为什么美国不能通过一个高额的“子弹税”，使弹药昂贵到令人望而却步，从而大大减少枪支的使用，而不正式侵犯携带武器的权利？
正文翻译
Why can't the USA pass a high "bullet tax" to make ammo prohibitively expensive and thus greatly reduce the gun use without formally violating the right to bear arms?
为什么美国不能通过一个高额的“子弹税”，使弹药昂贵到令人望而却步，从而大大减少枪支的使用，而不正式侵犯携带武器的权利？
Why can't the USA pass a high "bullet tax" to make ammo prohibitively expensive and thus greatly reduce the gun use without formally violating the right to bear arms?
为什么美国不能通过一个高额的“子弹税”，使弹药昂贵到令人望而却步，从而大大减少枪支的使用，而不正式侵犯携带武器的权利？
评论翻译
Chris Everett
Because we don’t want .
Because “arms” includes ammo.
But why can’t we pass a high tax on keyboards and touchscreens to make stupid troll questions expensive and reduce their use without violating the first amendment?
1、因为我们不想这么做。
2、因为“武器”包括弹药。
但为什么我们不能通过对键盘和触摸屏征收高额税，使愚蠢的钓鱼问题变得昂贵，并在不违反第一修正案的情况下减少它们的发生？
Because we don’t want .
Because “arms” includes ammo.
But why can’t we pass a high tax on keyboards and touchscreens to make stupid troll questions expensive and reduce their use without violating the first amendment?
1、因为我们不想这么做。
2、因为“武器”包括弹药。
但为什么我们不能通过对键盘和触摸屏征收高额税，使愚蠢的钓鱼问题变得昂贵，并在不违反第一修正案的情况下减少它们的发生？
Chris Bast
For the same reason poll taxes are outlawed. A tax designed specifically to prevent the exercise of a Constitutional right is clearly unconstitutional.
出于同样的原因，投票税也是非法的。专门为阻止行使宪法权利而设计的税收显然是违宪的。
For the same reason poll taxes are outlawed. A tax designed specifically to prevent the exercise of a Constitutional right is clearly unconstitutional.
出于同样的原因，投票税也是非法的。专门为阻止行使宪法权利而设计的税收显然是违宪的。
Gregory Jones
We could also pass a high “word tax” to make free speech prohibitively expensive, which would greatly reduce inflammatory or offensive speech without formally violating the right to free speech. Sound good?
我们还可以通过一项高额的“文字税”，使言论自由变得昂贵，这将大大减少煽动性或攻击性言论，而不会正式侵犯言论自由权。听起来不错吧？
We could also pass a high “word tax” to make free speech prohibitively expensive, which would greatly reduce inflammatory or offensive speech without formally violating the right to free speech. Sound good?
我们还可以通过一项高额的“文字税”，使言论自由变得昂贵，这将大大减少煽动性或攻击性言论，而不会正式侵犯言论自由权。听起来不错吧？
Hannah Madden
You mean INFRINGINGLY expensive?
Such taxation would be unconstitutional as constructive infringement— just like passing a high tax on government-desired property to get you to sell it to them cheap, would be considered a constructive taking.
你是说侵权的昂贵？
这种税收将是违宪的，因为它是建设性的侵权行为——就像对政府想要的财产征收高额税，让你以低价将其出售给他们一样，将被视为建设性的收购。
You mean INFRINGINGLY expensive?
Such taxation would be unconstitutional as constructive infringement— just like passing a high tax on government-desired property to get you to sell it to them cheap, would be considered a constructive taking.
你是说侵权的昂贵？
这种税收将是违宪的，因为它是建设性的侵权行为——就像对政府想要的财产征收高额税，让你以低价将其出售给他们一样，将被视为建设性的收购。
Steve Spudich
If I may, I'd like to answer your question with a few questions of my own. In your unbelievable ignorance just what makes you think a bullet tax is going to work? To quantify that question, first of all is it your belief that everyone with a gun is out there shooting someone? Or is it the criminals, the people who blatantly disregard any and all laws that our government can come up with that are doing the shooting? In case you happen to live in a bubble, I'll make the last two questions simple for you. The culprits are indeed the criminals who obtain their firearms illegally, either from someone selling them out of the trunk of his car, or whatever is convenient for them, or they just steal them, which, by the way, is what the guy selling them on the trunk of his car is doing. Considering this last statement, just what do you think a bullet tax is going to do? Do you honestly think someone who obtains a weapon illegally is going to go to a sporting goods store or somewhere where ammunition is sold legally , buy said ammunition, pay the exorbitant tax and then go out and shoot someone? Or are they going to obtain ammunition just the same way they obtain the gun, illegally? So my final question, why do people like you want to continually harass, punish and abuse lawful upright citizens through your total ignorance of the real truth?
如果可以的话，我想用我自己的几个问题来回答你的问题。在你难以置信的无知中，是什么让你认为子弹税会起作用？
为了量化这个问题，首先，你是否相信每个持枪的人都在外面开枪？
还是罪犯，那些公然无视我国政府能够制定的任何法律的人在开枪？如果你碰巧生活在一个泡沫中，我会让最后两个问题对你来说很简单。
罪犯确实是非法获得枪支的罪犯，要么是从某人的汽车后备箱中购买枪支，要么是从他们方便的地方购买枪支，要么就是从他们的汽车后备箱中偷走枪支，顺便说一句，这就是在他的汽车后备箱中出售枪支的人正在做的事情。
考虑到最后一句话，你认为子弹税会起什么作用？你真的认为非法获得武器的人会去体育用品商店或合法出售弹药的地方，购买所述弹药，支付过高的税款，然后出去枪杀某人吗？
还是他们会像非法获取枪支一样获取弹药？所以，我的最后一个问题是，为什么像你们这样的人希望通过你们对真实真相的完全无知来不断骚扰、惩罚和虐待合法的正直公民？
If I may, I'd like to answer your question with a few questions of my own. In your unbelievable ignorance just what makes you think a bullet tax is going to work? To quantify that question, first of all is it your belief that everyone with a gun is out there shooting someone? Or is it the criminals, the people who blatantly disregard any and all laws that our government can come up with that are doing the shooting? In case you happen to live in a bubble, I'll make the last two questions simple for you. The culprits are indeed the criminals who obtain their firearms illegally, either from someone selling them out of the trunk of his car, or whatever is convenient for them, or they just steal them, which, by the way, is what the guy selling them on the trunk of his car is doing. Considering this last statement, just what do you think a bullet tax is going to do? Do you honestly think someone who obtains a weapon illegally is going to go to a sporting goods store or somewhere where ammunition is sold legally , buy said ammunition, pay the exorbitant tax and then go out and shoot someone? Or are they going to obtain ammunition just the same way they obtain the gun, illegally? So my final question, why do people like you want to continually harass, punish and abuse lawful upright citizens through your total ignorance of the real truth?
