From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>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 hope you realize how trivial it is to manufacture these compounds.  Given
about $10k in lab equipment and chemicals (which are commercially available)
and given the knowledge that I have (graduating BS, Ch, 1993) I could 
synthesize enough of these compounds to make a serious dent in the population
of several major US cities.  As also noted, the knowledge is there for
the production of nuclear weapons.  It's not even that restricted.  The
only thing is the expense.  

Now I'm not going around making these things, but it's not 'cause of any
law; I simply don't get any marginal benefit out of killing anyone.  Any
law you enact in this respect is only going to give you the ability to 
add a charge against someone who does make and use said weapons.  In the
case of chemical agents, I seriously doubt that you would even know that
someone had set up a lab until after the weapons had been used.  

Part of the trouble with the chemical-weapons ban treaty between the US
and the USSR is that many of the precursors to chemical weapons such as
GB and Sarin, etc., is that they have very valid commercial uses, and 
it is very easy to divert those precursors to chemical weapons manufacture
without anyone knowing about it.

>>< 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

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
