Bull crap.
I'm shocked at some of the crap statements made in this thread.
I'm sadly not shocked whatsoever...
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
Bull crap.
I'm shocked at some of the crap statements made in this thread.
Bull crap.
I'm shocked at some of the crap statements made in this thread.
Let them have frangibles only.........................
You can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, nothing is stopping you. Just be prepared for the consequences that go alone with that. Just like you have the right to bear arms but be prepared for the consequences if you murder someone with those arms. The right to bear arms is just that - a right. Driving a car is a privelege. See the difference?I am glad you brought up 1A. Surely, you know that it is not an absolute right. One has a right to free speech but cannot shout "fire!" in a theatre, because it puts the people around him at risk. People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car.
Probably not. But he has every right to be there and I have every right not to be there.Would you bring your kids to the range if you knew that a completely blind guy would be shooting there that day?
That's his problem. ND's apply to blind and non blind alike.If you lived in a townhouse on the other side of the wall from a completely blind guy who shot himself while cleaning a gun, how would you proceed?
You're welcome.By the way, thanks for the negative reps.
I am glad you brought up 1A. Surely, you know that it is not an absolute right. One has a right to free speech but cannot shout "fire!" in a theatre, because it puts the people around him at risk. People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car.
This sounds like an Onion article. Let's use some common sense. The public has an obvious interest in preventing a blind man, who is by definition incapable of handling a gun safely, from leaving loaded firearms strewn around all over the floor.
Whats wrong with leaving firearms all over the floor? You've been indoctrinated by the nanny state.
That line is as worn out as the race card.I am glad you brought up 1A. Surely, you know that it is not an absolute right. One has a right to free speech but cannot shout "fire!" in a theatre, because it puts the people around him at risk. People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car.
Would you bring your kids to the range if you knew that a completely blind guy would be shooting there that day?
If you lived in a townhouse on the other side of the wall from a completely blind guy who shot himself while cleaning a gun, how would you proceed?
By the way, thanks for the negative reps.
Even if you do believe in "community danger" being a limiting factor on rights, a blind guy who happens to own guns doesn't even fall within that realm.
How often do blind people cause NDs which result in the unintentional injury or death of another person?
(crickets)
I'm waiting for all the tales of woe about blind people with firearms. This is right up there with "injuries caused by falconers"
-Mike
My implication was that one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre with impunity. One is also free to use libelous speech, but cannot expect to use First Amendment protections as an effective defense.
I see your point, and I suppose the fact that I am arguing against statutory disqualification for criminal offenses in another thread makes me something of a hypocrite. Perhaps I am going a little too far in the example of a blind person, and the following examples are by no means analogous, but where is the dividing line? Should the state intervene if a mentally retarded person with the faculties of a 7 year old wishes to own a gun? Someone with a violent history who is fresh out of a mental hospital? There has to be a point at which we make common sense decisions in the interest of general safety.
My implication was that one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre with impunity. One is also free to use libelous speech, but cannot expect to use First Amendment protections as an effective defense.
I see your point, and I suppose the fact that I am arguing against statutory disqualification for criminal offenses in another thread makes me something of a hypocrite. Perhaps I am going a little too far in the example of a blind person, and the following examples are by no means analogous, but where is the dividing line? Should the state intervene if a mentally retarded person with the faculties of a 7 year old wishes to own a gun? Someone with a violent history who is fresh out of a mental hospital? There has to be a point at which we make common sense decisions in the interest of general safety.
another blind shooter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFNce0X_8AA
Carey McWilliams, 33, has been blind since age 10. But that hasn’t stopped him from living a full life, including going sky diving, scuba diving, appearing in Michael Moore’s "Bowling for Columbine," and writing two books. Now he wants a gun permit in Minnesota.
McWilliams already has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Utah and North Dakota, but the sheriff’s department in Clay County, Minnesota, turned him down.
...People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car...
Could a blind person drive a car? Researchers are trying to make that far-flung notion a reality.
The National Federation of the Blind and Virginia Tech plan to debut a prototype vehicle next year equipped with technology that helps a blind person drive a car independently.....
People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun