Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: Should blind people be able to carry concealed firearms?

  1. #1
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml

    No: 57%

    Yes: 43%

    I voted yes, what do you folks think?

    Edit: The poll is at the bottom right of the home page


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    So did I, but the numbers look worse. I wonder what those 58% propose to do to protect the blind since they want to decide they can't be allowed to defend themselves.

  3. #3
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    If this is what "conservatives" think, our country is in deeper crap than I realized. Thankfully, internet polls are not always accurate.

  4. #4
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    So did I, but the numbers look worse. I wonder what those 58% propose to do to protect the blind since they want to decide they can't be allowed to defend themselves.
    Well,a majority of America is not blind, so I would guess they just don't care how a blind person should defend themselves since it doesn't affect most of America. Who makes the call whether or not a blind person is worthy? Once we start messing with one person's rights, all our rights are in danger. What's next; the veteran has post traumatic stress disorder; X him; the man in a wheelchair should be able to get away because it's motorized and all that, so he doesn't need one; X him, those crazy gun nuts that have wild west and Rambo fantasies are dangerous, so X them.... What do you know; NO GUNS!! Yeah!! Socialism! Let's party like it's the 1980s in the Soviet Union!

    Ok, a blind person needs to have common sense when it comes to using a gun, but I am more willing to trust that blind person than the crooks in our government.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Premises; 'the conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.' and the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed."

    Argument; only a tyrant can decide what is reasonable common sense.

    Conclusion; there is only one possible that I see.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    I don't think a blind person has the necessary information to safely use a firearm. Even if they're aware enough of their immediate surroundings to hit their intended target, there's no way for them to be able to tell whats 200 feet behind said target. I personally can't see how a blind person would feel like they could responsibly and safely deploy a firearm.

    With that being said, it should be up to the blind person to decide whether they can or not, and no one else. They are susceptible to the same punishment as anyone else is if they hurt or kill someone. It should be THEIR decision whether the benefits out weigh the risks, or vice versa.

    I'm allowed to go juggle knives if I want to, right? Wouldn't be a good decision for me, since I'd have no clue what I was doing, but it's my choice none the less.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    I don't think a blind person has the necessary information to safely use a firearm. Even if they're aware enough of their immediate surroundings to hit their intended target, there's no way for them to be able to tell whats 200 feet behind said target. I personally can't see how a blind person would feel like they could responsibly and safely deploy a firearm.

    With that being said, it should be up to the blind person to decide whether they can or not, and no one else. They are susceptible to the same punishment as anyone else is if they hurt or kill someone. It should be THEIR decision whether the benefits out weigh the risks, or vice versa.

    I'm allowed to go juggle knives if I want to, right? Wouldn't be a good decision for me, since I'd have no clue what I was doing, but it's my choice none the less.
    I agree 100%, and took the liberty of bolding the bit I feel is the crux of the matter. Everyone has to accept responsibility for their actions. So long as a person causes no harm, nobody has the authority to strip him of his natural rights.

  8. #8
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    So once you get maced in the eyes you loose your ability to use a firearm?

    Definition of blind for this purpose?

    Legally blind does not always equal totally blind.

    At contact distance I don't think vision is as important as many think.

    You think LEO's are giving OC'er a hard time now. How about a few OC'ers with the red tipped canes! The lawsuite can include ADA based violations.

  9. #9
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    It's the same principle as gun laws; the law abiding are punished for the actions of criminals. If a blind person looses his vision because of an accident/crime against him, why should his rights suddenly disappear? (no pun intended) True, a blind man is not going to make the best sniper, but a blind man with common sense if going to know his limitations, and exercise good judgement with his firearm. That is the difference between liberty and freedom versus socialism. Socialism does not trust the people, and makes every effort to diminish and take away their rights.

  10. #10
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Any action a blind person is likely to take is during an assault at very close quarters also involving H to H. I have no problem with them carrying. (I would prefer concealed but I could be talked out of that )



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    So once you get maced in the eyes you loose your ability to use a firearm?

    Definition of blind for this purpose?

    Legally blind does not always equal totally blind.

    At contact distance I don't think vision is as important as many think.

    You think LEO's are giving OC'er a hard time now. How about a few OC'ers with the red tipped canes! The lawsuite can include ADA based violations.
    In my past martial arts training, we would frequently practice defense and counter-attacks blindfolded, or with eyes closed, from standing, sitting and supine positions.As my instructors would say, "How do you know you will always be attacked when you are awake, in a well lit room, with mats...?"

    And if you've lived in Japan or are a Manga fan, you have to have read about blind swordsmen...:what:

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    since keeping and bearing firearms is a RIGHT, i'd say yes... i wouldn't go so far as to say states that require CC courses change the courses to cater to the blind, but if the state doesn't require a course, then that blind guy should definatly be able to.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    326

    Post imported post

    In my opinion this is really looking for something to discuss!!!

    Sure, according to the 2nd amendment we have the right to keep and bear arms, BUT we probably should use some common sense as well. While a blind person might have a right to carry a firearm, common sense would sat that he/she has anOBLIGATION not to!!!!! Obviously a blind person could not possibly know what is behindthe target or for that matter he/she may not even know what is between him/her and the target. In my humble opinion a blind person has no business carrying a firearm even if they do have a "right". Hell I have a current driver's license so therefore I have the right and privilege to drive, would you agree? OK now, suppose I lose my eyesight in an accident, should I drive? NO. Am I still licensed to drive? YES Common sense should apply to my driving or my carrying a firearm. Would those in favor of a blind person carrying a firearm want a blind person driving on the same street that their 16 year old son or daughter is driving on? I would think not. Would those in favor of a blind person carrying a firearm want to be standing behind the blind person's target? Or better yet, would they want their children standing behind the target? I doubt they would and I KNOW I wouldn't. These kind of "polls" by the media only make pro gun people look bad in the eyes of the public when we support something as unreasonable as a blind person driving a car or carrying a firearm!!! I can just imagine Hillary Clinton saying something like: "These people are totally unreasonable. They even had a poll where over 40 % of the people responding felt a BLIND person should carry a firearm. This shows this gun crowd has no regard for the people around them!!!"(I know that's not what the poll asked, but when have the liberals worried about that) I have had a permit and carried a handgun for over 40 years but you can bet that if I lost my eyesight, I would not befoolish enough to continue to carry a firearm, just as I would not be foolish enough to take my car for a drive.

