You are sounding rather limited in your own grasp of world history - many enlightened countries of the modern world prohibit weapons, and none of of them have totalitarian governments. There is simply no need for anyone to possess powerful weapons if nobody else does either. And why does your government want to "control" you (hint: that's a big part of what they're for)?

Who says anyone has to have them? Here in the UK, gun ownership is illegal, and the police do not carry guns either. Nobody feels they need a gun, criminals rarely use them, and nobody is upset by the army having them. Over here, the hysteria is about pen knives instead.

Or in other words, "black is not white, therefore it must be red". Are you mental? Why would people not express their opinion just because they don't have a gun?? Shooting people isn't the only (or even a likely, or indeed effective) way to fight back, surely you can't think it is? In your vision of the future, are rednecks going hand to hand with robotic agents of the government in the streets, heroically winning through their wise stockpiling of assault weaponry? And then the government says "OK, we give up" and everything is hunky dory again? Methinks you've missed about a million steps in between (probably involving an election). I hear this time and time again, and it's always from people who secretly fantasise about an apocalypse in which they get to shoot a looter/robot/zombie/graboid in the face.

Err, reasons to ban weapons:
  1. weapons are dangerous
  2. people with weapons are dangerous
  3. without weapons, weapons are unnecessary
  4. the government is there to make life good for people (which includes keeping them alive)

What reason exactly are you suggesting for your malevolent government's wish to "control" you? I could just as easily turn your statement around and suggest that a benevolent government has no reason to allow ordinary citizens to take up arms.

I don't know what you spent your time doing whilst you were writing patent claims, but this is totally incorrect. The patents are not of the sequence of naturally occurring DNA, they are for the creation of the clone. The operative word in Claim 1 above is "isolated". It's like patenting the invention of photography - sure you can't patent fruit, but you can patent the photograph (as in, all photographs). See some of the comments below for more details. Unfortunately diagnostic tests etc typically covered by the patented technique, and often specific methods surrounding the isolation are explicit claims too.

In my opinion it's still a dodgy patent because after the first one, each gene is not sufficiently different to warrant a patent - it lacks the "inventive step". The world has been waiting a long time for a viable challenge, though to be honest it isn't such a big deal any more for public research at least.

The team thinks that it might be possible in the future to detect? gene mutations using laser radiation.

I first read this as "induce" or "fix", which is not accurate.