Carl Milsted's post about simplistic libertarians reminds me of the Capozzi litmus test for detecting nutty libertoids: Should people be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

This helpful page at freerepublic clarifies the categories of weaponry:

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

* Knife
* Club
* Sword
* Dirk
* Mace
* Pistol
* Rifle
* Shotgun
* Cannon shooting ball shot

The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

* Machine gun
* Machine pistol
* Small explosive device
* Satchel charge
* Antitank rocket

The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and may harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

* Nuclear device
* Large explosive device
* Fuel-air explosive
* Biological weapon
* Land mine
* Chemical weapon
* Booby trap

Free Liberals prefer directed-energy weapons.

/KDR