How can a free society protect itself?

[JAlanKatz]

@dbooksta

1. Either argue that unfettered access to refined nuclear material or to detonators will not increase the risk of random mass murder,

Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.

@dkoosta

2. Argue that the cost of maintaining coercive controls on these items exceeds the benefit, or else

The primary cost of maintaining coercive controls on anything is liberty. I won’t give up liberty for any trade-off.

@dkoosta

3. Establish a clear and principled line on when coercive controls (which infringe liberty) are acceptable and when they are not. E.g., detonators yes because XXX but small firearms no because YYY.

Ah, and here’s the crux of the problem. Let’s use your line. Ok, got it, line in place - detonators can be controlled because, well, I’m not sure why but that’s what you said. Firearms cannot be controlled because, well, I like freedom. Ok. Now make it work. How do you plan to police or enforce your line? What do you do when the government steps over it? By definition, they’re better armed than you are, because they just banned the use of some powerful weapons by others.