The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[ixnayonthetimmay 16]

Originally posted by: The Boy

Catch me if I'm being mislead... you think that since America has been established and that we in society's don't live in colonies or areas per se that we no longer need a militia because we've already established everything including a relationship with the UK.. is that what your saying?quote>

I am saying the opposite...rather the inverse. A militia, at least in the sense of the Continental Army that fought in the Revolutionary War doesn't exist anymore, and what we have now is a much larger and more institutionalized military system. I never said that it wasn't needed, but rather just acknowledging that conditions have changed. The point of my previous comment was that the conditions having changed should not be the defining argument in redefining the purpose of the Second Amendment.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek I suspect this depends on the area of the country. In some areas, they want to teach shooting in high school to increase the number of hunters. This idea isn't proving to be too popular.quote>

What about letting the military teach kids what they're doing every once in a while? You might not learn how to handle or shoot with assult rifles and machine guns by doing it once, but you do learn about the force of them (and that it hurts like hell if you're not putting you're fingers exactly where they should be!). We also learned how to save people with gun shot wounds by them.

[panthersimcity4 162]

While I agree that certain people shouldn't have so many guns, I personally think it's foolish to think that banning guns is going to lead to a harmonious society of love and peace and joy... No matter what there's going to be guns circulating... and no matter whether we ban guns or not there will be people who will use them. I do think people have abused the right to bear arms way too much in the past however. I honestly don't know what would be best. But if I were to see clear evidence that it actually would work to ban guns, I might be convinced. However our society in the U.S. (at least in rural areas) is kinda nuts about guns.

[TRNSTN 0]

What about letting the military teach kids what they're doing every once in a while? You might not learn how to handle or shoot with assult rifles and machine guns by doing it once, but you do learn about the force of them (and that it hurts like hell if you're not putting you're fingers exactly where they should be!). We also learned how to save people with gun shot wounds by them.quote>

This made me think of something. A little bit off-topic but bear with me. In the past several years Tasres have been introduced to police forces around the world. There have been many news reports about police officers using tasers indiscriminantly. I thought this was unfair however it turns out police officers using tasers have gone through training with them, meaning they have been shot with one and know what it feels like. This way officers know what they are doing to someone when they shoot it and know the consequences.

I'm not saying it's not bluntly obvious what a gun can do, but maybe if everyone gun owner really knew what it meant and felt like to get shot, it might happen a lot less. Just a thought.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

 militia: n. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

1. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
2. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

By definition, the militia is not a formal military force. In that light, the 2nd Amendment does not limit guns to gov't representatives. It keeps them in the hands of the citizenry.

 

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

By definition, the militia is not a formal military force. In that light, the 2nd Amendment does not limit guns to gov't representatives. It keeps them in the hands of the citizenry. quote>

I believe you are correct.  Or, to put it more exactly, I believe the courts will eventually rule that you are correct.

Which brings up an interesting point that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread:  having a gun ban would require repealing the 2nd Amendment.  Changing the Constitution requires:

-  approval of 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate

-  ratification by 3/4ths of the States

In other words, it's not going to happen any time soon.

[krbe 193]

Well, the second definition covers anybody (but still service). However the first, just says it's a force not part of the regular, professional army (Army, Navy, Air Force), such as a lot of Home Guards and Militias around the world.

And in regards to the second amendment, which weight does Milita with a capital M bear, as well as being in singular?

[Ducio 285]

I normally believe that Simtropolis is not the place to discuss politics, but this time I couldn't stop myself.

I can accept (albeit, difficulty) that some people like to hunt and kill innocent animals in some sort of lewd game or sport, but I don't understand why society accepts handguns and automatic weapons, as they make killing so much easier, effortless, and thoughtless.

I don't understand why people say any serious gun regulation should not occur because guns ownership is part of the constitution. But it's not like the constitution is unquestionably, undeniably always correct, or did I miss something?

Then other people say, that if someone breaks into my house, then by God, I want to protect myself and my family. Which, I also never understood, because, surely, if you have a gun in the house, you are more likely to be shot at or shoot someone, which, when really, no possessions in your home are worth the life of a human being.

