In response to Leonard Pitts’ statement in his Jan. 29 column that “We need meaningful background checks. ... A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.” Who gets to decide who’s “mentally unstable?”

It’s a dangerously loose term and gives our government the very power to control its people that the founders aimed to limit: the power to relinquish our rights at its discretion. And this opens the door to discrimination based on political party, race, religion, disability, etc.

If you don’t believe me, review the Eugenics movement of the early-to mid-1900s. Under the guise of protection, tens of thousands were sterilized, deemed too “mentally unstable” or “unfit” to bear children. Our government was actually relinquishing the right to reproduce. It wasn’t that long ago, and it wasn’t usually based on a meaningful background check. In fact, it was disproportionally applied to women and minorities.

Good intentions can always be manipulated for gain by those in power.

Regardless of how clearly you define mental stability, ultimately politicians and bureaucrats implement policy. Do you trust Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or Nancy Pelosi to do the right thing? How about George Bush?

Let’s not let good intentions rob us of freedom.

Leslie Jellen Mingoville