Thread by @RosenzweigP

A thread on guns (stay with me ... I promise): If you follow this twitter account you know I love rugby (the world cup is going on right now -- catch it!). When I was in my 20s I played; in my 30s and early 40s I was a referee; now I am a referee coach, which is to say /1

that I go out to games and watch the referee and help him or her get better, in much the same way that player coaches help the players improve. So, all of the referees I work with are adults. And given the level of referee I work with, all of the players in the games we /2

work are adults as well. It's been 3 years since I've even seen a college game and longer since I was assigned to a high school game.

But here is the thing: To serve as a referee coach, I have to register with USA Rugby and pay a fee. And, wait for it, I also have to /3

go through a criminal background check. Why? Because in the past amateur sports (not rugby, I think but others) have had problems with adult supervisors and officials interacting with younger players. I don't mind, really. But in my case it's pretty unnecessary -- /4

I =never= work with youth rugby any more. But still, the requirement is there and, oh by the way, it comes from the US government. Rugby is an Olympic sport and criminal background checks are a condition of getting Federal money.

So, here's my question: If I have to have a /5

criminal background check (and also register) to pursue a simple hobby like rugby which (let's be honest) is no danger to anyone except the players who get hurt, what =possible= reason is there to object to background checks for gun ownership?

Don't get me wrong. I actually /6

think the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. But it doesn't create an absolute unregulated right and keeping guns out of the hands of those who fail background checks seems to me ... well ... a bit more consequential than rugby administrators. /fin