So, if someone could clear this up and explain why Americans are so eager to own guns (and therefore, accept their high murder rates, and school shootings), I would greatly appreciate it, as, I really can't get my head around it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Ducio

I don't understand why people say any serious gun regulation should not occur because guns ownership is part of the constitution. But it's not like the constitution is unquestionably, undeniably always correct, or did I miss something? quote>

It is not.  It has been amended half a dozen times just during my lifetime and more than that during it's lifetime.   I know I just said this but I'll say it again.

 Changing the Constitution requires:

-  approval of 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate

-  ratification by 3/4ths of the States

A gun ban does not have this kind of support.  I am not overstating the case to say that there are many people who will fight to the death for the right to keep their guns.

Even if the President decided tomorrow that we needed a nationwide gun ban (he won't but for sake of discussion let's say that he will), it would require 2/3rd of both the House and the Senate to agree.  Even if they agreed, it would still require 3/4ths of the states to agree.  There are 50 states so 38 states would have to agree.   Which means that all it takes is 13 states to kill the idea.  There are easily 13 states that would refuse to ratify a gun ban amendment.

So, if someone could clear this up and explain why Americans are so eager to own guns (and therefore, accept their high murder rates, and school shootings), I would greatly appreciate it, as, I really can't get my head around it. quote>

It goes back to the country's history.  In the frontier days, carrying a gun was necessary, if only to protect yourself from the random wildlife.  Even during my lifetime, casual gun use has been quite common in many areas of the country.   I used to work with one guy who would routinely take his rifle along when he and his buddy went wandering in the woods.  Another former co-worker was expected to go out and shoot a small critter for breakfast.  It is an integral part of the lifestyle.

I'll go back to something I said in one of the earlier threads:  a lot of this is about population density.  In low density areas, gun ownership is quite common and usually not a problem.  In high density areas, it tends to be quite a problem.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Ducio I normally believe that Simtropolis is not the place to discuss politics, but this time I couldn't stop myself.

I can accept (albeit, difficulty) that some people like to hunt and kill innocent animals in some sort of lewd game or sport, but I don't understand why society accepts handguns and automatic weapons, as they make killing so much easier, effortless, and thoughtless. quote>

It's not just sport.  Animals are also food.  Deer might not be as widely consumed as cattle, but either way, animals are food.

I don't understand why people say any serious gun regulation should not occur because guns ownership is part of the constitution. But it's not like the constitution is unquestionably, undeniably always correct, or did I miss something? quote>

The Constitution is the highest law of the land.  No other law may overturn it or in any way place restrictions on freedoms in the Constitution, unless a court (generally the Supreme Court) says that the law can do that.  No matter how badly needed a law may be, if it is ruled un-Constitutional, it must be removed, or the Constitution itself must be changed (and that can only happen by amending the Constitution, which is a very, very difficult task). 

Then other people say, that if someone breaks into my house, then by God, I want to protect myself and my family. Which, I also never understood, because, surely, if you have a gun in the house, you are more likely to be shot at or shoot someone, which, when really, no possessions in your home are worth the life of a human being. quote>

It isn't just about possessions.  Statistics in the US generally say that confrontations between the homeowner and the criminal usually end up with the homeowner being injured or killed if he is unarmed.  If police are called to investigate a home that might have been burglarized, they generally operate on the premise that the criminal is present in the home, armed, and willing to kill.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Ducio

So, if someone could clear this up and explain why Americans are so eager to own guns (and therefore, accept their high murder rates, and school shootings), I would greatly appreciate it, as, I really can't get my head around it. quote>

There is more to it than just the frontier culture.  It has to do with how the country was formed.  Duke put it very well when he said:

Originally posted by: Duke87

Our philosophy has always been "government by the people, of the people, for the people". In other words, they only get to do things because we want them to. They're not the boss of us, we're the boss of them. quote>

People in some countries seem to be confident that their government exists to take care of them and has their best interests at heart.  In general, Americans do not believe that.

The Founding Fathers had just completed a revolution against their colonial oppressors.  (The fact that colonies elsewhere didn't feel oppressed is irrelevant; these colonies did feel that way.)  They didn't want to tie the citizens' hands by making it difficult to over throw the government if need be.  Yes, they built in many mechanisms for non-violent ways to change leadership but the belief is that the government can not be trusted.  Among other things, it can not be trusted to protect us so we have to do it ourselves.

In terms of today, many people believe that taking away their guns is the first step towards dictatorship and taking away our freedoms. 

