2020考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 65

Unit 65

On March 9th the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing ban on handguns. Some might say, so what? Last year the police recovered 2, 655 guns in the District, which hardly suggests that the ban was keeping guns out of circulation. Nonetheless, Washington, DC, has long been a small spot of resistance to a culture all too tolerant of firearms.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges rejected the District’s claim that the Second Amendment applies only to militias. The rights protected in the amendment “are not limited to militia service”, the majority argued, “nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon... enrolment in the militia”. The debate about the meaning of the second amendment is one of the fiercest in constitutional law. In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of “United States v Miller”, that the amendment was adopted “with ［the］ obvious purpose” of protecting the ability of states to organise militias, and “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view”. More recently, the individual-rights view has been gathering support, and not just from the Bush administration and the National Rifle Association（NRA）.

In 2001 the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit（which includes gun-loving Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas）embraced the individual-rights view. The DC lawsuit was filed in 2003, nine months after the then attorney-general, John Ashcroft, argued that individual gun bans are unconstitutional. If the District appeals the ruling, as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will come down on the side of individual rights.

The Court of Appeals decision is just the latest in an almost unbroken series of advances for the gun-rights lobby. The NRA has made a steady progress in loosening local gun controls, particularly in pushing “concealed carry” laws, which now exist in 48 states. The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in “red America”—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided. Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, speaks for a new breed of pro-gun Democrats when he says that he has “more guns than I need but not as many as I want”.

A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters. On the very day of the DC ruling the Police Executive Research Forum, a police think-tank, reported that violent crime, including homicides, had been rising rapidly since 2004. Meanwhile, the NRA is slowly losing one of its most important constituencies: the proportion of Americans holding hunting licences has declined from 10% in 1985 to 6% last year. If both trends continue, more and more Americans will come to associate guns not with healthy outdoorsmanship, as the NRA would like, but with swift and violent human death.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習題命題模仿對象為2004年真題Text 2。

1. What does the author intend to illustrate with the case of “United States v Miller”?

A) The second amendment was once interpreted as only to protect the right of militias.

B) The second amendment is not supposed to support the individual right of carrying guns.

C) American Supreme Court has never changed its interpretation of the second amendment.

D) The individual-rights view has been on the rise since earlier 20th century.

2. What can we infer from the first two paragraphs?

A) Whether Washington, DC will continue to maintain its ban on handguns is yet to be determined.

B) The individual-rights view barely attains support from the government but is backed by the US Court.

C) The second amendment has aroused heated debate on the relation between militias and individual.

D) The entire American society is growing more tolerant of individual possession of firearms.

3. The third and fourth paragraphs suggest that _______.

A) the Republicans traditionally maintain the anti-gun stance

B) most members of the Supreme Court are against individual-rights view

C) the issue of gun right might influence the next presidency campaign

D) individual gun right may negatively stimulate people’s desire for violence

4. What does the author mean by “A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters”（Line 1, Last Paragraph）?

A) Gun-rights supporters are pessimistic about the future of individual gun-rights.

B) People might relate the spread of guns to the increase of crime rate.

C) The public opinion turns to be negative for gun-rights supporters.

D) There are some opponents who are against individual gun-rights.

5. Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?

A) Washington, DC is the last place in America to abandon the ban on gun.

B) Individual gun right began to be legal in some states since 2001.

C) The American constitutional law is too vague to be interpreted.

D) NRA has been playing an active role in promoting the gun legalization.

篇章剖析

本文討論的話題是哥倫比亞特區(qū)今年取消了長期實行的槍支禁令及其相關問題。第一段說明了事情的起因，同時指出槍支禁令并沒有阻止槍支的流通；第二段回顧了對《第二修正案》關于個人擁有槍支權利的表述和不同解讀；第三、四段是贊成個人擁有槍支權利一方的關系；第五段則是反對意見。

詞匯注釋

circuit /?s??k?t/ n. 周游，巡回

overturn /???v??t??n/ vt. 推翻，顛倒

circulation /?s??kj??le???n/ n. 流通

militia /m??l???/ n. 民兵

contingent /k?n?t?nd??nt/ adj. 附隨的

rifle /?ra?fl/ n. 來復槍，步槍

attorney /??t??ni/ n. 律師

stance /st?ns/ n. 立場

sacrosanct /?s?kr??s??kt/ adj. 極神圣的

loom /lu?m/ v. 隱現(xiàn)，迫近

homicide /?h?m?said/ n. 殺人，殺人者

outdoorsmanship /?a?t?d??z?m?n??p/ n. 野外活動

難句突破

If the District appeals the ruling, as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will come down on the side of individual rights.

主體句式：If the District appeals the ruling, there is a good chance that...

