



	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 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.


	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.


	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.


	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.



	It is under your proposed law.  So is a silage pit if there
is run-off.  So are underground fuel tanks.



	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.