[ImpliedObject 0]

Just for a little balance here...

The UK (which outlawed every privately owned handgun by 1997) is seeing an alarming increasing in the use of knives to commit crimes. Criminals will use whatever they can to commit crime. Ban one method, they go for another. Here is the link to the article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2284258.ece

(does this mean there will be a waiting period at the steakhouse before I can cut my steak so I can pass my background check?)

An Australian article along the same lines. While there are numerous gun laws, knives are the top weapon now.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2001/20010212.html

Pro or anti gun, controlling them will not make crime disappear. All it does is move the statistic to a different category.

Also, I read the second amendment not as giving us our right, but to keep that right from being infringed.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Our right was already there before the Constitution was drafted. The second amendment

was put in to make sure that right was not infringed.

[pursuit1 19]

Using the literal definition of militia you would be correct..the national guard would not be a militia. However the the national guard was originally set up to be the militia that the constitution talks about. They were called the state militia. And their role was to protect that state from the federal government and other states after the civil war. Over the years politics turned it into a what it is today. The guard started to get military training when the US needed to quickly increase their forces during the Vietnam war. During peace time they are controlled by the state governor, and are used to keep the peace during riots and civil disturbances and to provide aid in disasters. They are in fact made up of plain ordinary citizens. Being well regulated means the rules by which they can operate. The governor just can't deploy them without following a specific set of rules. He or She just can't send them into the streets on a whim. The People we have put in office has turned them into a branch of the military. That was never what they were intended to be. Even though the first militia's were basically a bunch of farmers with muskets, they were still organized, they still had leaders and they did receive some kind of basic training. The militia has never been a bunch of yahoos with shotguns in the a pick-up truck. They have always been organized and made up of the citizens of the state, and never were "full time" soldiers. The line "congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms was to prevent the federal government from outlawing the militia from having guns. So as far as banning guns, the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have guns, and by including  the word militia, they wanted us to be organized.  Thomas Jefferson even wrote that every 20 years the government should be violently overthrown.  I think he assumed we would need guns to accomplish that.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: ImpliedObject (does this mean there will be a waiting period at the steakhouse before I can cut my steak so I can pass my background check?)quote>

No, it'll mean that airlines will continue to hand out cutlery to their firs class passengers so that they can't use them against the crew.

I'm not too sure what a want... A nation armed with knifes, capable of killing at an arms length, or a nation armed with guns, capable of murdering up to a 100 metres, with the ability of killing everyone they don't intend to (remember gang wars?).

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

I'm not too sure what a want... A nation armed with knifes, capable of killing at an arms length, or a nation armed with guns, capable of murdering up to a 100 metres, with the ability of killing everyone they don't intend to (remember gang wars?).quote>

How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?

[pursuit1 19]

Shootings are terrible..especially school shootings. But they aren't happening because of the guns. These are kids/people with emotional/social problems. Why aren't we talking about ways to deal with and prevent that? Sure its real easy to blame guns instead of ourselves for not dealing with these problems to begin with. We don't like something in this country what we do..just make it a crime. Don't try to come up with a solution to the problem. That might take precious time away from texting and cell phones, and worrying about Britney Spears shaving her head or some other dumbass celebrity being stupid. God forbid we spend our money trying to solve the social, emotional and economic problems which is what causes someone to go on a shooting spree to begin with. Lets just waste it on senseless wars, giving it to countries who hate us, and want to kill us, bull***** pork projects some politician can put their name on. I know there is no easy answer to these problems, or quick fix solution, they are very complex, but we don't even bother to try. Just make it a crime, lock em up and forget about it. We have more important things to worry about. Some radio person made an offensive comment so we need to focus on that. Some professional athelete took steriods..we need to have congressional hearings. OH MY GOD! somebody prayed at a school function. What's going to become of us? I know.. lets ban guns..that will solve our problem.

The hijackers on 9/11 used box cutters and killed what 3000 people?. I can go down to dollar tree right now and buy a 3 pack of them....for.....wait for it.....A DOLLAR! I wonder what I can do with those? Hmmm... The point is, you can ban whatever you want, its not going to change anything except create more crime and more criminals and make some black marketeers RICH!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: krbe

I'm not too sure what a want... A nation armed with knifes, capable of killing at an arms length, or a nation armed with guns, capable of murdering up to a 100 metres, with the ability of killing everyone they don't intend to (remember gang wars?).quote>

How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?quote>

And that is what a gun ban would accomplish. 