如果可以的话，我想用我自己的几个问题来回答你的问题。在你难以置信的无知中，是什么让你认为子弹税会起作用？
为了量化这个问题，首先，你是否相信每个持枪的人都在外面开枪？
还是罪犯，那些公然无视我国政府能够制定的任何法律的人在开枪？如果你碰巧生活在一个泡沫中，我会让最后两个问题对你来说很简单。
罪犯确实是非法获得枪支的罪犯，要么是从某人的汽车后备箱中购买枪支，要么是从他们方便的地方购买枪支，要么就是从他们的汽车后备箱中偷走枪支，顺便说一句，这就是在他的汽车后备箱中出售枪支的人正在做的事情。
考虑到最后一句话，你认为子弹税会起什么作用？你真的认为非法获得武器的人会去体育用品商店或合法出售弹药的地方，购买所述弹药，支付过高的税款，然后出去枪杀某人吗？
还是他们会像非法获取枪支一样获取弹药？所以，我的最后一个问题是，为什么像你们这样的人希望通过你们对真实真相的完全无知来不断骚扰、惩罚和虐待合法的正直公民？
Jim InGburg
You have answered your own question without even realizing it.
“Arms” are not just guns.
“The aright to bear arms” is not just the right to own a gun or guns.
Ammo is part of the equation of “bearing arms”, especially when the enumerated right is to regulate the militias (be a check and balance against a potentially rogue or misused military force run by the government).
You (and others with this argument) are not NEARLY as clever or brilliant as you might think.
Laws aren’t cute little semantic word games, and they have purposes.
ALL of these 1st 10 Amendments are why you and I as Americans have the rights we do.
Tinkering with them should not be taken lightly.
To get rid of 2nd Amendment you must ALSO kill the 10th, and probably the 9th.
If you’re game for killing 30% of the Bill of Rights just because you are scared of guns you are not wise enough to realize criminals by definition don’t obey laws.
Making ill-constructed, poorly conceived, restrictive laws that punish people who obey them and do not punish those who don’t is not even ADDRESSING the problem much less solving it.
That’s a fact. If facts don’t appeal to you, then you’re as bad as the red-state racists just fixating on different issues.
你已经回答了自己的问题，但是你没有意识到。
“武器”不仅仅是枪。
“携带武器的权利”不仅仅是拥有枪支的权利。
弹药是“携带武器”等式的一部分，特别是当列举的权利是管理民兵时（是对政府管理的潜在流氓或滥用军事力量的制衡）。
你（和其他持这种观点的人）并不像你想象的那么聪明和精明。
法律不是可爱的语义文字游戏，它们是有目的。
所有这些前10条修正案就是为什么你和我作为美国人拥有我们所拥有的权利。
对它们的修补不应掉以轻心。
为了废除第二修正案，你还必须废除第十条，可能还有第九条。
如果你只是因为害怕枪支而杀了人权法案30%的人，你就没有足够的智慧去认识到罪犯的定义是不遵守法律的。
制定结构不良、构思拙劣、限制性的法律来惩罚那些遵守法律的人，而不惩罚那些不遵守法律的人，这连问题都整不明白，更别说解决问题了。
这是事实。如果事实对你没有吸引力，那么你就和红州种族主义者一样坏，他们只关注不同的问题。
You have answered your own question without even realizing it.
“Arms” are not just guns.
“The aright to bear arms” is not just the right to own a gun or guns.
Ammo is part of the equation of “bearing arms”, especially when the enumerated right is to regulate the militias (be a check and balance against a potentially rogue or misused military force run by the government).
You (and others with this argument) are not NEARLY as clever or brilliant as you might think.
Laws aren’t cute little semantic word games, and they have purposes.
ALL of these 1st 10 Amendments are why you and I as Americans have the rights we do.
Tinkering with them should not be taken lightly.
To get rid of 2nd Amendment you must ALSO kill the 10th, and probably the 9th.
If you’re game for killing 30% of the Bill of Rights just because you are scared of guns you are not wise enough to realize criminals by definition don’t obey laws.
Making ill-constructed, poorly conceived, restrictive laws that punish people who obey them and do not punish those who don’t is not even ADDRESSING the problem much less solving it.
That’s a fact. If facts don’t appeal to you, then you’re as bad as the red-state racists just fixating on different issues.
你已经回答了自己的问题，但是你没有意识到。
“武器”不仅仅是枪。
“携带武器的权利”不仅仅是拥有枪支的权利。
弹药是“携带武器”等式的一部分，特别是当列举的权利是管理民兵时（是对政府管理的潜在流氓或滥用军事力量的制衡）。
你（和其他持这种观点的人）并不像你想象的那么聪明和精明。
法律不是可爱的语义文字游戏，它们是有目的。
所有这些前10条修正案就是为什么你和我作为美国人拥有我们所拥有的权利。
对它们的修补不应掉以轻心。
为了废除第二修正案，你还必须废除第十条，可能还有第九条。
如果你只是因为害怕枪支而杀了人权法案30%的人，你就没有足够的智慧去认识到罪犯的定义是不遵守法律的。
制定结构不良、构思拙劣、限制性的法律来惩罚那些遵守法律的人，而不惩罚那些不遵守法律的人，这连问题都整不明白，更别说解决问题了。
这是事实。如果事实对你没有吸引力，那么你就和红州种族主义者一样坏，他们只关注不同的问题。
Richard Butler
Mainly because your high “bullet tax” would formally violate the right to bear arms. Except for rich people. So basically you want the right to bear arms to be limited to only rich people. How elitist of you.
主要是因为你的高额“子弹税”将正式侵犯携带武器的权利。除了富人。因此，基本上你希望携带武器的权利仅限于富人。你真是个精英。
Mainly because your high “bullet tax” would formally violate the right to bear arms. Except for rich people. So basically you want the right to bear arms to be limited to only rich people. How elitist of you.
