I am going to agree part way with Marshall; I do believe that Daniel is being 'paranoid' in his response to the risk that flashlights pose as terrorist weapons. But gosh Marshall, you are slinging paranoid like an insult rather than a statement of fact, and you are not taking the time to explain why this is actually a problem.
'Paranoid' is generally used to describe excessive or irrational fear, eg. that your friends are not really your friends, or that the CIA is trying to kill you, etc. 'Crazy talk'. There is _nothing_ illegal about it, and in fact it is part of normal human thought processes to distort the association between fear and risk. Just ask anyone who is scared of nuclear power plants but not much more scared of coal fired power plants.
Fear is a normal human emotion, and unknown and unknowable risks are a _normal_ part of life in this universe. We don't know when the next terrorist will strike, we don't know how the next terrorist will strike. We don't know when the next comet will smash the Earth into an ice age. We don't know who will have the next heart attack. We don't know which drugs will cause heart valve failure as a side effect. We try to learn, and we try to adapt our actions based upon our assessment of the risks.
The problem with a 'paranoid' assessment of risks is that one might take a particular danger and inflate the risk associated with it, to the point that one starts ignoring other, _greater_ risks. There is no problem with an irrational fear of flashlights as bombs, unless you happen to be an inspection officer who is so overwhelmed checking the flashlights that you miss the 'modeling clay'.
A 'paranoid' assessment of the risks might lead one to avoid using beneficial tools because they might be turned into weapons. People avoiding vaccinations because of a small but very real risk of side effects, and thus exposing themselves to a much greater risk of the disease would be an example of this.
I personally believe that the banning of knives from aircraft is a 'paranoid' decision of our government. Face it: small knives and box cutters were sufficient to take an aircraft because of surprise, and because the rules had changed. If the knife rules were the same as before 9/11, then for the most part, 'good guys' would have knives, and knife wielding terrorists wouldn't stand a change. I believe that the risks associated with terrorists carrying knives (very real and demonstrated in a terrible way) are less than the benefits of having good people free to carry useful tools. (I personally know people who use knives beneficially every day
I believe that Daniel's assessment of the risk associated with flashlights to be 'paranoid' in the sense that I believe that it overstates the risk and might lead one to give less weight to the benefits of flashlights, or to ignore a greater risk.
However flashlights (and in general battery operated devices) do deserve some amount of additional scrutiny, because batteries do share a number of characteristics with explosive devices, including mutually reactive chemicals placed inside of a pressure containing package, controlled release of energy at high rates, and easy portability.
The highest energy density batteries available present a significant fire and explosion hazard if overcharged or short circuited. Flashlights and cell phones have already been used as explosive devices, I presume with the use of more conventional explosives packed in them rather than with the batteries, however it would be a small leap of technology to build an entirely sealed device which looks like a battery, but contains explosive materials. Etc. There is enough here that I believe it warrants consideration, if only to produce a more rational and precise assessment of the real risks involved.
To close: There are _real_ risks associated with flashlights, however I believe that they are small. Those with the interest and ability should try to assess just how big the risks really are. While being mindful of one source of risk, we should not ignore other risks, especially if the other risks are realistically greater. Finally, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you". As was stated above: a terrorist could make _anything_ into a bomb. Be aware of what is happening around you.