I am writing in response to the article titled “Florida governor signs gun restrictions 3 weeks after attack,” published on March 9.
Ben Franklin referred to the freedom of speech, as defined by the First Amendment, as “a principal pillar of free government.” Yet even this, the most venerated of rights, does not exist without limits. If it did, such acts as perjury, intimidation and child pornography would be lawful in our country. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has placed practical and justifiable constraints on this basic personal freedom. These constraints are not born out of tyranny or oppressiveness, rather enacted to ensure the safety of the citizens served by the U.S. Constitution, perhaps most notably children.35 comments on this story
It is permissible, then, for an individual to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and still see fit to place constraints on that same amendment. I applaud the actions of Florida Gov. Rick Scott this week for signing legislation that puts limitations on waiting periods, age minimums and bump stocks. These constraints are reasonable and fitting. I believe them to be constructed to protect, not to enslave. It is time to value the safety of our citizens, most notably children, and acknowledge there are practical and justifiable constraints to the Second Amendment.