I was being recruited for Hopkins' football team, which was Division III. They are actually well known for their lacrosse team, which is Division I and is one of the top collegiate lacrosse teams in the country.

All of them

That was actually an editorialization on my part, because I feel it is just about the only additional, not currently existing regulation that actually complies with the wording and spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

That's the point I was making in that post: there is really no reason for me to carry around my AR-15 in public, and I don't. The only time I'm moving it in public is to go to the range, and I keep it in a case

Marriage comes with it tax breaks, the ability to transfer retirement or pensions to a spouse upon death, and other tangible benefits. The argument is that these benefits are being improperly denied to a subset of the population solely based upon the person they choose to marry. Should marriage only be limited to people of the same race? How about height, or weight, or hair color? No? Because that is discriminatory, arbitrary, and ridiculous. It's not so much a "right to marry" as it is simply a "right" to have access to the same benefits as anyone else to programs and benefits offered by the government.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

State in the true sense of the word- meaning a nation, not the popular US use, a slightly autonomous defined district whose laws are superceeded by those of a national body. Militia are groups of civilians, armed with their own weapons, who in a time of crisis fight alongside the standing army in the defense of their homes and their communities. Therefore it is intended that civilians should keep weapons so that they can be called up in times of national defense. At most the 2nd Amendment calls for training for gun owners, maybe require them once a month to attend a class (provided free by the government) where they shoot a few rounds to demonstrate basic proficiency in their firearm and review gun safety (exemptions from classes possibly for antique firearms/collectors, or those who would be unable to be called up in a militia by age or physical disability). There you have it: with this proposition every point in the 2nd Amendment is upheld, without any additional limitations than we have already.

No I'm not. I'm stating the fact that anyone open carrying is someone you know for a fact is armed. I am then arguing that the perosn you know for a fact is armed is less of a potential threat than someone who MIGHT be armed. The greatest threat is always the threat you can't identify.

As a gun owner, to me the "long gun carrying peacocks" as you put it are not responsibly owning their firearms. There is no need in society for someone to be walking around with an assault rifle. The first priority in gun ownership and gun safety is responsibility. That means storing them appropriately, always treating them as if they are loaded, don't point them at anything you don't want to shoot, and most importantly, don't treat them as a toy or "accessory". Carrying a firearm in public is supposed to be about personal safety, and unless the local Chipotle or Starbucks have turned as dangerous as Kabul or Mosul, there is no need to be carrying around a long gun in public. Hell, I have a concealed carry permit and I don't even carry my little 7-shot .22, much less my 15-round 9mm or my AR-15. As I said in a post further down, I equate these idiots with the people trying to 3D print guns on the steps of the Texas state capital: by irresponsibly "exercising their rights" they are doing more harm than good.

Most gun owners are lawful gun owners. If the law requires open carry, then those carrying openly are probably not a threat to you. Anyone still carrying concealed more likely is. It's like making schools and other places gun free zones: if a person is already planning to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) then tacking on one more illegal act isn't a big deterrent. The only ones affected by the law are those that actually follow it.

Then buy a gun at a local gun store (supporting small local business, yay America!), or if you really feel ambitious, get a CNC machine and 80% milled receiver blank. 3D printing a crappy gun out of cheap plastic that is more likely to hurt the shooter than any target out in public is a publicity stunt that is more likely to increase regulation of home manufactured firearms and 3D printing in general than anything else. This is akin to those idiots who felt the need to walk around with AR-15s and AK-47s slung over their shoulders and go into restaurants and other public places. Rights should be exercised, yes. But the 2nd Amendment is different as it is the only one that should be exercised responsibly, since it is the only one that can actually kill or injure.

You do realize what OPEN carry means, right? It generally means on the hip, outside the clothes, ie. in plain view. As in, you know EXACTLY who is carrying and who isn't. Now, CONCEALED carry is where the firearm is tucked away in a pocket, or a shoulder holster under a jacket, or inside the waistband. Concealed carry is when you don't know who is armed and who isn't. For gun control advocates open carry should be preferable to concealed carry, because you can at least tell who is armed and who isn't.

Unless the local Sheriff's Department just took delivery of that surplus MRAP and M4s and wants to try them out.

Why send/land everything at once anyway? Send living/experimentation modules and any needed non-perishable supplies or equipment such as vehicles on previous missions. Then send in a manned mission with perishable supplies/experiment subjects (seeds, plants, animals, whatever) afterwards. This allows for smaller payloads that can land easier, and has the added benefit of being easier to launch from Earth. It also gives you the chance to resend any critical supplies should one of the landings go wrong or land really off course.

The real Dread Pirate Roberts must be happy he retired years ago and is now living in Padagonia.

Because that would be translating only half the name. If you want to be correct, Abdullah would translate to "servant of God". You wouldn't translate the last name "Godwin" to "Allahwin", would you?