Trigger Effect

Yesterday New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made his way to Capitol Hill to ask Congress to consider passing a bill that would prohibit anyone on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List from purchasing a gun or explosives. When I heard this, my first thought was, “isn’t this a law already?” I mean, seriously, why do we have a list of potential terrorists and then willingly allow them to purchase an AK-47 or sticks of Dynamite. That’s kind of like going on a donut diet. It’s a diet in name only and the outcome won’t be very pleasant.

Of course, the mere mention of a gun law brings out the raised hackles of the sworn protectors of the second Amendment. Terrified that someone might dare take their gun from their cold, dead hands, they don’t care who can buy them or how anyone gets them. Our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave every American citizen the “right to bear arms,” so by golly, that means you’re absolutely un-American if you don’t believe that means complete and unfettered access to every possible weapon conceived or manufactured.

Senator Lindsey Graham R-S.C. stated his fears that this would infringe upon innocent citizens constitutional rights. He, and others who refused to support the law, said that the Terrorist Watch List is inaccurate and often contains names of people who are completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Gun enthusiast blogs are saying that if the law is passed the list will be expanded and used as a way to keep any American citizen who doesn’t agree with the government (like Tea Party members) from owning a gun.

While I have to agree that the last thing I want is a group of angry, possibly racist, Glenn Beck worshiping protesters to be forced to riot without the protection of their weaponry, I still think that there is room to negotiate. Is it even conceivable that the flag raising patriots of the NRA would want guns or explosives to be sold to a potential terrorist? Are they so terrified of losing the semi-automatic assault rifle that they use for duck hunting that they are willing to endanger the lives of other American citizens?

Sarcasm aside (at least for a moment), is it really that hard to find a middle ground here? I can understand the justifiable fears that a “watch” list could be inaccurate or used inappropriately. If someone hasn’t thought of doing that already, they probably will. But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water?

If the list is inaccurate, the common sense thing to do might be to FIX THE LIST. Set some iron-clad rules about who goes on the list and why. Make sure that there can be no confusion with a three year old that happens to have the same name. With today’s technology, should this really be that difficult?  Develop an expedient and reasonable review process if someone challenges their entry on the list.

As usual, both sides of this argument need to listen to what the other is saying. They need to sit down and work out their concerns like adults given a serious responsibility. Extremists from either side need not apply.