G'day Paul - as I ve already confessed to DMA, my understanding of the gun issues is quite limited; however, let's use your generalised statement that cover guns, drugs or tobacco etc. as the focal point of discussion, OOH, common sense has suggested heavy handed tactics like holding S&W or Colt responsible is no better than your case of holding Sara Lee for people's obesity. Or, for awhile, many cities have gone after the bar owners in the aftermath of some terrible tragedies involving DWI. So I will grant you that the shifting of burden is a futile attempt. OTOH, if we dwell down to the specifics, there are so many dimensions of the dilemma. Obviously, this sort of deep social issues will have a greater point of poignancy when they affect one's existence. I ve been fortunate to live a fairly secured existence [mostly b/c I earn a decent living.] However, only a few towns away, there is a four block area that is considered the war zone [guns, drugs, prostitution etc.] So, it is indeed a fact of life. But it is not a fact of life for the affluence.
Personally, I am for individual freedom [and I think it is an ideal most people eager to accept.] However, I live in a society. Like it or not, we surrender some of our individual freedom for protection [good lord, I sound like a social contract theorist <sg>!] Therefore, I think nothing is absolute if it is not self-contained. For instance, I ve no qualm for people who know the effects of cigarette smoke keep on smoking [like a chimney,] but it does constitute an infringement against the non-smokers' right to live a healthy lifestyle [especially in an enclosed area like an airplane.]
By the same token, I see the Constitution not as individual Amendments but a set of intertwined guidelines. Ultimately, IMHO, it boils down to the democratic ideal of "majority rules and minority right." While it is difficult to ascertain the moral aptitude of our founding fathers, and despite the idiosyncracies come to light in recent times, I'd suspect that most people would readily hold them in high regards. To wit, mythical or not, they are the embodiment of the "greatest good." Therefore, to carry this assertion to the logical end, the construction of Constitution is aimed for the benefits of all of the inhabitants. My point <G> is that it is difficult to leave one amendment out of context without making it unwholesome. Context is both a juxaposition of different elements of the Constitution and the historical aspect of it [well, I ve done it again, I've opened more and more cans of worms <SG>!!!]
Maybe the state AGs are unable to grapple with the many problems associated with the proliferation of guns [or drugs or any other social ill, for that matter.] However, they are also obligated [by the duties of their office] to reckon with it. This is not a one-sided story. It affects many lives. It can be protection; it can be the instrument of cutting a life short [in that sense, it is no different from illicit drugs and other hot button issues.] So long as there is a us-versus-them mentality, it can only breed intransigience on both.
Well, enough philosophizing <SG>
best, Bosco
|
