imported post
HankT wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
HankT wrote:
...SNIP
The fact is that MILLIONS of people are being denied their right to carry/self-defend simply because they are unfortunate enough to be disabled. And the government of the people should correct that situation. I would think that all pro gun/rights advocates would agree.
I do.
I do not accept the words you have tried to jam down my throat, or the meaning you have attempted to extend to the ones I chose.
I also do not accept your premise that anyone is being denied their rights because of disability. They are unable to exercise certain rights by virtue of a disability. That is a far cry from being denied anything by anyone.
Please show me the part of the constitution that says that the government has the authority to fund or even see to it that citizens be provided the MEANS to exercise ANY of the rights that the constitution guarantees. In fact please show me the part that does not specifically limit the government from interference in any way in the private exercise of those rights.
Even with the most twisted reading of the interstate commerce clause you still cannot get to anyplace that allows the government to proactively assist individuals in this regard.
What you suggest would allow the government to to determine the methods by which people use their rights based on a GOVERNMENT assessment of their ability or disability. I do not want the government to even come close to assuming that role in my life or anyones else. The government is specifically prohibited from interference in the exercise of these rights by competent individuals, and that includes implementing programs as you suggest.
Besides, you are overstating the issue here. This guy can still own, and carry a firearm. In 30 or more states he can conceal it. He has been denied a Utah permit to conceal, but with reciprocity he can still conceal in Utah. So please explain how he is unable to keep and bear arms. While it may offend your sensibilities that a person with his particular disability legally can do this, it does not offend mine. It is in fact a program such as you suggest that would deny this man his rights, by forcing him to accept YOUR gun bearer.
As I stated above a couple of times, the McWilliams situation is different from the situation for all disabled Americans. The context is different.
For the MILLIONS of disabled people who cannot do what he has done, some consideration and support is definitely in order.
I would think the Americans With Disabilities Act could be the model upon which to base a, say, Self-Defense for Americans With Disabilities Act which would provide protections and impose required services and allowances for qualified citizens.
A few extra dollars for each of us Americans who are blessed with the physical capacities to actively and physically use firearms under 2A would be a small price to pay to assure that qualified disabled folks are protected to some reasonable degree.
Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean 2A does not apply to them. It's a God given right.
I don't extend this proposition to anything else. If you wish to use a slippery slope argument, then we could apply that to the McWilliams case too. Let's skip the always quicksand-ish slippery slope deal. Pure slippery slope arguments are almost always fatuous.
Look, you seem to see a problem where non exists. There is no disability that I can imagine that would prevent a person from owning or even carrying a firearm for whatever reason. The fact that a person cannot physically pick it up and fire it does not prevent ownership or having it laying on the bed or in the chair next to them. I cannot think of many paraplegics who do not have an assistant. they seem to die from starvation just when they start to truely separate from their caretakers. If they want their assistant to carry a gun, then all they need do is give them one. They do not need a government employee for that purpose. There is simply no need for a program such as you propose to force people to exercise any of their rights in any way other than the way they want.
By the way, it is already settled law the while people have a right to self defense, the government has NO responsibility to specifically protect ANY individual. So the basis for your program does not exist in law, and has specifically been excluded from consideration by the supreme court.
Somehow you feel that we need to establish a tax on being able-bodied. I ask again, what part of the constitution says people can be taxed for being able-bodied? If I subsequently become disabled do I still have to pay the tax?
Now since you insist on discussions of logical argument techniques, I would point out that at one point in this discussion you said -
Your use of the "nobody's perfect at shooting" notion does not seem to apply here. You are comparing a general truth to a specific case. That logic would lead to some pretty absurd results. The "nobody's perfect at shooting" argument is a straw man.
In fact an argument from the general to the specific is logically sound, it is the inverse that leads to unusual results. In fact that argument does apply here. You want to remove this mans ability to use his rights because you believe he is dangerous. You are making a gratuitous assumption that most of the rest of us do not accept, based on YOUR view of what blind people are capable of. By the way, he is only dangerous if you assume he cannot hit what he wants to shoot at. Ergo he would not be perfect at shooting. So in fact he does fit the general premise supplied.
Moreover, NO ONE has ever hit PRECISELY what they wanted to hit with any firearm in history. People hit things "close enough" to obtain a desired result, no better. Try it your self, Put two bullets through the same hole. You can come close enough for satisfaction, but it will never be precise. There is no human alive that can do this and do it reliably. This translate into gross terms and is highly dependant on individual ability. Individual ability is what you fail to grant Mr. McWilliams.
You lean on the Americans with Disabilities act for support, when in fact that law is of doubtful constitutionality, and does not in any way do what you suggest. It is designed to prevent and remove government and private sector CREATED obstructions to peoples access to places they have a right to go. It requires a REASONABLE accommodation, not SUPPLY OF THE MEANS and it says nothing about self defense.
What the preponderance of people here are suggesting is that this man has rights which are being violated by overreaching government officials. What you are suggesting is that YOU want to be that official and determine what rights disabled people should be ALLOWED to exercise independently, and YOU want to decide the means by which they will be allowed to do so.
The fact is that there is no double horned issue here. The only issue is did the government have the right to deny this man a permit based on the law. It is very clear that they did not. It is equally clear that any other view would strip this man of his rights. It does not matter weather his exercise of his right offends you, any more than it matters when someone objects to your carry of an unconcealed handgun. By your thinking a blid person would not be able to exclude you gun from his home because he cannot see it. Maybe he just doesn't like the smell of gun oil and leather.
I have said from the beginning that this guys situation is not really good for our side of the CHP debate for obvious reasons. There is no question the anti-rights people are going to have a field day. But I will fight and die for this guys rights even if I personally do not think what he is doing is a good idea if it is within the law. Unfortunately for him there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting you and others from paternally trying to initiate an unconstitutional program that would infringe his rights, and tax me to do it. Congress is full of people that hold precisly that same view.
Regards
