Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.politics.usa.constitution:2032 talk.politics.guns:54526
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!pitt.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ousrvr.oulu.fi!vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi!dfo
From: dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)
Message-ID: <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
Date: 21 Apr 93 09:11:30 GMT
References: <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi> <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
Sender: news@ousrvr.oulu.fi
Organization: VTT
Lines: 55

In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>>You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
>>mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a 
>>neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
>>gas on his/her property.  

>	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.

>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.  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.  


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.

I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
definitions.

>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.

>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.

>< 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.  >


-- 
doug foxvog
douglas.foxvog@vtt.fi
