No freedom is without limits or restrictions

I’ve been a licensed driver since 1964. The state of Ohio examined me that year by requiring a written and road test. Subsequently, I have been examined and licensed by the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and the state of Wisconsin.

Sometimes it has been inconvenient to schedule the exams but I’ve never argued that the license requirement is a grave infringement on my essential liberty. It seems self- evident that automobiles are potentially lethal objects and, as a society, we have a common interest in keeping them out of the hands of juveniles, the untrained, the impaired and the mentally unstable. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any partisan bickering over the examination and licensing of drivers, either.

I’m guessing most gun owners are licensed drivers as well. They’ve acknowledged the government’s role in keeping our highways as safe as possible. Why is it so different with guns? If owning guns is important to a citizen, they should be required to demonstrate their ability to operate those weapons safely, the same way I have to demonstrate I’m fit to drive a car.

Common sense long ago established that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant unqualified liberty. Our guaranteed First Amendment freedom of speech, for example, doesn’t guarantee the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. And the Second Amendment right to bear arms should not guarantee the right for untrained, impaired and mentally unstable people to own and operate firearms. That’s not what freedom means.

LINDA EVERHART Shadyside