Which is why most Americans oppose a gun ban.  Even ones like me who don't like guns in the first place.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?quote>

Fine enough, if they can do it where ordinary people aren't.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek And that is what a gun ban would accomplish. 

Which is why most Americans oppose a gun ban.  Even ones like me who don't like guns in the first place.quote>

You certainly got problems with your crime rate. I'm just wondereing in which cases it's usual to "fight back" (apart from home invasions), and if this happens exceptionally or not.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?quote>

Fine enough, if they can do it where ordinary people aren't.quote>

But where is that?  Where there are gangs, there are ordinary people.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?quote>

Fine enough, if they can do it where ordinary people aren't.quote>

But where is that?  Where there are gangs, there are ordinary people.quote>

I know, but if it's happening in shady back alleys, or in empty (-ier) streets, it's better than a Wendy's that's packed with families. But then again, in my culture, they drive by an apartment building and shoot 10-20 rounds against it rather than confronting actual people.

[pursuit1 19]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?quote>

Fine enough, if they can do it where ordinary people aren't.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek And that is what a gun ban would accomplish. 

Which is why most Americans oppose a gun ban.  Even ones like me who don't like guns in the first place.quote>

You certainly got problems with your crime rate. I'm just wondereing in which cases it's usual to "fight back" (apart from home invasions), and if this happens exceptionally or not.quote>

Things aren't as bad as it sounds.. I live near new york city and have a police scanner and hear pretty much everything that goes on in the city and around the area.. both NJ and NY..lately though it seems like the police are doing all the shooting... there is random crime, and random violence, but it seems to me that a big majority of shootings and assaults are being committed against or by people who know each other. The NYPD does an excellent job. I have no problem going into Manhatten at night to see a show or something. Its pretty safe..I wouldn't go down any dark alleys or anything..but like any big city anywhere  you just have to be aware of your surroundings. Of course the media always shows the worst of things and totally exploits it... but thats how they get ratings I guess. I know it sounds like we NEED our guns..but its not really as bad as it sounds. Crime, violence and homicide is actually down in many many places. Where I live we have very little crime. Mostly shoplifting at the wal-mart. There is no random violence, or muggings. There might be the occasional burglary, but there are many nights I've gone to bed and forgot to lock the door. There are many times I go out to the store and don't lock the door. It all depends on the area where you are...if its economically depressed the crime rate is higher than it is where people have money.

I don' t think crime is any worse in New York City or Los Angeles than it is in say Toronto, London, Paris, or Moscow. This has has gone off topic so let me end it with this. Those who want to ban guns are using the extreme incidents to make their case. They use scare tactics to reach the uninformed and sway things their way. Before you allow a vocal  minority of people to take away your rights...even if you choose not to exercise those rights, check the facts for yourself. Just because someone makes a claim either way, pro or con doesn't mean its the truth.

[spacemanspiff 0]

I'm so disappointed in this thread that I run the risk of making people angry. Instead, I'd rather you read this post and start thinking in a new way. The common denominator I find in these current event topics is a gross oversimplification of a problem, which is fixed by an arguably simple solution. It's faulty logic. In the case of this thread, it's degenerated into 'gun violence is bad, so to eliminate gun violence you eliminate guns'. Remember, the original topic was about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Instead, I've seen a litany of poor supporting information, comparisons between dissimilar objects and situations, and a parade of half-truths. SimCity isn't the real world. Crime (and violence) is not the result of low-wealth zoning and it isn't solved by plopping police stations.

Now, to the meat of the subject. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees all of it's citizens (with a minimum of exceptions) the right to firearm ownership. The 'militia' was clarified as being everyone. Now, here comes the WHY. The reasons go back to the original colonists of the Americas. These people were of the Yeoman (middle class), who, because of dwindling space (land) saw the colonies as an opportunity to continue their way of life. They were skilled and had education, and the colonies thrived. When the Government in England began to mistreat the colonies in 1851 (the Navigation Acts), the colonies responded with diplomacy. Over the next 25 years, the situation escalated, but was still dealt with without violence, and revolt was not an option until near the end. It is a poignant piece of human history. On one hand, King George couldn't back down because his reputation was at stake, and on the other, the Colonists had their freedom on the line. In the end, it cost Britain it's empire. Why is this important? Because for nearly 200 years the Colonists were Englishmen, and the relationship between Colony and King were good. When that relationship soured and decades of diplomacy failed, firearms became the deciding factor. The truth is that governments can and do go bad, and that without the ability to defend yourself, citizens are doomed. That is why gun ownership is protected in the US. Had enough history lesson yet? Go find out more and gird yourself with knowledge.

