Pontifical Xavierian University Name: ____________________________________

Intermediate English Date:______________________________________

Reading Project Grade: _____/ _____/5.0
Designed by: Sara Madrigal Sergio Eduardo Ríos Chala

Read this text about Guns in America and then do the exercises below.

The only reasonable response to the massacre in Orlando is to ban the sale of military-style assault
weapons. All else, I’m afraid, is just noise. If this ensconces me in an ideological corner, I’m fine with that. If it
insults the Constitution, so be it — any other response would do far greater harm to our freedoms. Or we could
argue for a while and then do nothing. We’ve tried that course of action many times, and
it doesn’t work.
An Islamic State sympathizer was able to go into a gun store day or weeks ago
and buy both a pistol and an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle, which he used to
kill 49 men and women at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Had he been armed with the
pistol alone, he still would have killed people — but not so many. Keeping military-grade
combat weapons out of the hands of maniacs should not be a controversial idea.
The Second Amendment enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has ruled that
this is an individual right, not a collective one. The court has made clear, however, that this does not preclude
reasonable gun control measures. Not all weapons must be considered suitable for private hands.
When the framers wrote of “arms,” they were thinking about muskets and single-shot pistols. They could
not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines. They lived at a time when it was impossible to
imagine one man barging into a crowded room and killing more than one or two people before having to reload
and surely being subdued. Today it is not only imaginable but also tragically commonplace.
No hunter needs an AR-15 to bring down a deer. None of us needs such a weapon to defend our families
against intruders. And for those who believe assault rifles offer protection against a hypothetical tyrannical
government — or who perhaps consider the present government tyrannical — I have sobering news: If and when
the black helicopters come, they will be accompanied by tanks. Why focus exclusively on the guns? Because
other proposed solutions would violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution — and surely wouldn’t work
anyway.
One of the presidential candidates — I don’t want to sully this column with his name — has suggested a
ban on Muslim immigration. The idea would be laughable if it were not so dangerously un-American.
First, it would be useless. The Orlando murderer — I don’t want to use his name, either — was born not overseas
but in New York, just like the presidential candidate in question. And in the San
Bernardino, Calif., killing spree, also inspired by the Islamic State, the wife was an
immigrant, but the husband was born in the United States. The self-radicalization of
American citizens is not going to be solved by banning all believers in Islam from entry.
Which would be impossible, of course. I suppose immigration officers could ask
every foreign visitor whether he or she is a Muslim, but then what? If the answer is no,
wave them through? Stop them for further questioning if they “look” Muslim, whatever that means? Don’t you
think Islamic State operatives might be smart enough to have Bibles in their carry-ons rather than Korans?
Attempting such a prohibition would also be obscene in a nation that enshrines religious freedom in the First
Amendment. Enough said about this loathsome idea.
Another possible response would involve more vigilant surveillance. The Orlando shooter had been
interviewed by the FBI at least twice because of alleged extremist leanings or connections. He was apparently on
a terrorism watch list for a time but was removed after authorities decided there was no need to keep him under
suspicion.
By all means, Congress should immediately ban gun sales to anyone on such a watch list. But that wouldn’t
have helped in Orlando. No level of surveillance remotely permissible under the Constitution would allow
authorities to detect all instances of self-radicalization and act on them. We put people in jail for what they do,
not what they think.
Should there be universal background checks for gun purchases? Yes, of course. But the Orlando killer passed a
background check. It is not possible to have a free society without the presumption of innocence.
Freedom is possible, however, without the right to buy military weapons designed for killing sprees.
Banning them would not end mass killings, but it would mean fewer deaths. If we do not act, the blood of future
victims will be on all of our hands.
TAKEN FROM: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/assault-weapons-must-be-banned/2016/06/13/0d6a58f4-3195-11e6-8ff7-
7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.4b30f2bbd77e

A. Deduce the meaning of the words marked in the text according to the context. Say the
grammatical category of the word and then give the meaning or a synonym of it.

GRAMMATICAL
WORD MEANING/SYNONYM
CATEGORY
1. ensconce verb To make someone comfortable about a situation /situate
People who decide how to do an activity or how to proceed on
2. framer noun something/ maker-
Making you feel serious or thankful about important matters/ significant –
3. sobering adjective dangerous
4. sully verb To make something dirty/ disgrace- dishonor- corrupt
5. loathsome adjective Extremely unpleasant/ disgusting- deplorable- repugnant

B. Complete the following chart including the writer’s point of view and 2 arguments that support it.
Use your own words.

Point of view of the writer:

Banning assault guns not only would end mass killings, but also it will represent fewer deaths.
Arguments:

1. People who stablished the second amendment in the United States did not imagine what sort of weapons
could be created. So, this legal paper should not be valid nowadays, or at least, it should be modified to
be adapted to these days.

2. Common people do not need an assault weapon because those weapons are designed to be used by
military not by normal people. If the matter is about security, they could be safe by using a handgun.
C. Answer these questions based on the text and in your personal experience. Explain every answer.

 If you had the power to decide whether weapons should be banned or not, what would you do?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
 What could be a solution to the current situation in America concerning weapons and killing
sprees?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
 Would you buy a weapon in the United States? What would be your reasons to do it or not?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________