For many American citizens, owning firearms has been a staple of American culture that dates back to the creation of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. In many ways, owning a firearm has become traditional for many people, and it is no surprise that many American citizens argue that firearm background checks are a violation of civil rights. According to Why Background Checks Dont Work, an article on World Net Daily, Jeff Knox (the director of the Fire Arms Coalition) argues that it is unfair and perhaps unconstitutional that firearm buyers must fill out documentation and provide proof of identification to firearm sellers when purchasing a firearm. Knox‘s logic is as follows: if the right for citizens to vote is implemented by the U.S. Constitution, and that by “requiring identification to vote is a violation of civil rights,” then by the same token, requiring identification to buy a firearm is a violation of civil rights as well because the right to bear arms is also attached to the U.S. constitution. Jeff Knox uses the U.S. Constitution as a pin to falsely justify that background checks are unconstitutional. Just because voters are not required to prove their identification to vote does not warrant the same process for purchasing firearms. Background checks are intended to keep firearms out of the hands of people who have criminal backgrounds and/or people with records of mental illness. Further, the Second Amendment was included into the U.S. Constitution in 1791, 
during a time of foreign oppression. It was intended to dispel any distant governments by raising a ‘citizen army.’ However, the idea that citizen’s shouldn’t have to undergo a background check because it was the way it was done so in the past, is a fallacy of tradition- a mistake in reasoning. The meaning of the Second Amendment in preset day society raises questions as to the Second Amendments intended scope, however; the fact that firearms no longer need to fire a single shot before requiring a reload is a clear indication that the way we interpret the Second Amendment must also reflect the way advances in firearm technology effects society, while also considering that the United States no longer needs a ‘citizen army.’
What is disturbing is that our gun control policy, in regards to background checks, makes the sale of firearms essentially ‘legal’ to buyers who might have mental illnesses. According to the National Alliance of Mental Illness, 1 in 5 adults experience a mental illness, and 1 in every 25 adults live with a serious mental illness. This statistic does not seem to be improving either, and until we can address some of the core psychological health issues in society, our gun control policies must continually adapt to our changing social environment. Even if Seung-Hui Cho was denied a firearms sale by a “red flag” in his background check, he may have been able to acquire a firearm through some resourceful means, however; making background checks mandatory in any market throughout the United States, and requiring states to submit records of mental illness to the NICS, will “keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them,” which in turn can save thousands of lives a year, including the lives of the 33 people killed at the Virginia Tech shooting had our background check policy been more rigorous.
Gun Control is Out of Control 