正在实施一系列的行动,从加强我们的背景检查系统,到帮助学校雇佣他们需要的保安资源,到指导疾病控制中心研究最优的方法来减少枪支暴力.But the truth is, making a real and lastingdifference also requires Congress to act – and act soon.但事实是,做出一个真正和持久的改变同样需要国会的行动,并且是尽快行动.First, it’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun.The law already requires licensed gun dealers to perform these checks, but as many as 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without one.That’s not safe, it’s not smart, and it’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that anyone trying to buy a gun should at least have to prove they’re not a felon, or someone legally prohibited from owning one.That’s just common sense.首先,国会是时候要求统一对购枪者进行背景检查的时候了.法律已经要求枪支经销商进行这些检查.当大约40%的枪支进货没有被管理起来.这是不安全的,是不明智的,对枪支的买卖双方都是不负责任的.绝大多数的美国人都赞成任何人买枪时都应该至少证明他们不是罪犯,或者不是被法律禁止购枪的.这仅仅是常识.Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines.Many assault rifles, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose and one purpose only: to fire as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible.These weapons have no place in our communities.And a majority of the American people agree with me.其次,国会应该恢复军事化攻击性武器的禁令,禁止超过10发的大容量弹夹销售.许多攻击步枪,和大容量弹夹在一起,有且只有一个目的:尽可能快地发射尽可能多的子弹.这些武器不应该在我们的社区有容身之所.大多数美国人都同意我这一看法.Finally, Congress needs to make it easier, rather than harder, for law enforcement to do its job.We should get tougher on people who buy guns only to turn around and sell them to criminals.And at a time when many communities have been forced to make cuts to their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on the street.最后,国会需要让执法者更容易而不是更不方便的开展工作.我们应该让购枪者不容易将枪支转而卖给罪犯.当我们的许多社区被迫削减警力时,我们应该让警察重新就业,回到执勤的街道.Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.We have a strong tradition of gun ownership in this country, and the vast majority of gun owners act responsibly.像许多美国人一样,我相信第二修正案保证个人携带武器的权利.我们国家有持有枪支的传统,并且大多数持枪者是负责任的.But I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from causing harm on a massive scale.That’s what these reforms are designed to do.但我也相信,大多数持枪者我们能够在遵守第二修正案的同时,保证少数不负责任的违法者造成大规模的伤害.这就是这些改革的初衷.None of this will be easy.Already, we’re seeing pundits, politicians, and special-interest lobbyists calling any attempt at commonsense reform an all-out assault on liberty –not because that’s true, but because that’s how they get higher ratings and make more money.And behind the scenes, they’re doing everything they can to protect the status quo.没有一件事是容易的.我们已经看到权威,政治家,特殊兴趣的说客试图改变常识,实现全面的攻击自由.不是因为这是对的,而是因为这样能提高他们的评级并赚更多的钱.在幕后,他们在竭尽全力维护现状.But this time, it can’t be up to them.It’s got to be up to you.If, like me, you want this time to be different, then I need your help to make it different.Ask your Member of Congress if they support universal background checks and renewing a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.And if the answer is no, ask them why not.Ask them why an A-grade from the gun lobby is more important than keeping kids safe in a first grade classroom.但这次,不能随着他们.这次取决于你.如果像我,你希望这一次变得不一样,那么我需要你的帮助来创造改变.询问你的国会议员,是否他们支持统一背景检查,恢复军事攻击性武器的禁令和禁止大容量弹夹销售.如果他们的回答时否定的,质问他们为什么一个A级的枪支游说团体比让孩子在安全的一年级教室更重要.Since the tragedy in Newtown, I’ve gotten letters from all over the country –including many from our young people.One of them was from 8-year-old Rachel, who lives in Brooklyn, New York.She wrote: “Please do something so that bad people cannot get guns to kill other people.Children should be safe, especially in school.”自从发生纽镇的惨剧,我已收到全国各地的信件,有许多是年轻人寄来的.其中一封来自8岁的瑞秋,她生活在纽约的布鲁克林.她写到:”请做些事情,让坏人不能持枪杀人.孩子们需要安全感,特别是在学校里.”Rachel is counting on us.Let’s get this done for her, and let’s make this country a safer place for all our children to learn and grow.瑞秋正期待着我们.让我们满足他的愿望,让我们这个国家成为我们所有孩子学习成长的安全家园.Thanks, and have a great weekend.谢谢大家,周末快乐.第二篇：奥巴马演讲中英对照Hello，Chicago!If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.芝城父老，别来无恙，余尝闻世人有疑，不知当今美利坚凡事皆可成就耶？开国先贤之志方岿然于世耶？民主之伟力不减于昔年耶？凡存诸疑者，今夕当可释然。

奥巴马又遇控枪老难题作者：来源：《读天下》2013年第01期“纽顿的悲剧发生后，来自全美50个州的成千上万民众签署请愿书，要求政府应对泛滥的枪支暴力。

”奥巴马说，我们听到了你们的呼声。

美国总统贝拉克·奥巴马2012年12月19日任命副总统约瑟夫·拜登牵头研究控枪对策，拜登预计今年1月提出建议，供奥巴马在国情咨文中阐述。

在白宫举行的新闻发布会上，奥巴马说，枪支管控并非易事，“但问题的复杂性再不能成为无所作为的借口。

”枪杀儿童悲剧频生2012年12月14日美国康涅狄格州一所小学发生枪击案，造成至少28名人员丧生的重大伤亡，其中包括20名儿童、7名成年人和凶手本人。

凶手母亲和该小学的校长也在遇难之列。

这起枪击惨案震惊白宫，甚至整个世界。

美国总统奥巴马在白宫简报室对全国发表简短讲话中表示，身为父母，枪击案让自己悲痛万分，他几度哽咽落泪。

美国政府更要求全国降半旗致哀。

国际舆论亦给予高度关注，这起校园枪击案新闻成为了中国中央电视台当日《新闻联播》的头条新闻，再次打破了该栏目多年不变的“先国内，后国际”的惯例，让国际新闻成为头条新闻在《新闻联播》历史上较为罕见。

