Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not illegal to own uranium ore - I think the restrictions are only on the refined product
If we're being pedantic, pure uranium is literally perfectly refined uranium ore. Possession of weaponizable isotopes of pure elemental uranium is absolutely regulated. Pretty sure the same is true for some of the other particularly WMD-able elements, but I'm not about to google them.
Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
41–50 of 114 posts
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#42I mean, you really ought to be able to experiment with explosives in a free country, as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. It's obviously legal when companies in the industry do it. Why shouldn't it be for private citizens.
”as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone” By that definition, car racing on public streets, running red lights and ignoring speed limits is absolutely fine, as long as you’re not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. Regulations that limit the risks people get exposed to exist for a reason: you can’t undo damage done to others by punishing the culprit. That’s why, for example, reckless driv…
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#43I mean, you really ought to be able to experiment with explosives in a free country, as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. It's obviously legal when companies in the industry do it. Why shouldn't it be for private citizens.
I'm not familiar with specific laws in UK, but it's possible that the industry has to seek a license before they start experimenting with explosives.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…
If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even raising any eyebrows. If somebody wants to commit arson, bullshit regulations on phosphorus won't stop them. Nor does it require any knowledge a gradeschooler doesn't possess. This isn't even academic, a maniac killed 36 people like this in Japan last year. If t…
in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#45> But two other judges ... declared that “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify the use to which the explosives will be put in order to provide such education.
In my epistemology these judges have committed blasphemy. Private education is not just a lawful object, it is a primary motive and purpose of human action.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#46Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…
> A certain degree of limiting the power of individual actors is wise. Unless you’re the individual and you aren’t malicious, you just want some glassware. I think your approach that people should be kept in a sandbox until they can prove to the state that they are “fundamentally good” is a terrifying one.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#48I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…
Now, I a bit skeptical of putting Phosphorus into the drug law, it has too many uses and not too many inherent ills.
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#49For context, the UK has suffered a number of terrorist bombings over the years; explosives are controlled substances, and anyone making them without a license will have the terrorism book thrown at them. Not really much point in spending two decades in Afghanistan "fighting terrorism" if you're going to let people brew TATP in their bathtubs like the 7/7 bombers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombi…
Looking at the above list, it seems that terrorists are going to make bombs despite this venerable law. Who would have thought!
Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even raising any eyebrows. If somebody wants to commit arson, bullshit regulations on phosphorus won't stop them. Nor does it require any knowledge a gradeschooler doesn't possess. This isn't even academic, a maniac killed 36 people like this in Japan last year. If t…
I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.