dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:  > viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:  >>	That really depends upon where you draw the line while defining >>these weapons,   >This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.  	Very narrow.  Very, very narrow.  If you'll recall, I was the nut that advocated the possibility of tactical nukes being militia weapons in certain situations.  How can you possibly define what is a weapon and what isn't is only the start of this.  >>and also on if you intend the law to be reflective of >>modern practice five months or five centuries down the road.    >I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon >whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic >nuclei.  	And you've just described any civilian reactor because your definition fails to note what energy is being considered.  Reactors blow with a steam explosion, but the majority of energy still comes from fission or fusion because that is what heated the coolant.  See what a can of worms this is?  Last I heard, Ft. Calhoun station just north of Omaha, Nebraska wasn't considered a weapon.  Given the sodium-cooled breeder designs on the blocks now, I can easily envision reactors being household appliances in under twenty years.  With the PRISM design, there is *no* operator input needed on the reactor itself, and it is not unreasonable to assume the secondary side can be made equally as automatic in the future.  So your definition is flawed in a few respects already.  >  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses  >in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause  >death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of >people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or >cropland.    	Typhoid Mary would likely fit this bill if she sneezed.  If you don't mind extrapolation, any HIV-positive person also fits this bill if they interact with others in a way that stands any chance of spreading the virus.  Finally, that manure pile I mention below fits this definition, as does, say, releasing a pet rattlesnake to the wild.  >Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous >gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there >is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for >research purposes on such chemicals.  	And I can show where any such gas has other uses.  For example, perhaps we would like to rid the hay field of gophers.  Calcium Carbide is a rock that dissolves in water to produce aceteylne gas.  It can be used for welding, in miners lamps, for gassing gophers, or for making carbide bombs and doing some illicit fishing.  Toss some in a toilet and leave a lighted cigarette on the seat and you'll see that it can also be a weapon, just like any other flammable substance. So, now my miners lamps won't work, I can't do any welding, and I still have those pesky gophers.  >I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for  >definitions.  	The basis for, but I'm sure you see that the problem is not in writing a law, it is in writing a law that cannot be abused and extended beyond the point where it does any good.  >>I'll give >>you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the >>road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction,   >Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.  	It is under your proposed law.  So is a silage pit if there is run-off.  So are underground fuel tanks.  >>biological in >>nature, because if it gets washed into an open well it will contaminate >>the aquifers that supply thousands of cities with drinking water.  So, >>where do *you* draw the line?  In the USA, the EPA has ruled that >>a pile of scrap iron is illegal.  Care to draw a thinner line this time?  >It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are >banned for other reasons.  	It meets all the criterion of a weapon.  It is an instrument that can be used for fighting, even though that is not its intended purpose, and despite there being better weapons around.  Given that the aquifers supply a significant part of the country with drinking water, mass destruction is rather a given.  	It's not that certain weapons aren't something I'd rather not see a lot of people having.  The problem is that it is nearly impossible to write a law such that it cannot be abused upon some pretext or another.  The looser your definition, the more ripe for abuse that law is.  Furthermore, if you get specific then the old standby is to insert a clause allowing the list of banned things to be added to, generally without going through the hassles of another vote and public reading of the law.  Again, ripe for abuse.