Long ago we recognized that freedom of speech isn't absolute. Libel and slander laws protect the reputations of individuals. Disturbing-the-peace laws ensure that we don't exercise our freedom of speech in an untimely or ill-conceived manner. Inciting-to-riot laws protect society as a whole. In other words, we've tempered our freedom-of-speech rights with various laws over the years that we've found necessary to “ensure domestic tranquility.”
Why should we treat the right to bear arms any differently? This right is not an absolute right that allows us to possess such things as shoulder-held rocket launchers and explosives that can bring down a large building. Do we really need to possess automatic weapons and clips that allow unstable individuals the ability to mow down dozens of people within a few seconds? Of course not.
We can have laws designed to reduce the damage mentally ill people can inflict and still preserve our right to bear arms.
Larry Bereman, Ponca City