主要是因为你的高额“子弹税”将正式侵犯携带武器的权利。除了富人。因此，基本上你希望携带武器的权利仅限于富人。你真是个精英。
Anna Robbins
“Arms” includes ammunition, and creating an unreasonable tax for the express purpose of stopping civilians from being able to purchase them is still infringement, even if it’s through an assumed loophole.
So no, that would entirely still be violating the right to bear arms.
“武器”包括弹药，为了阻止平民购买武器而开征不合理的税收仍然是侵权行为，即使这是通过一个假定的漏洞。
因此，不，这仍然完全违反了携带武器的权利。
“Arms” includes ammunition, and creating an unreasonable tax for the express purpose of stopping civilians from being able to purchase them is still infringement, even if it’s through an assumed loophole.
So no, that would entirely still be violating the right to bear arms.
“武器”包括弹药，为了阻止平民购买武器而开征不合理的税收仍然是侵权行为，即使这是通过一个假定的漏洞。
因此，不，这仍然完全违反了携带武器的权利。
Kyle Yadon
As has been discussed in other answers, this would violate the second amendment, but there’s more to it than that. First off as can be demonstrated from a survey of incarcerated criminals done by the department of justice, the vast majority of criminals get their firearms through illegal means, with the black market being the number one source for most guns used by criminals. And in case you didn’t know it already, black market arms dealers don’t charge tax. Second your choice of wording of this question demonstrates that you’re not concerned with reducing crime or violence, but overall gun use. In other words you want to see gun ownership and use restricted to criminals and the wealthy, one group circumvents laws while the other can afford to ignore them, leaving the vast majority of the law abiding populace unable to exercise their second amendment rights. So either you don’t understand that a disarmament of the general populace historically leads to totalitarian police states, or you’re under the impression that you will be one of the ruling elite when such comes to pass.
正如在其他答案中所讨论的那样，这将违反第二修正案，但还有更多。首先，正如司法部对监禁罪犯所做的一项调查所表明的那样，绝大多数罪犯通过非法手段获得枪支，而黑市是罪犯使用枪支的头号来源。如果你还不知道的话，黑市军火商不征税。其次，你对这个问题措辞的选择表明，你并不关心减少犯罪或暴力，而是关心总体枪支使用情况。换句话说，你希望看到枪支的拥有和使用仅限于罪犯和富人，一个群体规避法律，而另一个群体可以无视法律，让绝大多数守法民众无法行使其第二修正案权利。所以，要么你不明白解除普通民众武装在历史上会导致极权主义警察国家，要么就是你有这样的印象，当这种情况发生时，你将成为统治精英之一。
As has been discussed in other answers, this would violate the second amendment, but there’s more to it than that. First off as can be demonstrated from a survey of incarcerated criminals done by the department of justice, the vast majority of criminals get their firearms through illegal means, with the black market being the number one source for most guns used by criminals. And in case you didn’t know it already, black market arms dealers don’t charge tax. Second your choice of wording of this question demonstrates that you’re not concerned with reducing crime or violence, but overall gun use. In other words you want to see gun ownership and use restricted to criminals and the wealthy, one group circumvents laws while the other can afford to ignore them, leaving the vast majority of the law abiding populace unable to exercise their second amendment rights. So either you don’t understand that a disarmament of the general populace historically leads to totalitarian police states, or you’re under the impression that you will be one of the ruling elite when such comes to pass.
正如在其他答案中所讨论的那样，这将违反第二修正案，但还有更多。首先，正如司法部对监禁罪犯所做的一项调查所表明的那样，绝大多数罪犯通过非法手段获得枪支，而黑市是罪犯使用枪支的头号来源。如果你还不知道的话，黑市军火商不征税。其次，你对这个问题措辞的选择表明，你并不关心减少犯罪或暴力，而是关心总体枪支使用情况。换句话说，你希望看到枪支的拥有和使用仅限于罪犯和富人，一个群体规避法律，而另一个群体可以无视法律，让绝大多数守法民众无法行使其第二修正案权利。所以，要么你不明白解除普通民众武装在历史上会导致极权主义警察国家，要么就是你有这样的印象，当这种情况发生时，你将成为统治精英之一。
Scott Dismukes
Problem is your premise is false. It DOES violate the right to bear arms. Ammo is considered an “arm” as that term is used.
How about focusing on the guy who pulls the trigger? What is there going on in his head that might be the real problem, not whatever tool he picked?
问题是你的前提是错误的。它确实侵犯了携带武器的权利。弹药被认为是一个“手臂”，因为这个术语被使用。
把注意力集中在扣动扳机的人身上怎么样？他脑子里到底在想什么，可能是真正的问题，而不是他选择的任何工具？
Problem is your premise is false. It DOES violate the right to bear arms. Ammo is considered an “arm” as that term is used.
How about focusing on the guy who pulls the trigger? What is there going on in his head that might be the real problem, not whatever tool he picked?
问题是你的前提是错误的。它确实侵犯了携带武器的权利。弹药被认为是一个“手臂”，因为这个术语被使用。
把注意力集中在扣动扳机的人身上怎么样？他脑子里到底在想什么，可能是真正的问题，而不是他选择的任何工具？
Christopher Mitchell
Let me rephrase that for you:
Why can’t the US Government put a tax on ammunition so high that makes it impossible for anyone other than rich people to afford?
There, that’s better. Now do you see the problem? You’ve just made it so that the only people who can afford to protect themselves are rich people.
How would a new firearm owner practice operating his gun? He couldn’t. How would hunters afford to hunt? They couldn’t. What about people who target shoot for recreation? Screw them, right?
So you think you’ve found some clever loophole where you can screw gun owners by just taxing their ammo like crazy, huh? Cool story bro. I guess you’ve never heard of reloading, huh? Or are you going to make that illegal now too? Maybe we should tax food by 1000% to end obesity too huh? Sure, lots of people would starve, but we’d end obesity, except for rich people.
Here’s the thing though, your proposed tax does infringe on the 2nd amendment. Guns without ammunition are nothing more than awkward clubs, and without ammo they’re useless. Making ammo so expensive that no one can afford it completely infringes on the 2nd amendment. The 2a was written so people could defend themselves, their families, and their country. How do you do that without ammo? You can’t, and that’s what makes it a violation of the 2a.