結構分析：as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will是一個插入語，對前面的if引導的條件句進行補充說明。wth its conservative majority也是一個插入語。

句子譯文：假如該特區(qū)像阿德里安·芬迪市長所說的那樣對此次判決提出上訴的話，對于保守派占大多數(shù)的最高法院而言，將會作出有利于個人權利的終審裁決。

題目分析

1. A 細節(jié)題。文章第二段中指出，關于第二修正案的解讀一直有許多不同的見解。早期最高法院的解讀支持民兵組織權利說，只是到了近幾年，個人權利說才開始興盛?！昂媳妵鴮γ桌铡卑甘菍η耙环N說法的解讀。

2. D 推理題。文章第一段結尾提到社會對于槍支越來越寬容，同時第二段也提到個人擁有槍支的學說得到了越來越多的支持，這些觀點選項D都有體現(xiàn)。

3. C 推理題。文章第四段提到“The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in ‘red America’—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided”，說明了個人擁有槍支權利的問題將會影響下屆美國總統(tǒng)大選，民主黨派甚至為了拉選票而改變其原先的反對態(tài)度。

4. B 語義題。從最后一段談到越來越多的美國人不會把槍支和健康向上的戶外運動聯(lián)系在一起，而是認為槍支是導致致命性死亡的原因，這些對那些個人攜槍權利支持者來說都是不利因素。

5. D 細節(jié)題?？v觀全文，NRA被提及許多次，每次都涉及該組織為爭取放寬槍支管制而做出的各種努力，可見其活動非常積極且具有重要的影響力。

參考譯文

3月9日，美國特區(qū)巡回上訴法院撤銷了哥倫比亞特區(qū)長期實行的槍支禁令。有人也許會說，這有什么呢？去年，警方在特區(qū)共發(fā)現(xiàn)2655支槍，這表明槍支禁令并未遏制住槍支流通。盡管如此，華盛頓在其小小的管轄范圍內還是一直抵制社會對于槍支的縱容。

上訴法院法官以2票對1票駁回了特區(qū)關于《第二修正案》僅適用民兵組織的申訴。多數(shù)方認為，修正案所保護的權利“并不僅限于民兵組織”，且“個人享有的權利也不依賴于其是否加入民兵隊伍”。在聯(lián)邦憲法中，關于如何解讀第二修正案的爭論一直是所有涉及憲法辯論中最為激烈的。1939年，美國最高法院在“合眾國對米勒”一案中判定，當“其明顯意圖”為保護各州組織民兵隊伍能力時，此修正案才適用，并且“解釋時必須基于修正案的這一目的?！弊罱?，個人擁有和攜帶槍支的權利獲得了越來越多的支持，不僅僅是布什政府和全美步槍協(xié)會。

2001年，美國第五巡回上訴法院（轄區(qū)內有路易斯安那、密西西比和得克薩斯三個偏愛槍支的州）支持個人權利的觀點。此次特區(qū)訴訟始于2003年，此前9個月時任首席檢察官的約翰·阿施克羅夫特曾表示，禁止個人擁有和攜帶槍支的規(guī)定違反了憲法。假如該特區(qū)像阿德里安·芬迪市長所說的那樣對此次判決提出上訴的話，對于保守派占大多數(shù)的最高法院而言，將會作出有利于個人權利的終審裁決。

上訴法庭的決議只是一系列主張個人有權擁有和攜帶槍支的活動所取得的最新進展之一。全美步槍協(xié)會為爭取放寬槍支管制所做的努力也不斷獲得成效，尤其是推動通過了“秘密攜帶槍支”法令，目前該法令已在48個州實施。為了在“紅色美國”有所進展——特別是在槍支擁有權利神圣不可侵犯的西部重要山區(qū)，這也可能是決定下一屆總統(tǒng)大選結果的地方，民主黨反對個人擁有和攜帶槍支的立場也有所松動。蒙大拿州民主黨州長布萊恩·施瓦澤說，他“所擁有槍支超出了自己的需求，但卻總希望能有更多?！贝嗽挻砹诵乱淮С謽屩碛袡嗬拿裰鼽h人的心聲。

對于主張個人有權擁有和攜帶槍支的人來說，也會有一些不利因素。特區(qū)案判決當天，警界智庫警政研究公會報道稱2004年至今，包括殺人在內的暴力犯罪率迅速增長。同時，一個對全美步槍協(xié)會最有利的因素也正逐漸減弱：美國狩獵許可證持有人數(shù)比例已經(jīng)從1985年的10%下降到去年的6%。如果這兩個趨勢持續(xù)發(fā)展下去的話，越來越多的美國人將不會像NRA所期望的那樣，把槍支和健康向上的戶外運動聯(lián)系在一起，而是認為槍支是導致致命性死亡的原因。