2020考研英语阅读理解精读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）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题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

本文讨论的话题是哥伦比亚特区今年取消了长期实行的枪支禁令及其相关问题。第一段说明了事情的起因，同时指出枪支禁令并没有阻止枪支的流通；第二段回顾了对《第二修正案》关于个人拥有枪支权利的表述和不同解读；第三、四段是赞成个人拥有枪支权利一方的关系；第五段则是反对意见。

词汇注释

circuit /ˈsɜːkɪt/ n. 周游，巡回

overturn /ˌəʊvəˈtɜːn/ vt. 推翻，颠倒

circulation /ˌsɜːkjʊˈleɪʃən/ n. 流通

militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ n. 民兵

contingent /kənˈtɪndʒənt/ adj. 附随的

rifle /ˈraɪfl/ n. 来复枪，步枪

attorney /əˈtɜːni/ n. 律师

stance /stæns/ n. 立场

sacrosanct /ˈsækrəʊsæŋkt/ adj. 极神圣的

loom /luːm/ v. 隐现，迫近

homicide /ˈhɒmɪsaid/ n. 杀人，杀人者

outdoorsmanship /ˌaʊtˈdɔːzˌmənʃɪp/ n. 野外活动

难句突破

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.

主体句式：If the District appeals the ruling, there is a good chance that...

结构分析：as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will是一个插入语，对前面的if引导的条件句进行补充说明。wth its conservative majority也是一个插入语。

句子译文：假如该特区像阿德里安·芬迪市长所说的那样对此次判决提出上诉的话，对于保守派占大多数的最高法院而言，将会作出有利于个人权利的终审裁决。

题目分析

1. A 细节题。文章第二段中指出，关于第二修正案的解读一直有许多不同的见解。早期最高法院的解读支持民兵组织权利说，只是到了近几年，个人权利说才开始兴盛。“合众国对米勒”案是对前一种说法的解读。

2. D 推理题。文章第一段结尾提到社会对于枪支越来越宽容，同时第二段也提到个人拥有枪支的学说得到了越来越多的支持，这些观点选项D都有体现。

3. C 推理题。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”，说明了个人拥有枪支权利的问题将会影响下届美国总统大选，民主党派甚至为了拉选票而改变其原先的反对态度。

4. B 语义题。从最后一段谈到越来越多的美国人不会把枪支和健康向上的户外运动联系在一起，而是认为枪支是导致致命性死亡的原因，这些对那些个人携枪权利支持者来说都是不利因素。

5. D 细节题。纵观全文，NRA被提及许多次，每次都涉及该组织为争取放宽枪支管制而做出的各种努力，可见其活动非常积极且具有重要的影响力。

参考译文

3月9日，美国特区巡回上诉法院撤销了哥伦比亚特区长期实行的枪支禁令。有人也许会说，这有什么呢？去年，警方在特区共发现2655支枪，这表明枪支禁令并未遏制住枪支流通。尽管如此，华盛顿在其小小的管辖范围内还是一直抵制社会对于枪支的纵容。

上诉法院法官以2票对1票驳回了特区关于《第二修正案》仅适用民兵组织的申诉。多数方认为，修正案所保护的权利“并不仅限于民兵组织”，且“个人享有的权利也不依赖于其是否加入民兵队伍”。在联邦宪法中，关于如何解读第二修正案的争论一直是所有涉及宪法辩论中最为激烈的。1939年，美国最高法院在“合众国对米勒”一案中判定，当“其明显意图”为保护各州组织民兵队伍能力时，此修正案才适用，并且“解释时必须基于修正案的这一目的。”最近，个人拥有和携带枪支的权利获得了越来越多的支持，不仅仅是布什政府和全美步枪协会。

2001年，美国第五巡回上诉法院（辖区内有路易斯安那、密西西比和得克萨斯三个偏爱枪支的州）支持个人权利的观点。此次特区诉讼始于2003年，此前9个月时任首席检察官的约翰·阿施克罗夫特曾表示，禁止个人拥有和携带枪支的规定违反了宪法。假如该特区像阿德里安·芬迪市长所说的那样对此次判决提出上诉的话，对于保守派占大多数的最高法院而言，将会作出有利于个人权利的终审裁决。

上诉法庭的决议只是一系列主张个人有权拥有和携带枪支的活动所取得的最新进展之一。全美步枪协会为争取放宽枪支管制所做的努力也不断获得成效，尤其是推动通过了“秘密携带枪支”法令，目前该法令已在48个州实施。为了在“红色美国”有所进展——特别是在枪支拥有权利神圣不可侵犯的西部重要山区，这也可能是决定下一届总统大选结果的地方，民主党反对个人拥有和携带枪支的立场也有所松动。蒙大拿州民主党州长布莱恩·施瓦泽说，他“所拥有枪支超出了自己的需求，但却总希望能有更多。”此话代表了新一代支持枪支拥有权利的民主党人的心声。

对于主张个人有权拥有和携带枪支的人来说，也会有一些不利因素。特区案判决当天，警界智库警政研究公会报道称2004年至今，包括杀人在内的暴力犯罪率迅速增长。同时，一个对全美步枪协会最有利的因素也正逐渐减弱：美国狩猎许可证持有人数比例已经从1985年的10%下降到去年的6%。如果这两个趋势持续发展下去的话，越来越多的美国人将不会像NRA所期望的那样，把枪支和健康向上的户外运动联系在一起，而是认为枪支是导致致命性死亡的原因。