The test of what is “reasonable”

The test of what is “reasonable” One of the tactics of those who oppose our right to keep and bear arms is to label any of their proposals as “reasonable” or “common sense” – leaving our positions to be seen as “unreasonable” and “nonsensical”. The fact is that since most Americans are in the middle ground on 2A issues, they can easily be influenced by the language used. We can’t allow our enemies to control the definitions used, or we will lose the debate before it even begins. The real test of what is “reasonable” in terms of gun control is to look at how the same policy would be viewed if applied to another aspect of life. If what seems “reasonable” for one matter that is less important to someone seems “unreasonable” for a matter that is important to them, we must expose that hypocrisy. Unfortunately, exposing the hypocrisy of the “Antis” may also cause some of us to have to examine ourselves for hypocritical thinking. ID and background checks that are reasonable for purchasing a gun are also reasonable for voting. In both cases, there is a compelling public interest in knowing that the person exercising the right is how they say they are, and is not a “prohibited person” (i.e. felon, insane, or non-citizen), so both require the same safeguards – right? If a waiting period is “reasonable” to allow a person to “cool off” and avoid “rushing into” a major decision, then it is “Common sense” for the same waiting period that applies to gun purchases should also be applied to abortion. These are both decisions where a life may end up being at stake, so both should require the same amount of deliberation – right? If a\it is “reasonable” for a citizen to be required to show ID and provide a fingerprint to buy ammunition, and must do so with a licensed seller in a face to face transaction, then it is “common sense” for the same policy needs to be applied to the sale of gasoline. After all, many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by “prohibited persons” who are illegally operating motor vehicles without a valid license, registration, or insurance. This also applies to limits on amount of purchase in a given period. If a citizen can be restarted to purchasing only x cases of ammunition a week, then it stands to reason that a limit of x gallons of gasoline would also be appropriate. These are both instances where regulating of the supply will arguably impact public safety, so both should be treated the same (although gun ownership is an enumerated right, while car ownership comes under general property rights) – right? Personally, the ID verification and making sure that they are not a felon, insane person, or non-citizen makes sense before I want to allow anyone to vote or buy a gun. In the other two, I have to say that they are not reasonable to me – but are equivalently unreasonable. I think it’s clear that the main purpose of waiting periods is simply to create an inconvenience, and thus limit the citizen’s ability to exercise their right (gun ownership is an enumerated right, while abortion is often described as being a “right” although it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution). Likewise the ammunition or gasoline regulation/check is simply an attempt to create an inconvenience and raise costs, so as to limit a citizen’s ability to exercise their right (the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, and the right to freedom of movement/travel).