Now, on to the issue of violence. I like New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and many other low violence countries. But I would argue that the low rates of violent crimes has little to do with the availability of firearms. In 1st world nations, firearm ownership and violence do not form parallels. Firearms are illegal in the UK, but violence has become a serious problem. Instead, I argue that the common denominator is in the culture. The least violent places all have homogeneous populations and a very unifying culture. In places where violence is present, you will always find a mix of cultures and values. This is the real birthplace of violence, not firearms. Firearms are just a tool, like arson, stabbings, and homemade bombs.

Here's a thought for you. The worst shootings in recent US history have all taken place in 'gun free' zones. Firearms are not allowed in schools, colleges, and Government offices. Even the mall in Omaha didn't allow lawful concealed carry of guns. Prisons are amongst the most violent places you will find, and there are certainly no guns there. Where there is a will, there is a way. People who are compelled to commit violent acts will do just that.

Faulty logic applied to oversimplified problems will give you nothing but wrong answers.

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok How about a nation armed with knives where the gang wars will still continue with guns?quote>

Fine enough, if they can do it where ordinary people aren't.quote>

But where is that?  Where there are gangs, there are ordinary people.quote>

Okay, that is true, there are a lot of ordinary people, but there are also a lot of bad people, if a bar person breaks into my home, what am I gonna do? Plead with him to get out or yell at him? Ohh how about hit him with my fist while he has a crowbar or something.. that'll be great.

I'd really like to say the NYPD does a VERY fabulous job I would feel pretty safe in New York now, from what I understand of their whole police force, its like for the people who have been to disney world, you know all those staff entrances, I sware thats where NYPD personnel and cars come out of LMAO! Same thing with London! I sware!

ixnayonthetimmay: I see what your saying... ok now I understand, thanks.

[Yoman3 5]

I quite enjoy the 2nd Amendment. Though the ability to purchase Ak-47s and other handguns (especially in cities) should be restricted more. I mean really, who goes hunting or defending themselves with an assault rifle?

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: Yoman3 I quite enjoy the 2nd Amendment. Though the ability to purchase Ak-47s and other handguns (especially in cities) should be restricted more. I mean really, who goes hunting or defending themselves with an assault rifle?quote>

Frankly, I'd like to see more good-doing people with very dangerous weapons in their hands because, they'd hunt the problem out per se..

I would also like to see a way from getting it in the wrong hands, being that gun control ISN'T the solution and it would make it a hell of a lot worse, we need to think of something...

[Palpatine001 57]

Ok I have been thinking and procrastinating writing in this thread.

But seems this same debate has come up in an Honours Cultural Anthropology Class at university I'll weigh into it finally.

Seriously as much I like to see the Second Ammendment confined to the history books that will not happen anytime soon.

So then if you want to get tough on gun crime in the USA then three areas need to be addressed at State AND FEDERAL level and in full co-operation in order for this to work. 

Now then 65-90% of crime and gun crime happen for 3 core reasons, they are:

1) Lack of Education Opportunities

2) Lack of Economic Opportunities

3) Pre determined Racial Prejudice

The other % left can not be dealt with by the three mentioned, and that % is usually done by nutcases, people with a slight mental problem or something more evil in mind.

Now then 1 and 2 I don't have to go into detail much as that is straight foward to figure out. But remember crime is committed as an opportunitistic proceedure due to 1 and 2, of which was addressed through a decent and co-operative universal education system and welfare system to one, set people up to make best of what is there to grab, and two to catch those who take a fall and need a hand to get back up again - like what a friend does when someone takes a hit. 

For 3 this will be more interesting to deal with.