让我给你换个说法：
为什么美国政府不能对弹药征收如此高的税，让富人以外的任何人都负担不起？
好了，这样更好。现在你看到问题了吗？你这样做是为了让有钱人能够保护自己。
一个新的枪支拥有者将如何练习操作他的枪？他不能。猎人怎么能负担得起狩猎费用？他们不能。那些以射击为目标娱乐的人呢？去他们的，对吧？
所以你认为你找到了一个聪明的漏洞，你可以通过疯狂地对枪主的弹药征税来对付他们，是吗？很酷的故事，兄弟。我想你从没听说过重新上膛吧？还是你现在也要把它定为非法？也许我们也应该对食物征收1000%的税来结束肥胖，嗯？当然，很多人会挨饿，但我们会结束肥胖，除了富人。
但问题是，你提议的税收确实违反了第二修正案。没有弹药的枪只不过是笨手笨脚的棍棒，而没有弹药的枪是无用的。使弹药如此昂贵以至于没有人能负担得起完全违反了第二修正案。《第二修正案》是为了让人们能够保卫自己、家人和国家而写的。没有弹药你怎么做？你不能，这就是为什么它违反了第二修正案。
Let me rephrase that for you:
Why can’t the US Government put a tax on ammunition so high that makes it impossible for anyone other than rich people to afford?
There, that’s better. Now do you see the problem? You’ve just made it so that the only people who can afford to protect themselves are rich people.
How would a new firearm owner practice operating his gun? He couldn’t. How would hunters afford to hunt? They couldn’t. What about people who target shoot for recreation? Screw them, right?
So you think you’ve found some clever loophole where you can screw gun owners by just taxing their ammo like crazy, huh? Cool story bro. I guess you’ve never heard of reloading, huh? Or are you going to make that illegal now too? Maybe we should tax food by 1000% to end obesity too huh? Sure, lots of people would starve, but we’d end obesity, except for rich people.
Here’s the thing though, your proposed tax does infringe on the 2nd amendment. Guns without ammunition are nothing more than awkward clubs, and without ammo they’re useless. Making ammo so expensive that no one can afford it completely infringes on the 2nd amendment. The 2a was written so people could defend themselves, their families, and their country. How do you do that without ammo? You can’t, and that’s what makes it a violation of the 2a.
让我给你换个说法：
为什么美国政府不能对弹药征收如此高的税，让富人以外的任何人都负担不起？
好了，这样更好。现在你看到问题了吗？你这样做是为了让有钱人能够保护自己。
一个新的枪支拥有者将如何练习操作他的枪？他不能。猎人怎么能负担得起狩猎费用？他们不能。那些以射击为目标娱乐的人呢？去他们的，对吧？
所以你认为你找到了一个聪明的漏洞，你可以通过疯狂地对枪主的弹药征税来对付他们，是吗？很酷的故事，兄弟。我想你从没听说过重新上膛吧？还是你现在也要把它定为非法？也许我们也应该对食物征收1000%的税来结束肥胖，嗯？当然，很多人会挨饿，但我们会结束肥胖，除了富人。
但问题是，你提议的税收确实违反了第二修正案。没有弹药的枪只不过是笨手笨脚的棍棒，而没有弹药的枪是无用的。使弹药如此昂贵以至于没有人能负担得起完全违反了第二修正案。《第二修正案》是为了让人们能够保卫自己、家人和国家而写的。没有弹药你怎么做？你不能，这就是为什么它违反了第二修正案。
Guy Auxer
If your intent is to reduce violent crime you would be more effective if you were to stop gangs, cartels and drugs. They are responsible for over 80% of homicides.
如果你的意图是减少暴力犯罪，那么如果你阻止帮派、卡特尔和毒品，你会更有效。他们要为80%以上的谋杀案负责。
If your intent is to reduce violent crime you would be more effective if you were to stop gangs, cartels and drugs. They are responsible for over 80% of homicides.
如果你的意图是减少暴力犯罪，那么如果你阻止帮派、卡特尔和毒品，你会更有效。他们要为80%以上的谋杀案负责。
Jay Ackerman
You understand bullets are just hunks of lead in a brass casing with a little bit of gunpowder right? I mean I make them in my garage by the thousands….typical moron wants TAX law abiding people because he’s used to being a pet of the state.
你知道子弹只是装在黄铜外壳里的大块铅和一点火药，对吗？我的意思是，我在我的车库里做了成千上万个……典型的白痴想要给守法的人加税，因为他习惯了成为国家的宠儿。
You understand bullets are just hunks of lead in a brass casing with a little bit of gunpowder right? I mean I make them in my garage by the thousands….typical moron wants TAX law abiding people because he’s used to being a pet of the state.
你知道子弹只是装在黄铜外壳里的大块铅和一点火药，对吗？我的意思是，我在我的车库里做了成千上万个……典型的白痴想要给守法的人加税，因为他习惯了成为国家的宠儿。
Mark Ash
Any time money is used as the punishment. It's only a punishment for the poor.
When I was poor, a traffic stop means I am going to eat light for a month.
Now that I am wealthy, Traffic stop is a minor inconvenience.
Gun ownership doesn't correlate with the violence in the US. Do you know what does?… Poverty.
So while your solution seems like an idea to end violence. You're just going to make it worse. We need to treat the poor equally and reduce the poverty punishments in this country.
We need to completely overhaul welfare.. I don't think we need to get rid of it. But our current system incentivizes single parent homes. Now people are choosing not to work because it's more lucrative than working.
Our healthcare system punishes the poor.
Our education system punishes the poor.
I was poor.. I know what it takes to get away from it. And not everyone is driven like I was. So there will be poor. But we need to solve it.. Not punish them for being poor as you suggested with a “Bullet tax".
So only the wealthy have a right to protect themselves.. Seems like Hunger Games to me.
任何时候用金钱作为惩罚。这只是对穷人的惩罚。
当我穷的时候，堵车意味着我要在一个月内吃清淡的食物。
现在我有钱了，交通堵塞是个小麻烦。
拥有枪支与美国的暴力事件无关。你知道吗？…贫穷。
所以，虽然你的解决方案似乎是一个结束暴力的想法。你只会让事情变得更糟。在这个国家，我们需要平等对待穷人，减少对贫困的惩罚。
我们需要彻底改革福利制度……我不认为我们需要摆脱它。但我们目前的制度鼓励单亲家庭。现在人们选择不工作，因为不工作比工作更赚钱。
我们的医疗体系惩罚穷人。
我们的教育制度惩罚穷人。
我很穷……我知道怎样才能摆脱它。并不是每个人都像我一样被驱使。所以会有穷人。但是我们需要解决这个问题……不要像你建议的那样用“子弹税”来惩罚穷人。
所以只有富人才有权保护自己对我来说就像是饥饿游戏。
Any time money is used as the punishment. It's only a punishment for the poor.
