As we digest another campus shooting in a US university, this time with 3 people injured in an exchange of fire at Lone Star College in Texas, I have to ask a question of Americans. As a libertarian, I feel that the US Constitution is the greatest guarantor of democratic rights on the planet. It limits the power of the US government to a great degree, defining some inalienable rights that are increasingly under pressure in "democratic" Europe, such as freedom of expression and freedom of belief. I believe that to circumvent the constitution on the ownership of firearms would set a terrible precedent, and could encourage attempted constitutional breaches on other, far more important articles, such as freedom of speech or eminent domain. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, reads thus:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Given that there should be no attempt to repeal or change this amendment, I must ask, "is there any reason to object to background checks on people who wish to purchase firearms?" It is realistic to think that the framers would have wished that owners of firearms be socially responsible adults of sound mind. Given the purpose of the amendment, to guarantee a force to defend democracy against impending authoritarianism, I am sure that the framers would have envisaged all owners of firearms, members of this "militia", to be people whose identities and capacities were known to, and approved of by, their fellow citizens.
Let the Republicans stand against any attempt to get rid of legal firearm ownership, fair enough. The framers of the Constitution would demand no less. Let's be reasonable on background checks, however. They are a perfectly reasonable request for legal ownership of a deadly weapon, and are in the spirit of the freedom-loving and sensible US Constitution.
