zapatos

You'll have to define for me what you mean by 'arbitrarily'. It is not possible for the state to pick my name out of the phone book and write legislation that prevents me from owning a gun.

It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the Bill of Privileges. You cannot legislate away a Right without changing the Constitution.

Arms are meant to be a last resort; the Constitution provides the preferred mechanism to oppose the government.

Unfortunately 'natural rights' are just a concept created by man. There is no agreement on what constitutes natural rights. Natural rights and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee unless there is someone willing and able to guarantee those rights. If you rip the second amendment from the US constitution, your right to bear arms will exist only in your mind. Gun control already exists. You cannot own a machine gun. Some states require permits, limited magazine size, etc. You cannot look at the second amendment in isolation. It is part of a larger document that ensures your rights are controlled to the extent that they are not allowed to infringe on the rights of others.

Antipodal point - the point that is directly on the opposite side of the planet

American Astronomical Society - Formed in 1899 to enhance and share humanity's scientific understanding of the Universe.

Sterope - The name shared by two stars in the constellation Taurus.

Yildun - A greenish star in the middle of the tail of the Little Bear (Also known as Ursa Minor, with Polaris being at the end of the tail), known as one of the "dancers" that circles around Polaris.

'The universe' is a scientific definition and therefore includes everything natural that exists. Examples being energy, matter, and space. If a fourth natural constituent is identified, then it too will be included in the definition. God is generally considered supernatural and therefore outside the definitions of science. If God is not made of things like energy, matter and space, but of something supernatural, then God is not part of the universe. You cannot use a definition that applies to the natural world to disprove the existence of God unless you've presupposed that God is natural.

"The Universe is customarily defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them. I highlighted the next sentence from the link your provided.

Scintillation - The atmospheric effects influencing astronomical observations.

The universe is by definition all the matter, energy, and space that exists. A creator could be made of something other than matter, energy, and/or space.

Eridanus Supervoid - An as yet unproven void between the filaments that define the structure of the universe, that would be the second largest void known (after the Giant Void).

Inclination - Measure of the tilt of a planet's orbital plane.

Mare - sea

French Revolution Cuba China

I am not one of those who think we need guns to take on our own government, but I don't think you are fully taking into consideration how a fight against the government would work. History is full of examples of local populations doing quite well against militarily superior forces. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are recent examples. Were the US government to use nuclear weapons the story would be different, but that is not a likely scenario against its own population. The US government even backs down against the threat of violence from even a few of its citizens (see Cliven Bundy). For how long did the Brits fight the Irish, or many of the countries in its former empire? In all out war, the US would likely beat its population into submission in short order, but all out war is unlikely.

Wait. What? Nature is neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. Those words do not apply.

Got it. Yes, that makes sense.

I'm not sure we should assume anything. I imagine we could use real data to get a pretty good idea of what you are asking. Once you get your answer, are you proposing a specific action that depends on which number is greater?

I think that part of the reason that those outside the US can't understand us, is that they are under the impression we are 'gun slinging' Americans. Most of us are not. But even the gun-slingers don't want criminals or those who don't know how to store dangerous items to have guns. Maybe it is just Americans who feel this way, but if someone has already decided to commit a crime against me (say, by breaking into my house), I am not going to count on his good will to not harm me. It is a fluid document that can be changed as the needs demand it. But the need must be seen by a majority of Americans, not a majority of Europeans. And at this time, Americans don't think the needs demand it. Most Americans with guns are not using them for nefarious reasons. For them, it seems kind of silly to punish the innocent along with the guilty.

At least most people in this thread are debating based on logic instead of emotion as you are.

I often hear people who want the 2nd Amendment changed, suggest that those who support gun rights pretend the Constitution is written in stone. I never actually hear supporters of gun rights act as if the Constitution is written in stone. While I agree with your entire post Ten oz, I find that last statement to be a criticism of gun rights advocates that has little merit.

The 'right' does not kill innocent people. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting that all rights should necessarily be there for eternity.

"Purpose" is irrelevant and a red herring. It is risk that matters. And for the record, skiers DO kill other people.