    I just think we need to use some COMMON SENSE about our firearms just as we do about other things in life. Failing to do so only gives ammunition to those who would use anything to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    One of the complicating issues that always comes up in the "Should blind guys carry a gun? discussion is what the definition of "blind" is.

    Unfortunately, some people are called "blind" who still have some amount of vision.

    So, it's important to make the distinction between people who are "blind" meaning they have no visual perception at all (are 100% blind) and those who are "legally blind" who have only a low amount of remaining vision.

    Someone who is 100% blind should not carry a gun out in public. Not because they are blind, but because they are incompetent to use it accurately and safely in almost all situations.

    Like Glen Beck said on his show today, that doesn't mean a 100% blind person can't own guns. But he's gotta keep 'em at home.

    I came up with a novel solution for this dilemma (disabled person who is incompetent to deploy a gun but who still, of course, has a RKBA). A person who is disabled (i.e., 100% blind) should and who wishes to defend himself or herself should have an armed attendant asssigned to him or her for this purpose. This would be similar to other government programs for and regulations regarding disabled people. If they cannot perform certain tasks and operations that are part of their daily life, they will get assistance to do those.

    Currently, there are many people who are incapableof excercising their RKBA beause they are disabled. Everyone, including the pro-gun community, simply ignores those people. It's an anamoly for the pro-gun rights side. We simply ignore them. Very ironic...



  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    ...A person who is disabled (i.e., 100% blind) should and who wishes to defend himself or herself should have an armed attendant asssigned to him or her for this purpose...
    I want that job! But she's gotta be cute...

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    I came up with a novel solution for this dilemma (disabled person who is incompetent to deploy a gun but who still, of course, has a RKBA). A person who is disabled (i.e., 100% blind) should and who wishes to defend himself or herself should have an armed attendant asssigned to him or her for this purpose. This would be similar to other government programs for and regulations regarding disabled people. If they cannot perform certain tasks and operations that are part of their daily life, they will get assistance to do those.
    Since when is adding a new government bureaucracy the solution to any problem?

    Are you so impressed by the way the Social Security Administration has worked that you wanted to add some more social welfare programs?

    IMO, a more realistic solution (one that doesn't involve the government getting bigger and stealing more of my hard-earned money): let them manage their own self-defense.

    Let them carry the same weapons the rest of us use. As others pointed out, they will be judged on the reasonableness of their use of force, just like the rest of us.

    If they aren't comfortable with their ability to use weapons, let them arrange their own body guard. This is what family is for. In the rare case you have no family (none at all), rely on friends. If you don't have any friends... well then stop being such an ******* and make some.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    +11?

  19. #19
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    acrimsontide wrote:
    While a blind person might have a right to carry a firearm, common sense would sat that he/she has anOBLIGATION not to!!!!! Obviously a blind person could not possibly know what is behindthe target or for that matter he/she may not even know what is between him/her and the target. In my humble opinion a blind person has no business carrying a firearm even if they do have a "right".
    Common sense is not defined by you, me, or the government. Have you ever considered a blind person's other senses are far more acute than the average person's? Who are we to tell a blind person they have no business having the means to defend themselves? I don't want a blind man being the sniper on the SWAT team, but it close quarters, I believe a blind person could have the senses necessary to safety defend themselves with a firearm. It is a personal choice; they have the right, I would rather trust blind America to wisely chose whether or not theyshould carry. I do NOT think handing government the power to pick and choose whodeserves the constitutional rights is a path any of us want to go down.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    it's been shown that driving is not a right, it's a privilege...

    also a blind person driving a car is an active threat to everyone, whilea blind person with a gun is not an active threat...

    i'm guessing your average blind person would not carry however... kinda like your average blind person wouldn't have a tv.

  21. #21
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    whilea blind person with a gun is not an active threat...
    But what if someone bumped into them? The gun could "just go off"! :quirky

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Anyone ever see 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico'? Johnny Depp manages to shoot quite well with his eye balls missin!



  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    i'm guessing your average blind person would not carry however...
    Right


    uncoolperson wrote:
    kinda like your average blind person wouldn't have a tv.
    Wrong.



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    i'm guessing your average blind person would not carry however...
    Right


    uncoolperson wrote:
    kinda like your average blind person wouldn't have a tv.
    Wrong.

    i was basing that off the few i've know... why spend a couple hundred on a tv, when you can get a radio that pics up tv?


    again though it is a right, so they should get to decide for themselves... my mom doesn't carry, she likes her guns, but she doesn't think carrying one herself would be the best idea.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    it's been shown that driving is not a right, it's a privilege...

    also a blind person driving a car is an active threat to everyone, whilea blind person with a gun is not an active threat...

    i'm guessing your average blind person would not carry however... kinda like your average blind person wouldn't have a tv.
    Who says driving is a priviledge? That state, of course. Big surprise... they tax the hell out of this activity.

    Driving is no more a priviledge than riding a bike or skating or walking down the street. They are all means of transportation. Any activity that does not infringe on the rights of another is a right.

    I don't think the analogy of blind driving is relavent to blind self-defense.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •