he incessant nitpicking over the constitutionality of gun control misses the larger issue. Rather than arguing over minutia, let us ignore the specific wording of the Second Amendment and examine what the Constitution as a whole means to our country. The Constitution is merely a formal expression of the greater philosophies of our country: democracy, justice, and equality. The gun is a manifestation of these ideals which we hold near and dear. In fact, the right to bear arms makes it the ultimate symbol of our own social democracy, especially given the present accessibility of the gun and its ease of use. Praise the gun! When we realize these truths, we can finally march under a tangible representation of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Consider, for instance, the mechanisms of the modern, automatic handgun.

From short range, it takes little more than a finger pull to operate. The beauty of this is that the overwhelming majority of this country is capable of this action. No instruction required! All gun holders are equal in the eyes of their victims. Give a 6-year old an automatic at point-blank range and I guarantee that he or she will garner as much respect as a trained soldier. The gun has become something greater than its holder. It is a weapon that does not discriminate; indeed, race, class, gender, and age disappear behind it. At last, a foolproof weapon for social equality! The gun is neither a plaything of the elite nor a cultural phenomenon, but a public resource for all Americans, regardless of genetic ability or background.

Not only is the ability gap for the operation of a gun closing, so is the accessibility gap. Gun control is an inhibitor to equality of access to guns. Doesn’t every American deserve to have the same right to these arms? The ability to kill is an impressive power. It would hardly be fair to afford it only to an elite group. Aren’t we all equal under the law and entitled to the same rights? Every restriction imposed is selectively discriminating. As it is, we are still pretty lucky that guns are remarkably convenient. Any teenager, depressed, vindictive, or otherwiseÁ has the ability to grab a gun and fire off a few rounds in an exercise of "social justice."

In this age where race and class differences threaten deep divides, let us be thankful we have the gun as a hope for social equality. As the USSR worked under the banner of the sickle and hammer, let us live under the glorious sigil of the gun. We can all now rest in peace, knowing that justice is buried deep in the heart of American society.

In an era that introduced affirmative action, our country has become increasingly concerned with diversity. Every major institution has moved toward integration. Like most of the nation’s other universities, Dartmouth has also been trying to diversify its campus. So far the administration has been pleased with its work, loudly touting its new diversity. It is true that in comparison to the homogenous blur of white males of Dartmouth’s past, today’s student body is a veritable rainbow of gender, class, and race. President James Wright is proud to proclaim "that our students represent the diversity of our society and of the world community." Dartmouth glories in the title of a campus united.

Indeed, Dartmouth has become a microcosm of society, drawing its best and brightest in all shapes, sizes, and colors. But perhaps that is just the problem. While we see an impressive translation of the quantitative diversity of our society at Dartmouth, we also see its segregation translated just as accurately.

At Dartmouth, we are not presented with the picturesque image of students of all races and colors blending together in perfect harmony. Instead we face the reality of a campus divided. Lines of color, class, culture, and national origin are remarkably visible. The trustees and administration point to the numbers and congratulate themselves on an integrated campus while they ignore their fractured student body.

Just like the world from which our students are drawn, Dartmouth is broken into factions. Groups of black students occupy the same tables in the cafeteria at lunchtime while the same circles of white kids head to frat row every Friday night. The accepted method for keeping a diverse campus happy is the creation of fantastic numbers of "cultural organizations," such as the Afro-American Society, the Dartmouth Asian Organization, and La Alianza Latina. While these groups provide a common ground for students of the same culture, they also deepen the lines of segregation by providing an escape into the comfort of the known. These organizations tend to focus internally, bonding students of the same race and subconsciously isolating them from others.

The splintered student body that we constitute is hardly a testament to overt racism. In my experience here I have seen nothing but the utmost respect and acceptance of different groups. This divided campus emerges not from the mutual prejudice of contrary factions but rather from a desire to cling to a familiar uniformity. The flaw in our student body is not its ignorance or hatred but its lack of courage. It does not hate, but it does not embrace either. It values comfort over the uncertainty of crossing the boundary lines that taint the campus.

Instead of making an effort to move beyond the parochial viewpoints we are accustomed to, we remain prisoners of our own narrow-mindedness. This is no way to experience Dartmouth. By living divided we are not only depriving ourselves of exposure to such diversity, but we are also living trapped by our own fear. It is only when we step outside of the familiar that we will understand the true value of a united campus.