I'm not going all-in for the message of this Mayors Against Illegal Guns "Terror Gap" thing. But I'm struck by what I'll call the "Hypocrisy Gap" instead.
I don't want to take up too much of your post-holiday time with this, but here's what's bugging me: the wingnuts have happily sold you out on your First Amendment rights, your Fourth Amendment rights, your Fifth Amendment rights, your Sixth Amendment rights, and your Eighth Amendment rights, all in the name of their right to crap their pants in fear over the 1% chance of terrorism.
But the minute someone suggests that maybe some aspect of the amendment that actually has something to do with the ability to kill people could stand some reexamination, suddenly it's time to Live Free or Die again.
Why is it that it's OK with wingnuts if the feds infiltrate Quaker groups who pray for peace, wiretap entire city blocks, hold people indefinitely and without trial, and oh yeah, torture them while they're at it, all just in case they might turn out to be somehow connected to terrorism, but if you're being watched for any of the reasons that would subject you to any of the above infringements on your civil or human rights, the one thing we can't do is stand in the way of your right to buy guns and explosives?
I don't know that the best solution to the problem is to infringe on still more rights as a blanket policy. After all, you could end up subject to some of these restrictions simply because you're browner than your neighbors, which leads them to whisper about you. And if that's the case and you happen to be a law-abiding person, it'd be hard to blame you if you wanted a little added protection from having some teabagger jackass, oh, let's say, beat you down with a tire iron because he can't tell the difference between Osama bin Laden and a Greek Orthodox cleric.
But it sure would be nice if there was a chance that one day people would at least realize that the Second Amendment isn't the only important one.
And if you're the sort of person who thinks that maybe the times do call for at least some compromises from everyone, you may wonder why folks like those at, say, the NRA think their time should never come.
There are all kinds of things that have gone wrong with the "No-Fly List" over the years. But don't you think maybe the idea that being on it should raise some kind of a red flag at gun-buying time is at least worth considering?
Apparently, it used to be the case that the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days. According to an op-ed in today's Washington Post by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, a 2003 provision known as the Tiahrt amendment now requires that the FBI destroy background check records within 24 hours. Bloomberg and Kean contend that this allegedly hampered the federal investigation into Ft. Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan's gun purchases.
Now, this may or may not have been able to prevent anything from happening, but I do find it more than a little interesting how concerned people like Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS-04) and other NRA supporters suddenly became with protecting Americans from the prying eyes of federal investigators when the issue was guns, when they couldn't mow your rights down fast enough when the issue was your telephones. After all, we know that telephones don't kill people. People kill people.
I haven't got a policy solution all wrapped up with a bow for you. Just a little something to think about.