This is the usual anti-gun mantra, you don't want me to have nukes, you don't want me to Sarin, do you? It's absolute nonsense, a blind person having a gun is not a danger by them merely having it any more than it is for a sighted person to have it. If your blind you're subject to the same laws regarding intentional or negligent misuse. If blind or sighted misuse their gun, punish that, everything else is simply incremental gun banning by setting arbitrary limits on ownership and possession and substituting the judgment of the state for the judgment of the individual.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Iowa issues handgun permits to legally blind citizens
- Thread starter jwh20
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This is the usual anti-gun mantra, you don't want me to have nukes, you don't want me to Sarin, do you? It's absolute nonsense, a blind person having a gun is not a danger by them merely having it any more than it is for a sighted person to have it. If your blind you're subject to the same laws regarding intentional or negligent misuse. If blind or sighted misuse their gun, punish that, everything else is simply incremental gun banning by setting arbitrary limits on ownership and possession and substituting the judgment of the state for the judgment of the individual.
In my view the ROOT ISSUE here is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. The 2A is 100% clear, "shall NOT be infringed". But it's been chipped away one bit at a time over stuff like this. Who is to say that a person who is legally blind cannot be a responsible gun owner? You? Me? BHO? The BATF? The State of Indiana? No! I submit that even a 100% blind individual could safely and effectively use a handgun to defend himself. I'm sorry but blindness does not imply stupid! Why should government pre-emptively EXCLUDE a group of citizens from their civil rights simply due to disability? That is DISCRIMINATION and it's wrong!
As with ANY lawful firearm owner, the responsible use of that firearm is up to that individual. If he misuses it, either intentionally or accidentally, he is RESPONSIBLE. PERIOD! The idea that we need some government bureaucrat to oversee our rights is that entire "nanny-state" idea that should be anathema to folks here on INGO.
I encourage you to re-think your position of civil rights and the 2A in particular. If you don't, then where is the line drawn on this? How "blind" is blind-enough to forbid a personal from having firearms?
Remember that the anti-gunners who are so outraged at this idea in Iowa (and it's probably already the case here in Indiana since there is no eye-test or vision requirement for a LTCH in this state) really want ALL guns for ALL people banned. But they will settle for one little restriction at a time until all guns are effectively banned from citizens.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Legally blind means that vision is not correctable to better than 20/200.
I rode the bus downtown Indy (I was poor, he was legally blind) with a man whose eyes could not be correct. Today they could fix him inside a day but back then they could not. He knew more about gun of all types and how to work on them than any other person I have know. He moonlighted as a gunsmith.
Indiana had its eugenics phase. It ended in tears. Government has no business deciding rights on fitness like this.
I rode the bus downtown Indy (I was poor, he was legally blind) with a man whose eyes could not be correct. Today they could fix him inside a day but back then they could not. He knew more about gun of all types and how to work on them than any other person I have know. He moonlighted as a gunsmith.
Indiana had its eugenics phase. It ended in tears. Government has no business deciding rights on fitness like this.
I guess I'm a little confused about this issue. My comments relate to those that are severely blind.
I get that 2a should give everyone the right to bear arms. But let's take a look at a series of safety rules posted on this site we as gun owners should follow.
Those aren't all the rules, but how many of these rules are not obtainable/followable by someone who cannot see the target? We rail on people who don't use common safety sense when using firearms, and I feel bad for those who can't see, but it seems bass-akwards that safety should take a back seat to someone's right to bear arms.
I get that 2a should give everyone the right to bear arms. But let's take a look at a series of safety rules posted on this site we as gun owners should follow.
Those aren't all the rules, but how many of these rules are not obtainable/followable by someone who cannot see the target? We rail on people who don't use common safety sense when using firearms, and I feel bad for those who can't see, but it seems bass-akwards that safety should take a back seat to someone's right to bear arms.
You're close. It's not that the 2A "should give everyone" anything. The 2A protects a right we have by being born.
Simple answer: Liberty is not always safe. However, I'll play the game as you're setting it up. You tell me: At what level of eyesight does the 2A-protected right (or any other) cease to apply? Is it at 20/200? 20/100? 20/50? What about someone who is farsighted or astigmatic? What about if vision is correctable? Arbirarily, we'll say that at and above 20/200, a person's rights are different. Are his rights dependent upon whether or not he has his glasses on?
What about other rights? The right of free speech? If someone is mute, is it like Ron White's joke, that he has the right of free speech, but not the ability? Does his right extend to sign language or to handwritten text?
This is very dangerous ground on which to tread, almost like saying that an accused child molester has no right to a fair trial. The danger lies not in the fact that, if convicted, a monster like that should receive a harsh sentence, but in the fact that accusation is not the same as conviction, nor does the damage to one or more children eliminate the right of the accused to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. That also is a right.
The image many of us get when we think about the blind having firearms is that of such a person wildly shooting at whatever may be in the direction the gun is pointed. Far more likely, I think, that sight-impaired person will use more caution.
