I think it’s clear the author isn’t proposing that people should be licensed to use the internet. It’s at most an aside, and not the topic of the article.
The observation that one of his analogies doesn’t apply in one country (pretty sure not the one the author lives in) doesn’t really contribute anything IMO, and certainly we won’t change anyone’s mind about US gun law by another comment thread. I’d rather just not open that box.
In Australia – for a civilian to shoot a gun, somebody needs to have a license. If you want to buy a gun – or even receive one as a gift – you need to apply to the police for a license.
Now, it is possible to go to a shooting range, and pay to use their gun on their premises without personally having license. However, even in that case, the range still needs to have a license – indeed, not an ordinary gun license, a special type of gun license which allows them to offer this service to the general public. In my state (New South Wales), the member of the public must show photo ID and fill out a government form called a P650 [0] [1] with invasive personal questions (such as if you have ever attempted suicide or self-harm, have received treatment for alcoholism, drug dependence or mental illness, etc). Lying on the form is a crime (although given the form is not sent to the police, only retained by the range, it may be hard to detect). If you answer "Yes" to any of those invasive personal questions, you are not allowed to shoot, unless the range makes a special application to the police for an exemption in your individual case, and the police decide to grant it.
So, effectively, all civilian gun use requires a permit in my state of Australia – if not your own, then that of the shooting range, and even that case is highly regulated.
[0] https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/online_services/firearms/clubs...
[1] http://stmarysindoorshootingcentre.com.au/admin/_files/pages...
As a secondary point, do you think the author's use of licensing examples was on-topic? I don't see them go into any detail licensing, and it has little to nothing to do with the topic of hardening Defender.
That said, yes, I do see that my initial comment was lacking the context later added in the edit.
> Not in the US,
This statement seems to lack nuance and could be the reason for the downvotes.
> Federal law does not require individuals to obtain a license or permit to purchase a firearm. Several states, however, have permit-to-purchase laws that function similarly to universal background check laws.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/license-to...
For example, you can move into NJ with existing firearms that you own (complying with the general laws about legality, locks, etc) without the need to request a permit to purchase.