And yes the USA has pre determined racial prejudice as every other nation, but at a more fantastic level. And Confused04 your own academics even know as I do http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/1621178 that this has to be dealt with and will take time to deal with it. As I have said earlier on elsewhere, it will take the USA 125 years to even make a decent dent in breaking this prejudicism at the level it is.

And Kenny I KNOW how hard it is, little innocent (well not so ) New Zealand has racial issues, and even with the work being going on since 1840 we have only made around 0.00000001% progress in eliminating this pre determined prejudice.

So you want effective gun control, then better education and economic opportunities are needed to allow everyone to have a fair crack at the massive pie called wealth. But also this pre determined racial prejudice needs to be dealt with as I believe in my academic opinion this is the underlying causes for 1 and 2 and a massive factor in gun crime in the USA.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff  The common denominator I find in these current event topics is a gross oversimplification of a problem, which is fixed by an arguably simple solution.quote>

It's not just these current events topics, it's life. People tend to oversimplify things like this since the reality is far too complex for them to wrap their minds around- they oversimplify it so they can understand it. The key assumption in this case that makes the whole argument fall apart is "if guns are illegal, criminals won't have access to guns". Obviously, that simply isn't true.  Criminals will have access to guns whether they're legal or not. So naturally it's better if the victims are capable of shooting back than simply being helpless. In a perfect world, there would be no guns and no need for guns. This is not a perfect world. Utopian ideals won't work. We can't uninvent guns- they're here to stay and we're just going to have to deal with them. Eliminating them is not possible.

When the Government in England began to mistreat the colonies in 1851 (the Navigation Acts), the colonies responded with diplomacy.quote>

1751. Numbers are the worst thing to make a typo with.

In 1st world nations, firearm ownership and violence do not form parallels. Firearms are illegal in the UK, but violence has become a serious problem. Instead, I argue that the common denominator is in the culture. The least violent places all have homogeneous populations and a very unifying culture. In places where violence is present, you will always find a mix of cultures and values. This is the real birthplace of violence, not firearms. Firearms are just a tool, like arson, stabbings, and homemade bombs. quote>

Bingo. That's why the US has such a problem with violence. We have no one dominant native culture. Different people from all over the place live here side by side. And by simple human nature, if you put different people together, they're less likely to be friendly with each other than if you put similar people together. It's also why our history is rife with racism and classisim. The "melting pot" saying is flawed because not everything mixes nicely. People are more liable to flocculate into groups with similar people- and in the process they will have conflicts with other groups. Ultimately, the only thing that can solve that is time. Over time, some mixing between groups will happen and the differences go away. The trouble is that we've still got plenty of unmixed immigrants still constantly coming in, negating that "progress". The whole world needs to mix to solve that, not just America.

It doesn't seem that far fetched that in a couple thousand years there won't be any more races or ethnicities besides "human" since so much interracial and interethnic breeding will have occurred that those different identities are lost. Though depending on how you look at it, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. Still, "a couple thousand years". Don't hold your breath.

Here's a thought for you. The worst shootings in recent US history have all taken place in 'gun free' zones. Firearms are not allowed in schools, colleges, and Government offices. Even the mall in Omaha didn't allow lawful concealed carry of guns. quote>

Now that is a good thought.

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Seems this debate has heated up a bit.

I would like to comment on the whole "hunting" thing (off topic perhaps, but part of the gun debate). No one is ever going to tell me what I can and can't eat. And if I choose to go out and shoot my own food, no one has the right to stop me. Stalking and tracking your next meal is a hell of a lot better than waiting in line at a grocery store.

I will not make a long post....So I'll go back into the shadows until I'm needed...(Besides, it looks like Duke has pretty much beaten me to the punch)

[Voar Tok 4]

One question I've always wondered is this - why do people who don't live in the United States have such a serious interest in the Second Amendment? It's never going to affect you, unless you come here to visit or move here.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok One question I've always wondered is this - why do people who don't live in the United States have such a serious interest in the Second Amendment? It's never going to affect you, unless you come here to visit or move here.quote>

Look around you? Don't ordinary Americans take an interest in what's happening in other parts of the world? Like the three Iranian women who the government is about to hang (on hold until the attention fades). They have been sentenced according to the law, and according to the local procedures. Does that mean that people shouldn't care?

It's also because the US is a part of the western world, wether they like it or not. We share some common history, common wars and common emigrants/immigrants. The US isn't a remote island in the Pacific.