近年美国重大枪击案层出不穷，类似的枪击案2012年已经发生了8起，死伤人数超过数百。

前不久的12月11日，俄勒冈州波特兰南部一家商场发生枪击案，造成2人死亡，枪手罗伯兹随后饮弹自尽。

事隔不到一周，又一起枪杀儿童的悲剧再发生，引起了民众对枪支管制的又一次巨大争议。

游戏被指新“帮凶”而神奇的是，一出悲剧的背后，竟然能将罪名构建到了电子游戏上，各主流媒体以他们的“偏见”展开轰炸。

英国《太阳报》的头版便用醒目的字体将枪击案的凶手和《使命召唤》挂上了钩，射杀了20名儿童的凶手亚当·兰扎，曾经沉迷过暴力游戏《使命召唤》。

在报纸内页，瞩目的“黑色行动（《使命召唤7》的副标题）堡垒”更是横跨两页，文章介绍这名20岁的枪手在犯案前，喜欢在他母亲房子的地下室里，每天花数个小时沉迷在《使命召唤》这样的暴力游戏中。

奥巴马宣布枪支控制提议U.S. President Barack Obama has unveiled his gun control agenda with a set of controversial proposals expected to start a political fight with pro-gun groups and their supporters.Mr. Obama announced the proposals Wednesday at the White House, joined by relatives of some of the 26 victims of the December 14 school shooting in Connecticut. He has called that day the worst of his presidency, and has warned that congressional action on gun control will resonate with future generations.The proposals include banning assault-style weapons, universal background checks for gun sales, and boosting mental health services. The president also signed 23 executive orders to help give law enforcement and mental health professionals more tools in combating gun violence.But he faces stiff opposition from conservative lawmakers and the nation's largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.美国总统奥巴马宣布了有关枪支控制的日程安排，其中包括一系列有争议的提议，预计这些提议将开始引发与拥枪派组织及其支持者的政治角力。

奥巴马控枪措施演讲译文【原创】Hi, every body. We started We The People so that you could directly petition your government on the matters you care about the most. So that you could make your voice heard.大家好。

我们启动了“我们既人民”行动，以便你们可以直接就你们最关心的事件请求政府解决；以便你们可以让你们的声音被听到。

And in the days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, hundreds of thousands of you from all 50 states have signed petitions asking us to take serious steps to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country. So I just wanted to take a minute today to respond and let you know we hear you.在令人痛彻心扉的康涅狄格州纽顿城悲剧之后的这些天里，你们中有成千上万的人们来自50个州，联名上书政府，要求我们采取严厉的措施应对我国涉枪暴力的蔓延。

所以我今天抽几分钟时间回应一下，让你们知道我们倾听你们的心声。

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. We have got a strong tradition of gun ownership that has been handed down from generation to generation. And the fact is, most gun owners in America are responsible. They buy their guns legally and they use them safely.现在，我和你们大多数人一样，赞同宪法二次修订案对个人拥有枪支权利的保证。

制止xx枪支暴力无效的原因分析近年来，美国的枪击事件频繁发生，校园更是重灾区，许多无辜的学生倒在黑洞洞的枪口下，酿成了一起又一起令人震惊的惨祸。

多年来，历届政府都曾致力于对枪支暴力的打击，但收效甚微，而新政府的执政，也并没有让更加美国安宁和强大起来。

当枪声、爆炸声一次次笼罩着美国民众的心头，岂能获得安全、健康、快乐，又岂能再一次伟大，让美国变得更强、更厉害？为什么？为什么美国枪支暴力屡禁不止？为什么对枪支暴力的打击收效甚微？如果民选选代表，不能从根本上了解枪支暴力的来源，并对此作出正对性的有效措施的话，制止枪支暴力依旧是一纸空谈。

制止枪支暴力，必须从有效的管控枪支做起，然而，这恰恰是美国政治与社会的一大难题。

第一，美国人所拥有的“持枪自由“使得公民获得枪支拥有广泛和强大的政治与社会基础。

美国公民可以自由持有并使用枪支的权利来自于宪法的授予。

《美利坚合众国宪法第二修正案》中明确规定：“管理良好的民兵部队对自由州的安全是必要的，因此，人民持有并携带武器的权利不容侵犯。

”这项修正案的次序仅排在涉及言论、出版、信仰和请愿自由的宪法第一修正案之后，位居第二，由此可见，立法者以及美国公众对自由持有枪支权利的重视程度。

在美国，有多家利益集团长期在国会进行反对枪支管制的游说活动，并在社会上专门从事维护持枪权的宣传等造势活动，它们的活动对联邦政府的决策和国会的有关议案，对最高法院的相关裁决等一直产生着巨大的影响。

其中NRA即全国步枪协会（又称长枪协会）是这些利益集团中势力最大、政治影响力最强、最广的一个组织。

它不仅积极参与政治活动，并且在美国政治中具有举足轻重的影响，是美国反对枪支管制的主要力量。

NRA紧紧抓住持枪自由受美国宪法第二修正案保护这一关键点，形成了一套自身的政治活动理论基础。

例如它宣称“枪不杀人，人才杀人”，“解决枪支暴力的办法是起诉罪犯，解决心理健康问题，而不是管控枪支”，“唯一能够阻止持枪的坏家伙犯案的办法就是给好人都配上枪”等等。