Chemical reactions happen in all sorts of ways. When lightning strikes something, the high heat will cause chemical reactions among chemicals which are otherwise nonreactive. Solar action also causes chemical reactions. There are also chemical reactions through chemical catalysts.

These chemical reactions have been recreated in laboratories with some limited success. It's also been posited that certain chemicals were space-borne and deposited on earth while there were many collisions with space debris, asteroids, etc.

There were certain conditions and mixtures/compounds of chemicals such as amino acids, which made the creation of life a possibility. Whether a force such as lightning may have been the catalyst is unknown, but some force caused a chemical reaction and the first molecules of life were created. The general understanding is that created life was not a "one-time" event. It's likely that life had a number of beginnings and endings before becoming established on earth.

After life began, there were likely a number of cellular combinations which failed, but a few survived. Those which survived, adapted to their environment.

I understand that my explanation is from 40k feet, but that's how I understand it.

Which is why I mentioned deism. Since mankind has observed natural phenomena, he has sought an understanding of what happened within his ability to comprehend. Yes, believers are inhibited from asking those probing questions which require deep analysis and thought. They're either afraid, or the powers of a "god" answers a question which may have no direct bearing on his life. e.g. Thunder is only noise to the unlearned. Why not have a god (Thor, e.g.) which provides an explanation? Just sayin'.

I fully believe in evolution, and not just as a "theory". It has long passed the theory stage, especially with the advent of DNA science and investigative tools such as X-rays. As such, I've long become an atheist. I became one when it was no longer possible to reconcile the Big Bang (or more properly the Big Expansion) and the biblical story of creation.

While creation is an invalid theory, folks who believe in it, do so as an act of faith in (God/a god/superior being - pick one or more). Folks can believe what they wish, and as long as those beliefs aren't foisted upon me by coercion and/or force, I'm fine with it.

Deism of any kind offers answers to unexplained scientific phenomena.

Just who is the authority who maintains the "tight controls" of which you write? If you allow the government, at any level to define those controls, then it's only a matter of time before those controls become a total ban. Not to be trite, but "power corrupts, and...".

Rights limitations are always best defined by the wielder of those rights, and we have plenty of laws which can be used to punish those who flout those laws.

Here's an interesting aside: Class III weapons (submachine guns, machine guns. fully automatic rifles, sawed-off shotguns, etc.) are all tightly controlled by the ATF, and you must have those weapons registered with them, and you must also have those weapons registered locally (sheriff, PD, etc.). The folks who own those not only pay the licensing fees, but the cost of those weapons is extremely high. The price of those guns starts at around $10K, and rises rapidly from there.

The only reported incident of which I'm aware, was a murder committed by a Dayton, OH, police officer who legally owned the weapon.

There are huge gaps in the fossil records in regards to the evolution of man. Right now the oldest "human" remains are from ca. 3.6 million years ago, the Australopithecus, but there are precious few fossils to establish a firm biological timeline between it and us.

Man did evolve, but many folks misinterpret what evolution is. Man did not reach some juncture, and from then on, every man was alike. The truth is, that evolution is a series of branching exercises, and survival of those who adapt. The first creatures to become bipedal, didn't survive by being brave. They did not stand upright so some large bird of prey attacked them for the next meal. Likely, the shyest of the lot survived and sired offspring, which in turn, survived, etc. The unsuccessful branches died off quickly; those successful didn't.

So you did cheat. Figured as much.

You would have everyone go back to flintlocks, if you had your way.

BTW - self-loaders are not the be all, end all. I know revolver aficionados who can out-shoot semiautomatics with their wheel guns. You're beguiled by mythology.

Just in case you cheat - Frankly, I couldn't give a crap less about your affiliation. You may be a "Republican" by title, but you sure aren't one by belief. You don't believe in the Constitution; only your fairy tale beliefs about guns, which you obviously know little, to none of.

It also helps if you know the difference between red (the color), and read (past tense of read).

One of the worst mass killings occurred in Bath, Michigan. The murderer killed 45, including himself, using dynamite.

To carry your comment to its ultimate. Anyone with a single shot weapon is king when everyone else is unarmed.

Again, we're not talking about "needs". The 2nd Amendment was adopted to ensure that citizens would not be subservient to a runaway government. In fact, a strict translation of the 2nd Amendment would require that all male members of the population be armed with an M-16 or M-4 for participation in the militia. I've got mine.

The AR-15 is not "easily" turned into a fully automatic version of the M-16. Since 1986, Colt's Manufacturing and all the others manufacture AR-15's which can't be turned into full automatic without extensive re-manufacturing of the entire receiver. Joe Lunchbucket can't turn one into full-automatic using a file, a hacksaw, and his drill press.

You, like other liberals, always resort "to the children", another canard. Most children are not killed with AR-15's. In fact many are killed because parents have been negligent in firearm storage.

The fact that the U.S. has more guns than population is irrelevant, and you only weaken your argument by inserting this useless statistic; it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

And, PS - You could be beaten to death with your 300mm lens. And if all the guns were magically removed, clubbing your enemy to death would become the modus operandi.

To be a bit more blunt, it's not a matter of "need" where the 2nd Amendment, or even other rights, is concerned. The basis of the 2nd Amendment goes back to English common law, and the right to protects one's "hearth and home".

One has to understand human rights in the context of the late 18th Century. People have rights, not because they're bestowed on them by others, but because they are innate to thinking humans.

The militia of the time was not the "National Guard" or any particularly organized military group, and certainly no standing army. A man was part of the "militia" simply because of his status as a free man, and part of his responsibility to his community was to be ready to protect it from outside peril.

The idea of "common sense" guidelines is a red herring. To apply that term could also apply to one's freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

Handguns, in the words of the late Jeff Cooper, were to be used until you could get to a long gun. That stated, handguns do indeed have very long-range capabilities. I own a Colt Python which is accurate long past 100 yards; and there are those who use handguns to hunt everything from rabbits, up to bears. The old wives' tales of the inaccuracy of the Colt Model 1911 have long been debunked. The Colt 1911 platform is extremely accurate in the hands of a skilled shooter.

The AR-15, and its variants, are the most popular sporting rifles extant. And their calibers are not restricted to the .223 (5.56mm) cartridge. In fact, the original "AR" (Armalite Rifle) was one with a larger receiver, and chambered in the NATO 7.62mm cartridge; it's now sold in variants of the AR-10. Armalite tried to sell it to the U.S. government, but was rebuffed by the "swamp", and Armalite was undermined in its attempts to sell the design to foreign governments, but that's another story for another day.

There has always been the mantra among law enforcement authorities, that the least intrusive option is always best, even if there are signs that large amounts of force might be necessary. No law enforcement agency wants to spend inordinate amounts of time or money, in reaction to a charge of excessive or preemptive force.

Law enforcement is always caught in a conundrum over being civilian-oriented, but militarily organized. Police have sergeants, corporals, lieutenants, etc. - Quasi-military. Pure civilian organizations have supervisors, leaders, managers, etc. How many police officers have you seen lately with GI haircuts, military-trim uniforms, etc.?

When the murderer was observed with mental issues while on active duty in the reserves, his CO may have been able to shortcut the problems by having him treated, and extending his active duty for the duration. However, the buck was passed, and the perp didn't face any consequences for his military misbehavior.

Here's a link. Four of the plaintiffs were Republicans, two unaffiliated.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-4-gop-voters-filed-the-lawsuit-that-eventually-disqualified-trump-from-the-colorado-2024-primary-ballot/ar-AA1lSiIM

I think you've been scammed.

My parents had to go to school in a similar manner, but the snow was hip-deep. Just sayin'.