[dcwusmc]

Actually, he's almost right. "Harm" is really hard to show in many cases and can be whatever someone claims it to be. The BEST baseline for crime is violation of rights, which are pretty easy to define objectively. Murder is, of course, the ultimate violation of rights.

[tpaine]

If I understand you correctly. You believe it is unconstitutional to put restrictions on someone making TNT for their own private use in the apartment above you. What if they desire to work with the small pox virus in the privacy of their home?

Could it be constitutionally acceptable to you to limit those private actions based on the risk factor of harm to others, despite the fact that no harm might occur?

287 SampleMan


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Actually, I believe that working with explosives or biological agents in a crowded neighborhood is an invitation to disaster, UNLESS the person doing the work has an appropriate containment area which would contain and control blasts or viral leakages... which is well beyond the capacity of the average individual.

So, while I would not object too strongly about safe STORAGE of, say, some RPGs or Stingers, I would be really unhappy about biologicals or about MAKING bombs or explosive devices.
292 dcwusmc


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


All of us have agreed that reasonable regulations can be made & enforced, using due process, to control ~public~ aspects of 'harmful' activities.

-- Certainly, making CNB weapons in a crowded neighborhood would apply, because as dcw noted; "-- The BEST baseline for crime is violation of rights --" and all the neighbors rights are being violated by having CNB bombs made next door.

Reasonable people can agree on what is in essence a zoning matter [making CNB weapons] in certain areas. --
-- It is not constitutionally acceptable to outright ~prohibit~ such private actions based on a 'risk factor' of harm to others, just as the 2nd Amendment says. Prohibitions are infringements.

[SampleMan]

Actually, he's almost right. "Harm" is really hard to show in many cases and can be whatever someone claims it to be. The BEST baseline for crime is violation of rights, which are pretty easy to define objectively. Murder is, of course, the ultimate violation of rights.

Yes. Breaking a set speed limit in a school zone is not nearly as definitive as a dead child. If only there were an infinite supply of children.

I say however that the person that hit the child wasn't doing anything different than the person that went through at 120mph and didn't kill a child. Neither could have stopped, one just got lucky, so you're not punishing the action, but a statistical anomaly. Isn't that arbitrary enforcement?

Also, do attempted murder and attempted rape become unconstitutional on the grounds that nothing actually happened? Such laws are just based on the reasonable fear that the final act would have occurred.