Just my
Blessings,
Bill
He spoke of the right to remain silent but not the ability, during a time when he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. I forget where he used the joke, I've never been much of a RW fan.
Blessings,
Bill
As far as the level of eyesight goes...I have no idea. Smarter people than myself should figure that out.Simple answer: Liberty is not always safe. However, I'll play the game as you're setting it up. You tell me: At what level of eyesight does the 2A-protected right (or any other) cease to apply? Is it at 20/200? 20/100? 20/50? What about someone who is farsighted or astigmatic? What about if vision is correctable? Arbirarily, we'll say that at and above 20/200, a person's rights are different. Are his rights dependent upon whether or not he has his glasses on?
What about other rights? The right of free speech? If someone is mute, is it like Ron White's joke, that he has the right of free speech, but not the ability? Does his right extend to sign language or to handwritten text?
This is very dangerous ground on which to tread, almost like saying that an accused child molester has no right to a fair trial. The danger lies not in the fact that, if convicted, a monster like that should receive a harsh sentence, but in the fact that accusation is not the same as conviction, nor does the damage to one or more children eliminate the right of the accused to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. That also is a right.
The image many of us get when we think about the blind having firearms is that of such a person wildly shooting at whatever may be in the direction the gun is pointed. Far more likely, I think, that sight-impaired person will use more caution.
Just my
Blessings,
Bill
Big difference between this example and a mute and free speech. There are other ways that person can communicate, and it doesn't contradict basic safety rules.
Also different than the child molester example, which I don't really understand what the comparison is. If someone is accused of child molesting, we don't really know for sure if he is a child molester until the case is heard and facts are made public. When someone is blind, we do know.
The difference in all of the examples is minimal. You're right, a mute has other ways to communicate; how do you propose a blind person should defend him/herself within those safety rules? Even stepping away from that portion of the example, the basic fact is that people have rights and one or another disability does not remove their rights from them.
The child molester example I used addressed simply the fact that just as even that heinous a crime deserves a fair hearing with all rights intact, so does the citizen who only wants to preserve his/her own safety and life do so without basis to remove those rights, solely on the basis of others' comfort with his/her exercise of them.
And it would seem to me that the determination of at what level of sight or lack thereof the rights change would be central to this discussion. If we cannot define that, then we must default either to "all" or "none", meaning that unless someone's vision is absolutely perfect, s/he may not be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense, for the simple reason that the safety of others comes before him/herself. I think that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) might hold that to be discriminatory as well.
We have several trainers on this site who use the example of the 360 degree "range" applicable to any shooting outside of a training scenario, meaning that when you're attacked somewhere and must use your gun without a firing line, lanes, and a paper bullseye target, in defense of your own or a loved one's life or safety, there will not always be the perfect conditions under which to shoot. What if you are across the street, behind the perp aiming an AR at a schoolyard full of children? You know your skill and ability and you know your round will stop in the perp when (not "if") you hit him. This is an extreme (and ideal, in the fact that you know you will not miss) example, of course, but given those parameters, and you have a choice of taking out the perp with the kids behind the target (him) and no backstop, or letting him mow them all down with his AR, what do you do?
You can disregard a safety rule, or disregard the threat. You have only those two choices.
Now... We can "what if" all day, but the bottom line, for me, is that there is no reason by which this group of people may be denied their rights.
I just re-read this prior to posting and I see that it could be taken as argumentative or possibly even sarcastic. Neither is my intention, but I do enjoy a good discussion. Thanks for staying civil in your part of it, and if I seem to not be so, you have my apologies.
Blessings,
Bill
The child molester example I used addressed simply the fact that just as even that heinous a crime deserves a fair hearing with all rights intact, so does the citizen who only wants to preserve his/her own safety and life do so without basis to remove those rights, solely on the basis of others' comfort with his/her exercise of them.
And it would seem to me that the determination of at what level of sight or lack thereof the rights change would be central to this discussion. If we cannot define that, then we must default either to "all" or "none", meaning that unless someone's vision is absolutely perfect, s/he may not be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense, for the simple reason that the safety of others comes before him/herself. I think that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) might hold that to be discriminatory as well.
We have several trainers on this site who use the example of the 360 degree "range" applicable to any shooting outside of a training scenario, meaning that when you're attacked somewhere and must use your gun without a firing line, lanes, and a paper bullseye target, in defense of your own or a loved one's life or safety, there will not always be the perfect conditions under which to shoot. What if you are across the street, behind the perp aiming an AR at a schoolyard full of children? You know your skill and ability and you know your round will stop in the perp when (not "if") you hit him. This is an extreme (and ideal, in the fact that you know you will not miss) example, of course, but given those parameters, and you have a choice of taking out the perp with the kids behind the target (him) and no backstop, or letting him mow them all down with his AR, what do you do?
You can disregard a safety rule, or disregard the threat. You have only those two choices.
Now... We can "what if" all day, but the bottom line, for me, is that there is no reason by which this group of people may be denied their rights.
I just re-read this prior to posting and I see that it could be taken as argumentative or possibly even sarcastic. Neither is my intention, but I do enjoy a good discussion. Thanks for staying civil in your part of it, and if I seem to not be so, you have my apologies.
