|
|
Good translation! The author is a student in my university and he has some very good points in this article. I don't agree with everything he wrote, but I think it's worthy of reading, especially for people who knows little about gun issues. You are doing a great service to the community and I salute you for that.
A couple of suggestions for translation:
最近一个小孩竟然因为在午餐时把一块糕点啃成枪的形状而被学校开除
it seems to be 被学校停学. He was suspended or expelled from school, but not permanently expelled or excluded from school.
阅读一大堆极端自由主义读物，例如琼斯母亲
I think he is referring to the magazine, “母亲琼斯”杂志
拥枪的人事实上可能对自己的爱好或专业知道的更多，但他们却没有站出来反对反枪人士戏剧性的哭闹。
That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.
虽然拥枪的人事实上可能对自己的爱好或专业知道的更多, 却比不了反枪人士戏剧性的哭闹.
I think the author is being sarcastic here.
如果那是什么我们的子孙60年以后用不到的东西，那么我们现在也不需要它们。
If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.
如果我们的子孙60年以后会觉得(这个法案) 不够好, 那么我们现在也会反对它.
I think he is saying if the law will harm our grandsons’ rights, even if it will not have an impact on us due to the grandfather clause, we will still be against it.
我个人并不是狂热地反对堕胎，但当堕胎合法的原因是为了保护一个女人的个人权利，任何不和谐的杂音就都显得没有意义了。够伟大！但“保护个人权利”这个说法听起来是不是很熟悉呢？
I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights. That’s great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar?
我个人并不是狂热地反对堕胎，但当(自由派)把保护一个女人的个人权利作为堕胎合法的原因, (同时却反对拥枪的个人权利), 这种自相矛盾就显得更荒谬了. 保护女人的个人权利很好, 但“保护个人权利”这个说法听起来是不是很熟悉呢？
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
[复制链接]
发表于 2013-8-16 09:46
发表于 2013-8-16 09:53
楼主
