But to be clear, you WOULD support an internet ban on those same grounds?

Never mind.

In 61, I limited the comparison to a product that was limited use, let’s say a pesticide that whose use, manufacture or distribution has been outlawed. Since you made no mention of ownership or possession, I stipulated that since there is only one use for this substance, and its use has been outlawed in this example, then possession indicates an intent to use. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, but okay.

The difference is that firearms have more than one legitimate use, in addition to self-defense. The left keeps assuring us they have no desire to outlaw self defense, hunting, sporting clays or collecting, so there should remain legitimate uses for firearms.

In this case, I maintain, declaring some or all firearms or firearms accessories to be outlawed on the notion that they might be used in a crime constitutes a violation of due process, because it declares the owner guilty of a crime he did not commit.

The above paragraphs are by way of recap, not, um, stonewalling.

Now you have introduced RDX (or we can say there are legitimate, non-pesticide uses for a pesticide), saying that there are legitimate uses, and that by my logic, banning them would constitute a violation of due process.

You are right.

Let me re-introduce the notion of banning the internet, then. There are certainly legitimate, non-illegal uses for the internet. The potential, though, to exploit children via on-line child porn exists everywhere there is a computer hooked to the internet. Would you advocate removal of all internet connections on the notion that they MIGHT be used to harm kids? Even if their owners have committed no crimes?

At this point, we can go one of two directions.

We can ban things on the basis that they might be used in a crime. And automatically indict with legal action, with no proof, no evidence, no trial by jury, no due process the owner on the basis that they owned an object that might be used in a crime.

Or, we can punish, with severe, meaningful punishments, those that actually commit the crimes. And we can allow people the means to defend themselves, an entirely legitimate enterprise.