They power nuclear subs, nuclear icebreakers etc. Stick a transformer on it and connect it to the grid, Bingo, floating nuclear power plant.

More to it than that. The overwhelming majority of the power for a nuclear sub/icebreaker/etc is used to make the props go roundy-roundy.

Only a very small part of that power goes to drive the generators (note that nuclear powered ships/subs HAVE been used to provide emergency power to shore installations, by the by).

And since the generators are sized for the amount of power needed by the boat/ship, you can't just push more steam through them to get more power.

I'm guessing you're heterosexual then?

Please point out the part of the US Constitution that says the Federal Government can't spy on foreign countries, then justify Snowden's leaking of intelligence methods and sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with American domestic civil liberties.

Put his actions before a jury of his peers, like the numerous whistle-blowers who came before him, none of whom fled to hostile countries? Restrict his leaks to pertinent information, rather than dumping EVERYTHING? Attempt to work within the system before trying to blow it up? Leak the information without outing yourself, remaining anonymous like Deep Throat did?

You'd probably have a different perspective on that if you lived in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Finland, Georgia, or any of the Central Asian Republics.

It'd make more sense to play the realpolitik game: "Put Mr. Snowden on a flight to New York and we'll quietly acquiesce to your annexation of Crimea."

Unfortunately realpolitik is not something the current administration is very good at. They're very good at making promises they can't keep, and threats they won't follow up on, but making cold calculations to further American interests in a dangerous world? Not so much.

500 ly away...

Sounds like we have 350-400 years before they start hearing our radio noise. After that, we might need to worry....

I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Hmm, I'll see your Meriam-Webster and raise you an OED:

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

And here's another:

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):

And here's another from your friend Meriam-Webster:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

1: Campaign donations are forbidden. Each candidate for an elected office will get an equivalent place to state their platform. Advertising anything election related on a commercial (paid) basis will be a crime.

So, basically we give the various newspaper editors the privilege of deciding who gets to be President/Senator/Congresscritter? Or were you planning on forbidding newspapers from mentioning political candidates?

If they use them in criminal investigations the usage eventually becomes part of the public record when entered into evidence. Using them for search and rescue ought to be non-controversial enough. "National Security" is of course the grey area, though there's a fair amount of overlap between National Security and criminal prosecutions, for offenses like espionage or terrorism, so a lot of that use would eventually make it into the public record as well.

Wish I could remember the dude's name. He was a big shot in one of the Arsenals of Revolutionary France, not just some grunt in the field.

He had the reputation of being the fastest guy with gun in France (and presumably the world, but the French at the time automatically assumed that "best in France" was the same as "best in the world").

Note that we're not talking loose powder and shot, but prepared paper cartridges....

So where the first amendment is an absolute prohibition "no laws", the second amendment uses an arguably gentler "shall not be infringed".

So, "shall not be infringed" is weaker than "Congress shall make no laws"?

Sounds like you'd have no problems with New York State (or New York City) requiring any news article to be approved by government censors, eh? After all, neither New York City's government nor New York State's government is "Congress", therefore they're not constrained by the First Amendment, right?

Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).

and all of the evidence makes plain that owning a gun is more of a threat to the gun owner and his family than it is to any criminals or gubmint agents.

Oddly enough, everyone I know in my family (out to second cousins, pretty much) owns firearms. And not a single one of them have ever been shot....

But again, the basis of your argument is "the Bill of Rights was enacted a long time ago, so we shouldn't change it", which is contrary to the revolutionary actions and contemporary self-governance that the authors of the constitution undertook. If we're going to honor their "intent" we should hold their ancient opinions in less regard and plot our own course.

No, my argument is that you're going to be hard-pressed to convince 2/3 of both Houses of Congress (or 2/3 of the States), and then convince 3/4 of the States, to change the Bill of Rights.

If you can manage, fine.

Do keep in mind that even if you can convince enough people to make the changes to the Bill of Rights that YOU like, it's also possible that someone else might convince enough people to make changes that you will NOT like...

Note that the number of kids who shoot up schools is so tiny that they are also "outliers".

Note also that the "kids he hates" also go to malls and movie theatres....