When I was poor, a traffic stop means I am going to eat light for a month.
Now that I am wealthy, Traffic stop is a minor inconvenience.
Gun ownership doesn't correlate with the violence in the US. Do you know what does?… Poverty.
So while your solution seems like an idea to end violence. You're just going to make it worse. We need to treat the poor equally and reduce the poverty punishments in this country.
We need to completely overhaul welfare.. I don't think we need to get rid of it. But our current system incentivizes single parent homes. Now people are choosing not to work because it's more lucrative than working.
Our healthcare system punishes the poor.
Our education system punishes the poor.
I was poor.. I know what it takes to get away from it. And not everyone is driven like I was. So there will be poor. But we need to solve it.. Not punish them for being poor as you suggested with a “Bullet tax".
So only the wealthy have a right to protect themselves.. Seems like Hunger Games to me.
任何时候用金钱作为惩罚。这只是对穷人的惩罚。
当我穷的时候，堵车意味着我要在一个月内吃清淡的食物。
现在我有钱了，交通堵塞是个小麻烦。
拥有枪支与美国的暴力事件无关。你知道吗？…贫穷。
所以，虽然你的解决方案似乎是一个结束暴力的想法。你只会让事情变得更糟。在这个国家，我们需要平等对待穷人，减少对贫困的惩罚。
我们需要彻底改革福利制度……我不认为我们需要摆脱它。但我们目前的制度鼓励单亲家庭。现在人们选择不工作，因为不工作比工作更赚钱。
我们的医疗体系惩罚穷人。
我们的教育制度惩罚穷人。
我很穷……我知道怎样才能摆脱它。并不是每个人都像我一样被驱使。所以会有穷人。但是我们需要解决这个问题……不要像你建议的那样用“子弹税”来惩罚穷人。
所以只有富人才有权保护自己对我来说就像是饥饿游戏。
Johnathan Whicke
Why are you so racist? Statistically blacks and other minorities are of lower economic status. This is no different than the Saturday night special laws specifically made to keep the “dangerous black man” from getting a gun. Fuck outta here you racist fuck.
你为什么这么种族主义？据统计，黑人和其他少数民族的经济地位较低。这与周六晚上专门制定的防止“危险的黑人”持枪的特别法律没有什么不同。滚出去，你这个种族主义者。
Why are you so racist? Statistically blacks and other minorities are of lower economic status. This is no different than the Saturday night special laws specifically made to keep the “dangerous black man” from getting a gun. Fuck outta here you racist fuck.
你为什么这么种族主义？据统计，黑人和其他少数民族的经济地位较低。这与周六晚上专门制定的防止“危险的黑人”持枪的特别法律没有什么不同。滚出去，你这个种族主义者。
Grant Sulham
Then you’ll agree, that taxing gasoline out of reach would greatly reduce the incidence of drunk driving.
Seems reasonable….Not. This demonstrates that people want to pass laws that they will never break. You don’t hear someone say “Please pass this law as I can’t control myself. No, it’s always the other guy that needs the law. It also says a lot about people that want gun control laws.
那么你会同意，对触手可及的汽油征税将大大减少酒后驾驶的发生率。
这看起来是合理的……其实不是。这表明人们希望通过他们永远不会违反的法律。你不会听到有人说“请通过这项法律，因为我无法控制自己。不，总是其他人需要法律。这也说明了很多人想要枪支管制法律。
Then you’ll agree, that taxing gasoline out of reach would greatly reduce the incidence of drunk driving.
Seems reasonable….Not. This demonstrates that people want to pass laws that they will never break. You don’t hear someone say “Please pass this law as I can’t control myself. No, it’s always the other guy that needs the law. It also says a lot about people that want gun control laws.
那么你会同意，对触手可及的汽油征税将大大减少酒后驾驶的发生率。
这看起来是合理的……其实不是。这表明人们希望通过他们永远不会违反的法律。你不会听到有人说“请通过这项法律，因为我无法控制自己。不，总是其他人需要法律。这也说明了很多人想要枪支管制法律。
Dale Walsh
Clearly this question comes from a person who believes criminals will follow gun laws while choosing to break all other laws.
This question also comes from a person who has never looked a the economics behind Prohibition, the War on Drugs, or cigarette taxes. Bullets would immediately be worth stealing to sell on an untaxed black market.
Liberals mistakes come from denying the existence of human nature. When in reality human nature not only exists, it is predictable, and has never changed.
显然，这个问题来自一个人，他相信罪犯会遵守枪支法，同时选择违反所有其他法律。
这个问题也来自一个从未关注过禁令、禁毒战争或香烟税背后的经济学的人。子弹很快就值得偷来在免税黑市上出售。
自由主义者的错误来自于否认人性的存在。在现实中，人性不仅存在，而且是可预测的，而且从未改变过。
Clearly this question comes from a person who believes criminals will follow gun laws while choosing to break all other laws.
This question also comes from a person who has never looked a the economics behind Prohibition, the War on Drugs, or cigarette taxes. Bullets would immediately be worth stealing to sell on an untaxed black market.
Liberals mistakes come from denying the existence of human nature. When in reality human nature not only exists, it is predictable, and has never changed.
显然，这个问题来自一个人，他相信罪犯会遵守枪支法，同时选择违反所有其他法律。
这个问题也来自一个从未关注过禁令、禁毒战争或香烟税背后的经济学的人。子弹很快就值得偷来在免税黑市上出售。
自由主义者的错误来自于否认人性的存在。在现实中，人性不仅存在，而且是可预测的，而且从未改变过。
David Wheeler
Because that would formally violate the right to bear arms, and why would you want to ban poor people from having the ability to defend themselves?
因为这将正式侵犯携带武器的权利，你为什么要禁止穷人拥有自卫能力？
Because that would formally violate the right to bear arms, and why would you want to ban poor people from having the ability to defend themselves?
因为这将正式侵犯携带武器的权利，你为什么要禁止穷人拥有自卫能力？
Douglas Scott
so, what you’re saying is, you want to violate the the right but do it in a way that looks like it isn’t? hypocritical much?
why don’t we just raise the price of alcohol to the point where only a billionaire can afford it, and that would save countless lives ( alcoholism , drunk driving deaths, Cirrhosis) and raise the price of gasoline,( reduce pollution, fewer accidents since fewer cars, spare the planets’ resources). we are already raising the price of meat, because a vegan lifestyle is healthier anyway….
