Clearly, firearms should not be made available freely and openly, no questions asked, to anyone wishing to purchase one.
Why not?
And "reasonable measures"? Who gets to decide that?
Perhaps the author could include an end note to show where authority for such infringements is delegated? What in his own research makes him think such edicts slow the monsters among us down one bit, and why did he not see fit to recognize government usurping such undelegated powers as a primary reason for needing an armed citizenry?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here. What I'm trying to do is stimulate a discussion. How do you protect "shall not be infringed" for the rational, mature and whole among us?
I've said before that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. That's true, but the freedoms in our society--or perhaps the misapplication of them?--guarantee there are some among us who can't be trusted with matches and butter knives.
So what do we do? Cede that permissions and prior restraints are reasonable? Or cede that one of the costs of freedom is that some will abuse it at times, and at times with terrible results?
My own thought is that the more free society is, the better protected it will be, and the more incentives will be in place to address problem individuals. But I admit my hypothetical ideal is not the society we are currently living in.
What are your thoughts?
[Via Mindful Musings]