Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.politics.usa.constitution:2060 talk.politics.guns:55050
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.guns
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!vincent2.iastate.edu!viking
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)
Message-ID: <viking.735491310@vincent2.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi> <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 15:08:30 GMT
Lines: 105

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.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