那么，你的意思是，你想侵犯权利，但却以一种看起来不是的方式去做？太虚伪了？
我们为什么不把酒精的价格提高到只有亿万富翁才能负担得起的程度，这样可以挽救无数人的生命（酗酒、酒后驾车死亡、肝硬化）并提高汽油的价格（减少污染，减少事故，因为减少了汽车，节约地球资源）。我们已经在提高肉价，因为素食生活方式无论如何都更健康…。
so, what you’re saying is, you want to violate the the right but do it in a way that looks like it isn’t? hypocritical much?
why don’t we just raise the price of alcohol to the point where only a billionaire can afford it, and that would save countless lives ( alcoholism , drunk driving deaths, Cirrhosis) and raise the price of gasoline,( reduce pollution, fewer accidents since fewer cars, spare the planets’ resources). we are already raising the price of meat, because a vegan lifestyle is healthier anyway….
那么，你的意思是，你想侵犯权利，但却以一种看起来不是的方式去做？太虚伪了？
我们为什么不把酒精的价格提高到只有亿万富翁才能负担得起的程度，这样可以挽救无数人的生命（酗酒、酒后驾车死亡、肝硬化）并提高汽油的价格（减少污染，减少事故，因为减少了汽车，节约地球资源）。我们已经在提高肉价，因为素食生活方式无论如何都更健康…。
Duane Sorrentino
Banning Democrats from owning guns should be a lot easier and effective. Majority of Democrats are antigun so should not mind, and majority of ‘high gun crimes' areas are Democrat controlled. Wins for everyone.
禁止民主党人拥有枪支应该更加容易和有效。大多数民主党人都是反政府的，所以不必介意，大多数“高射炮犯罪”地区都由民主党人控制。每个人都赢。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Banning Democrats from owning guns should be a lot easier and effective. Majority of Democrats are antigun so should not mind, and majority of ‘high gun crimes' areas are Democrat controlled. Wins for everyone.
禁止民主党人拥有枪支应该更加容易和有效。大多数民主党人都是反政府的，所以不必介意，大多数“高射炮犯罪”地区都由民主党人控制。每个人都赢。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Rick Randall
A law passed for the express purpose of chilling an enumerated and fundamental civil right is just as unconstitutional when it tries to use a backdoor as when it uses the front door. The explicit purpose is illegitimate (to suppress a protected civil right), and thus it fails under any applicable level of judicial scrutiny.
Poll taxes are unconstitutional because the Constitution prohibits them (24th Amendment applies them federally, and the 14th Amendment has been used to apply them to state and local elections - prior to the 24th Amendnment, poll taxes were perfectly Constitutional; that's why they had to pass the amendment to stop it). But voting is not, regardless of what some claim, an enumerated and fundamental right in the Constitution. You won't see a right to vote enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution. An adult citizen doesn't have a “right to vote" - they have a right not to be denied the opportunity to vote for specifically enumerated reasons (race, sex, age over 18, failure to pay taxes, etc.).
一项旨在明确打击列举的基本公民权利的法律，在试图使用后门时与使用前门时一样违宪。明确的目的是非法的（压制受保护的公民权利），因此在任何适用的司法审查级别下都无法实现。
投票税是违宪的，因为宪法禁止它（第24条修正案在联邦政府中适用，第14条修正案被用于州和地方选举——在第24条修正案之前，投票税是完全符合宪法的；这就是为什么他们必须通过修正案来阻止它）。但是，不管有些人怎么说，投票并不是宪法中列举的基本权利。在美国宪法的任何地方你都看不到投票权。成年公民没有“投票权”——他们有权不因具体列举的原因（种族、性别、18岁以上、不纳税等）而被剥夺投票机会。
A law passed for the express purpose of chilling an enumerated and fundamental civil right is just as unconstitutional when it tries to use a backdoor as when it uses the front door. The explicit purpose is illegitimate (to suppress a protected civil right), and thus it fails under any applicable level of judicial scrutiny.
Poll taxes are unconstitutional because the Constitution prohibits them (24th Amendment applies them federally, and the 14th Amendment has been used to apply them to state and local elections - prior to the 24th Amendnment, poll taxes were perfectly Constitutional; that's why they had to pass the amendment to stop it). But voting is not, regardless of what some claim, an enumerated and fundamental right in the Constitution. You won't see a right to vote enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution. An adult citizen doesn't have a “right to vote" - they have a right not to be denied the opportunity to vote for specifically enumerated reasons (race, sex, age over 18, failure to pay taxes, etc.).
一项旨在明确打击列举的基本公民权利的法律，在试图使用后门时与使用前门时一样违宪。明确的目的是非法的（压制受保护的公民权利），因此在任何适用的司法审查级别下都无法实现。
投票税是违宪的，因为宪法禁止它（第24条修正案在联邦政府中适用，第14条修正案被用于州和地方选举——在第24条修正案之前，投票税是完全符合宪法的；这就是为什么他们必须通过修正案来阻止它）。但是，不管有些人怎么说，投票并不是宪法中列举的基本权利。在美国宪法的任何地方你都看不到投票权。成年公民没有“投票权”——他们有权不因具体列举的原因（种族、性别、18岁以上、不纳税等）而被剥夺投票机会。
Collin Dahlquist
why don’t we have a high tax on people spouting crazy opinions with their freedom of speech? Should put it on Facebook so they get charged every time they say something others deem as wrong.
See how that sounds..?
You can’t punish the innocent for those who are guilty. And you are innocent until proven guilty. So you are either claiming we aren’t innocent, or you want to bankrupt and punish us for the actions of those who do wrong and murder. By that logic, why not do the same with cars since more are killed by cars than guns and ammo?
我们为什么不对那些言论自由的人征收高额的税呢？应该把它放在Facebook上，这样他们每次说别人认为不对的话都会被起诉。
你看这听起来怎么样？
你不能因为那些有罪的人惩罚无辜者。在被证明有罪之前你是清白的。所以你要么声称我们不是无辜的，要么你失了智，因为那些做错事和谋杀的人的行为惩罚我们。按照这个逻辑，既然汽车杀死的人比枪和弹药还多，为什么不对汽车也这么做呢？
why don’t we have a high tax on people spouting crazy opinions with their freedom of speech? Should put it on Facebook so they get charged every time they say something others deem as wrong.
See how that sounds..?
You can’t punish the innocent for those who are guilty. And you are innocent until proven guilty. So you are either claiming we aren’t innocent, or you want to bankrupt and punish us for the actions of those who do wrong and murder. By that logic, why not do the same with cars since more are killed by cars than guns and ammo?
我们为什么不对那些言论自由的人征收高额的税呢？应该把它放在Facebook上，这样他们每次说别人认为不对的话都会被起诉。
你看这听起来怎么样？
你不能因为那些有罪的人惩罚无辜者。在被证明有罪之前你是清白的。所以你要么声称我们不是无辜的，要么你失了智，因为那些做错事和谋杀的人的行为惩罚我们。按照这个逻辑，既然汽车杀死的人比枪和弹药还多，为什么不对汽车也这么做呢？
Kenneth Cluck
You seem to have a bad definition of “violating” when it comes to rights. If you make it too expensive for me to exercise my right, then it is a violation (see Poll Taxes). The right is to keep and bear arms. Without ammo, it is not an arm, but a paperweight. Besides, the best thing is for those who own firearms to shoot often in training. It increases their accuracy and familiarity with their weapon. The guy who has so few bullets that he will not practice is more dangerous. This move would make things worse, not better.
说到权利，你似乎对“侵犯”有一个糟糕的定义。如果你让我行使权利的成本太高，那么这就是违反宪法的行为（见投票税）。权利是持有和携带武器。没有弹药，它就不是手臂，而是镇纸。此外，对于那些拥有枪支的人来说，最好是在训练中经常射击。它提高了他们的准确性和对武器的熟悉度。子弹太少而不愿练习的人更危险。此举只会让事情变得更糟，而不是更好。
You seem to have a bad definition of “violating” when it comes to rights. If you make it too expensive for me to exercise my right, then it is a violation (see Poll Taxes). The right is to keep and bear arms. Without ammo, it is not an arm, but a paperweight. Besides, the best thing is for those who own firearms to shoot often in training. It increases their accuracy and familiarity with their weapon. The guy who has so few bullets that he will not practice is more dangerous. This move would make things worse, not better.
说到权利，你似乎对“侵犯”有一个糟糕的定义。如果你让我行使权利的成本太高，那么这就是违反宪法的行为（见投票税）。权利是持有和携带武器。没有弹药，它就不是手臂，而是镇纸。此外，对于那些拥有枪支的人来说，最好是在训练中经常射击。它提高了他们的准确性和对武器的熟悉度。子弹太少而不愿练习的人更危险。此举只会让事情变得更糟，而不是更好。
J-P
The problem is it would formally violate the right to keep and bear arms. Your misunderstanding comes from not knowing the definition of “arms”. The definition of arms is “weapons and ammunition; armaments.”
Since it’s been previously established by the Supreme Court that taxing a right is a violation of that right, and since we have established that “arms” includes ammunition, your proposal is wholly unconstitutional.
Also it wouldn’t do anything, because ammunition is fairly simple to make from base components… And since inner city violence with illegal arms is what makes up most of the gun homicides in this country, the illegal markets supplying guns would simply start supplying homemade ammo as well, and nothing would change.
问题是它将正式侵犯持有和携带武器的权利。你的误解是因为不知道“武器”的定义。武器的定义是“武器和弹药；军备”
因为最高法院之前已经确定对一项权利征税是对该权利的侵犯，而且我们已经确定“武器”包括弹药，所以你的建议完全违宪。
此外，它也不会有任何效果，因为弹药很容易从基础部件中制造……而且由于该国大部分枪杀案都是由非法武器引发的市内暴力事件构成的，因此供应枪支的非法市场也会开始供应自制弹药，而这一切都不会改变。
The problem is it would formally violate the right to keep and bear arms. Your misunderstanding comes from not knowing the definition of “arms”. The definition of arms is “weapons and ammunition; armaments.”
Since it’s been previously established by the Supreme Court that taxing a right is a violation of that right, and since we have established that “arms” includes ammunition, your proposal is wholly unconstitutional.
Also it wouldn’t do anything, because ammunition is fairly simple to make from base components… And since inner city violence with illegal arms is what makes up most of the gun homicides in this country, the illegal markets supplying guns would simply start supplying homemade ammo as well, and nothing would change.
问题是它将正式侵犯持有和携带武器的权利。你的误解是因为不知道“武器”的定义。武器的定义是“武器和弹药；军备”
因为最高法院之前已经确定对一项权利征税是对该权利的侵犯，而且我们已经确定“武器”包括弹药，所以你的建议完全违宪。
此外，它也不会有任何效果，因为弹药很容易从基础部件中制造……而且由于该国大部分枪杀案都是由非法武器引发的市内暴力事件构成的，因此供应枪支的非法市场也会开始供应自制弹药，而这一切都不会改变。
Forrest Woodward
Can you say BLACK MARKET? Such a tax would only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law-biding citizens but as with 99% of the other such suggestions, would do little to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys who will get guns AND ammo no matter what you do. These “laws” only serve to put law-biding citizens at the mercy of the underbelly of American society who don’t give a damn about laws, rules, regulations or the rights of others. In fact, this kind of criminals would like nothing more than to know that their next victim is truly unarmed and unable to defend themselves. If the bag guys want/need ammo, they will know where to get it and will do so.
你能说黑市吗？这样的税收只会使枪支远离守法公民的手中，但与其他99%的建议一样，它也不会使枪支远离坏人的手，不管你做什么，坏人都会得到枪支和弹药。这些“法律”只会让守法的公民听任美国社会底层人士的摆布，他们根本不在乎法律、规则、规章或其他人的权利。事实上，这类罪犯只想知道他们的下一个受害者真的手无寸铁，无法自卫。如果背包客想要/需要弹药，他们将知道从哪里获得，并会这样做。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Can you say BLACK MARKET? Such a tax would only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law-biding citizens but as with 99% of the other such suggestions, would do little to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys who will get guns AND ammo no matter what you do. These “laws” only serve to put law-biding citizens at the mercy of the underbelly of American society who don’t give a damn about laws, rules, regulations or the rights of others. In fact, this kind of criminals would like nothing more than to know that their next victim is truly unarmed and unable to defend themselves. If the bag guys want/need ammo, they will know where to get it and will do so.
