No. When you say "restrictions," you are talking about people being threatened with force for certain behavior. I am saying that no one should be threatened with force unless they are themselves threatening the rights of others. In other words, force can only legitimately be used in defense, and may never be initiated. This is a basic principle of morality called the non-aggression principle. It is a principle that is made necessary by the requirements of man's survival... in other words, by the nature of reality. This is what I mean when I refer to rights as "natural."
I do believe there is a certain class of individual who is so deranged that their mere act of possessing a firearm constitutes a threat to the rights of others. I do not believe that the entire class of people labeled felons by the government is co-extensive with this class. Even if it was, a prior restraint on the right to bear arms, like a background check requirement, would still violate the non-aggression principle, because it threatens force against many people who are not threatening others in any way.
