But, but, now someone gets to determine the definition of "WMD". A machine gun could easily fit the description.
Actually, we do get to decide what a WMD is. Far better to decide that and maybe even get it wrong regarding a fighter jet or rocket launcher than to not decide it, slavishly follow someone's idea of "freedom" and never get to decide anything again.
If a machine gun is a WMD, we've got every police force in the nation packing WMDs around in public everyday. I don't think any sensible man is going to buy that.
By Rothbard's definition, even a machine gun can be directed only at those actually posing a threat.
This incessant fear that "someone gets to decide" something really needs to go.
We are constitutional republic. We get to decide lots of stuff all the time and we make laws regarding what we decide. "Someone gets to decide" that 8 year olds are too young to consent to sex with 40 year old men. And it isn't the 8 year olds or the 40 year old perverts claiming some "right". "Someone gets to decide" that we are going to drive on the right side of the road and that red means stop, even if there isn't cross traffic readily observed. "Someone gets to decide" where the line is between merely impolite, and actionable slander or libel.
And yes, "someone (or rather a lot of someones) gets to decide" where the line is between weapons suitable for personal defense or even militia use and WMDs that we might well be better off if they didn't exist at all, but since they do, we will be keeping them out of private hands and away from as many nations as we can.
The benefit of our imperfect, constitutional republic, is that we all pretty well understand how the decision process works. We've got a nice history here. It isn't just a theory and certainly not one that leads to communism nor to someone getting to keep nukes, sarin or mustard gas, or small pox in his basement.
Charles