你能说黑市吗？这样的税收只会使枪支远离守法公民的手中，但与其他99%的建议一样，它也不会使枪支远离坏人的手，不管你做什么，坏人都会得到枪支和弹药。这些“法律”只会让守法的公民听任美国社会底层人士的摆布，他们根本不在乎法律、规则、规章或其他人的权利。事实上，这类罪犯只想知道他们的下一个受害者真的手无寸铁，无法自卫。如果背包客想要/需要弹药，他们将知道从哪里获得，并会这样做。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Rei Ayanami
What benefits will be achieved by reducing amount of training that can be done by legal gun owners?
Mass shooters and criminals don't need that much ammo or significant training so it high ammunition prices won't stop them
通过减少合法枪支拥有者可以进行的培训量，可以获得哪些好处？
大规模杀伤人员和罪犯不需要那么多弹药或大量训练，因此高昂的弹药价格不会阻止他们。
What benefits will be achieved by reducing amount of training that can be done by legal gun owners?
Mass shooters and criminals don't need that much ammo or significant training so it high ammunition prices won't stop them
通过减少合法枪支拥有者可以进行的培训量，可以获得哪些好处？
大规模杀伤人员和罪犯不需要那么多弹药或大量训练，因此高昂的弹药价格不会阻止他们。
William Vietinghoff
High taxes and prohibitively expensive ammunition is not a deterrent to the carrying of a weapon by a gang member or potential robber. They don’t buy a lot of ammunition because they don’t plan to shoot a lot, just threaten people.
The only people that would suffer, unjustly, from a high ammunition tax are the responsible gun owners that only use their guns to spend a weekend at the range, doing target practice.
高税收和昂贵的弹药并不能阻止帮派成员或潜在抢劫者携带武器。他们不买很多弹药，因为他们不打算开枪，只是威胁人们。
唯一不公正地遭受高额弹药税之苦的人是负责任的枪支拥有者，他们只在靶场上用枪练习射击，度过周末。
High taxes and prohibitively expensive ammunition is not a deterrent to the carrying of a weapon by a gang member or potential robber. They don’t buy a lot of ammunition because they don’t plan to shoot a lot, just threaten people.
The only people that would suffer, unjustly, from a high ammunition tax are the responsible gun owners that only use their guns to spend a weekend at the range, doing target practice.
高税收和昂贵的弹药并不能阻止帮派成员或潜在抢劫者携带武器。他们不买很多弹药，因为他们不打算开枪，只是威胁人们。
唯一不公正地遭受高额弹药税之苦的人是负责任的枪支拥有者，他们只在靶场上用枪练习射击，度过周末。
Trevor Young
I don't know what you mean by a “formal violation”. Constitutional violations generally do not wear tuxedos. But a “violation”, whatever clothes it is wearing, is not the standard. The second amendment says the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”. So any government action that places any limits, conditions, burdens, or even inconvenience, no matter how minor, on owning and carrying firearms is unconstitutional. Your bullet tax is an infringement.
我不知道你所说的“正式违反”是什么意思。违宪者一般不穿燕尾服。但“违规”，不管它穿什么衣服，都不是标准。第二修正案说，携带武器的权利“不应受到侵犯”。因此，任何对拥有和携带枪支施加任何限制、条件、负担甚至不便的政府行为，无论多么轻微，都是违宪的。你的子弹税是侵权行为。
I don't know what you mean by a “formal violation”. Constitutional violations generally do not wear tuxedos. But a “violation”, whatever clothes it is wearing, is not the standard. The second amendment says the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”. So any government action that places any limits, conditions, burdens, or even inconvenience, no matter how minor, on owning and carrying firearms is unconstitutional. Your bullet tax is an infringement.
我不知道你所说的“正式违反”是什么意思。违宪者一般不穿燕尾服。但“违规”，不管它穿什么衣服，都不是标准。第二修正案说，携带武器的权利“不应受到侵犯”。因此，任何对拥有和携带枪支施加任何限制、条件、负担甚至不便的政府行为，无论多么轻微，都是违宪的。你的子弹税是侵权行为。
Rhys Read
Bullets are easy to make and a black market would spring up almost immediately. As these would be illegal entities there would probably be turf wars and more violence like with the drug war, ending with the opposite of what you desire.
子弹很容易制造，黑市几乎马上就会出现。因为这些都是非法实体，所以可能会有地盘战和更多的暴力，比如毒品战，结果与你的愿望相反。
Bullets are easy to make and a black market would spring up almost immediately. As these would be illegal entities there would probably be turf wars and more violence like with the drug war, ending with the opposite of what you desire.
子弹很容易制造，黑市几乎马上就会出现。因为这些都是非法实体，所以可能会有地盘战和更多的暴力，比如毒品战，结果与你的愿望相反。
David Reich
Because that would violate the 2nd Amendment, and Americans have plenty of access to ammunition if an insurrection is actually required. Can probably even get those silly F-15’s and Nukes too. But seriously, all we have to do is stop going to work and let the power go out, Democrats and their mob would be lost without electricity.
因为这将违反第二修正案，如果真的需要起义，美国人有足够的机会获得弹药。甚至可能得到那些愚蠢的F-15和核武器。但是，说真的，我们所要做的就是停止工作，让电力中断，民主党人和他们的暴徒将失去电力。
Because that would violate the 2nd Amendment, and Americans have plenty of access to ammunition if an insurrection is actually required. Can probably even get those silly F-15’s and Nukes too. But seriously, all we have to do is stop going to work and let the power go out, Democrats and their mob would be lost without electricity.
因为这将违反第二修正案，如果真的需要起义，美国人有足够的机会获得弹药。甚至可能得到那些愚蠢的F-15和核武器。但是，说真的，我们所要做的就是停止工作，让电力中断，民主党人和他们的暴徒将失去电力。
Tom Hinkle
Why can’t the USA pass an abortion tax to make abortions prohibitively expensive and thus greatly reduce abortions without formally violating abortion rights?
Same reasoning applies to both.
为什么美国不能通过堕胎税，让堕胎变得昂贵，从而在不正式侵犯堕胎权利的情况下大大减少堕胎？
同样的道理也适用于两者。
Why can’t the USA pass an abortion tax to make abortions prohibitively expensive and thus greatly reduce abortions without formally violating abortion rights?
Same reasoning applies to both.
为什么美国不能通过堕胎税，让堕胎变得昂贵，从而在不正式侵犯堕胎权利的情况下大大减少堕胎？
同样的道理也适用于两者。
很赞 2
收藏