I consider myself to be someone of reasonable intelligence, although I don’t profess to be an expert on anything, which I suppose shields me from having to explain myself too often.

Someone will have to explain something to me. How does checking the background of a law-abiding gun-buyer with no criminal or medical history to cause anyone concern violate that person’s Second Amendment right to own a firearm?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/293461-house-gop-shows-little-appetite-for-senate-gun-control-measure

The Second Amendment to the Constitution lays it out there, admittedly in some clumsy language: “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.” I get what the Founders meant: Americans have the right to own firearms.

However, these days the debate has turned to a couple of key elements of the gun control debate in the wake of the Dec. 14, 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 20 precious children and six educators died in a senseless massacre. One of the elements centers on the size of ammo clips; the other is on background checks.

Let’s focus on background checks for a moment. The National Rifle Association used to favor the checks. Now it opposes them. Ninety percent of Americans favor stricter gun control measures. The NRA opposes them. Background checks of those seeking to purchase a firearm, to my mind, seem to be the least intrusive measure under discussion.

If someone wants to buy a gun from a dealer, he or she submits to a criminal/medical background check. If it comes back clean, no problem. He or she buys the gun. But what if the background check reveals a criminal record that, say, involves a violent act? That individual might be deemed too big a risk to own a firearm, or one would think.

I suppose a major sticking point, which I haven’t heard discussed yet in the current debate, is the level of criminal history that disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm. Would a serial embezzler or tax cheater be treated the same as someone who’s been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?

These questions need to be fleshed out.

But back to my point: A decent, law-abiding citizen with no criminal history is just as free to purchase a firearm while submitting to a criminal background check as he or she is at this very moment.

So, how does that infringe on his Second Amendment rights?