As a progressive liberal guy, I’m dismayed by the recent school shooting in Roseburg. But I also believe that our so-called leaders are going to crash the economy and drive civilization into a ditch, at which point we may need to defend ourselves against criminal gangs and protect ourselves and what’s left of our democracy.

Based on that belief, I support the Second Amendment, at least in principle. But many who are immersed in what’s called the “gun culture” in the United States just can’t accept that the most reasonable efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people isn’t an intolerable assault on our freedom.

The woman who shot Eugene police officer Chris Kilcullen had a known history of mental illness, and yet was able to purchase a gun. In a day and age when the National Security Agency knows the color of your underwear, shouldn’t the name of a person hospitalized in a mental institution in another state 10 years ago immediately appear on a background check if she were to try to buy a gun in Oregon today? Would it have impinged on anyone’s Second Amendment rights if Kilcullen’s killer had been denied a gun?

Does the Second Amendment state that men convicted of beating their wives must be allowed to buy guns? What about alcoholics?

http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/33706130-78/is-opposing-gun-limits-offshoot-of-male-rage.html.csp