Gun control proponents and critics of the rtkaba sometimes take an extreme case as a hypothetical: "so people can own nukes?" That's a specious example but it occurs to me that there may be one that is not. I refer to MAnPortable AirDefense Systems, or MANPADS. Many might be familiar with the Stinger as an example. As far as I know no civilian airliner in the USA has ever been targeted with one due to the expense and difficulty of obtaining a weapon that is illegal six ways to Sunday; but the prospect is horrifying.
Here's the problem: if under an absolute no-compromise interpretation of the rtkaba you could own any weapon someone is willing to sell you, that would include MANPADS. And no matter what we do, there will always be some tiny number of absolute psychopathic monsters. Give them the power to kill hundreds of people in a stroke and it would happen. Even if law enforcement was infallibly perfect- if every single person who did such a thing WOULD be caught, and WOULD be executed by televised torture as the penalty- there are people that still wouldn't deter. And no conceivable punishment would make up for a crime of such magnitude. Add to this that there would be almost no conceivable lawful use for such a weapon other than playing with it on a firing range, and how could one justify the risk? Once would be one time too many. I simply can't imagine how uncontrolled access to MANPADS could ever be allowed.
But now we're on the slippery slope. If MANPADS aren't compatible with lawful civilization, what else isn't? Grenade launchers and RPGs? Artillery? Medium and heavy machine guns? Select-fire rifles? "Assault Weapons"? Any gun that holds more than six rounds? Every argument I made against MANPADS- that in a world with homicidal nuts some weapons are just too destructive and too unjustified- has already been applied to the weapons the antis want to see banned. Once it's decided that some weapons can be banned, the list of allowed weapons could be "none".
Does anyone see a way out of this?