Blessings,
Bill
I'm undecided about the matter. But here's a thought.
Is a blind man (or a legally blind man) more dangerous than some of the yahoos with guns? You know what I'm talking about: the moron at the range who sweeps everybody, who carries the pistol "naked" or in a really bad holster, who is too insecure to take a class, and who just cannot take personal responsibility for gun ownership. They're accidents waiting to happen. They're the guys who shoot themselves in the groin. They can get guns legally. It seems to me if you want to deny guns to the blind, you also want to deny guns to those who do not practice personal responsibility. If you want to give guns to the irresponsible people who will eventually shoot themselves or others accidentally or criminally, then you also need to give guns to the blind.
Is a blind man (or a legally blind man) more dangerous than some of the yahoos with guns? You know what I'm talking about: the moron at the range who sweeps everybody, who carries the pistol "naked" or in a really bad holster, who is too insecure to take a class, and who just cannot take personal responsibility for gun ownership. They're accidents waiting to happen. They're the guys who shoot themselves in the groin. They can get guns legally. It seems to me if you want to deny guns to the blind, you also want to deny guns to those who do not practice personal responsibility. If you want to give guns to the irresponsible people who will eventually shoot themselves or others accidentally or criminally, then you also need to give guns to the blind.
How would you feel if this blind person was in a auto. driving down the road. If you can't see you will more than likely not hit your target. One of the safety questions are know your target and what is behind it. Now if you can't see how on earth can you follow it. It is not the idea of loosing your rights it is that you can not see. Well how about the mental retarded should they have a gun permit same difference sometimes common since should come in to play.
Sonney ( Grammar may not be right but if you had some common sense then you would have figured it out ) !
Sonney ( Grammar may not be right but if you had some common sense then you would have figured it out ) !
Last edited:
Not once did I see anything being sarcastic. I enjoyed the back and forth.
As for a blind person protecting himself, I don't know. Maybe a knife, pepper spray, etc. It stinks the hand they've been dealt, but I just can't get over all the safety rules being broken by someone who can't see their target.
Common sense, not common "since"!
These type of corrections used to be made in what was once called "grammar school". (Grades 1 through 6, sometimes extending a bit beyond.)
Sometimes a typo or two can be tolerated. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a question and a statement, an adjective and an adverb, or especially the difference between "losing and "loosing", "since" and "sense", shall be prohibited from keeping and/or bearing arms.
SWAT team! Track him down. Kick in his door. Confiscate all weapons. Resisters will be arrested. Armed resisters will be shot!
Hey, I think I'm gonna like this dictator/tyrant/deciding who gets what thing.What's that you say? "**** you, *******"?
Good answer.
Good answer.
Last edited:
Or, we could ask them to judge for themselves what their defense requirements.
Driving down the road, you need to see things coming up.
If you are just blind enough to be legally blind, and your defense requirements are all up close, such as in your house.......
As Kirk pointed out upthread, "legally blind" is defined as vision not correctable to 20/200. For those who don't know, 20/200 means you see at 20 feet what someone else sees at 200, in other words, very nearsighted. Most self-defense encounters, I learned here on INGO, happen at less than 10 feet of distance (it was less than that, but I forget how much less) So... by saying that the "legally blind" cannot carry or even possess a firearm, you're saying they have no right to effective self defense, despite the fact that their disability doesn't detract from their ability in that sense.
This is the "There oughta be a law!" argument: When something just seems wrong to a person, and that person alone doesn't have the power to force everyone else to his/her way of thinking, that person wants a law passed, using government's ability to force behaviors from people who don't want to do them, at gunpoint if necessary. Actaeon said it most recently; someone else said it upthread, let them decide for themselves and if they make a poor choice and injure someone who should not be injured, hold them responsible for their actions. This should apply to everyone: blind, deaf, mute, of full abilities, LEO, non-LEO, rich man, poor man, begger man, doctor, lawyer, or Indian chief. And yes, I left out thief. That implies a criminal who continues to commit crimes.
What an idea! Let people who know themselves better than anyone else knows them make their own decisions regarding their own lives!
Blessings,
Bill
Site Supporter
Members online
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- K9stang
- Brad69
- Snapdragon
- mike21
- Popeye Thee Sailor
- Plumbous
- jbombelli
- Lee9
- Michigan Slim
- indyblue
- StukaJU87
- Chance
- porchedealer
- Meatstick
- Capvideo
- askeen289
- woodsie57
- pharmboy
- randomrambo
- hopper68
- bwframe
- AndyF
- Butch627
- MrSmitty
- JAL
- Robert Richardson
- macolesby
- KLB
- mike trible
- 10mm
- Matt&cheese
- 2tonic
- stack23
- BehindBlueI's
- Godbybe
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- Ingomike
- peterock
- cswan
- Gabriel
- Tryin'
- INDY45
- kaiser9815
- snorko
- cbhausen
- Tanfodude
- WhitleyStu
- Knights1776
- Bigdog357
