tigertoy

That's literally thought-provoking; it's provoking a whole lot of thoughts I'm trying to sort out. Fundamentally, it comes down to the pursuit of happiness. Government should not default to the position that you can only do something if you can show it's not objectionable; it should only be able to limit something if they can show that it causes harm, and only to the minimal extent necessary. Who are you to say that I don't have any reason to want something just because there are other people who live without it? I personally don't desire to own a gun, but if I can say you can't own a gun even if you do it responsibly, how can I object when you say that I can't own a tiger even if I do it responsibly? (I would have to have a lot more money to own a tiger responsibly, but I do know how to do it, given access to infinite money. And it would make me very happy. But I'm not allowed to.)