View Poll Results: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    23 37.10%
  • no

    30 48.39%
  • not sure

    9 14.52%
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

  1. #101
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,868
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    The right to defend oneself is not dependent on sight.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #102
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    03-02-15 @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    102

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post

    The point is that the set up you suggested relies upon the arbitrary emotional biases of humans rather than rational adjudication. I thought that re-presenting the scenario with different participants would highlight that and make it apparent to you.
    Either I failed in that regard or you find arbitrary prejudices acceptable grounds for adjudication and legislation.
    w/e. You're free to think as you wish.
    This arbitrary emotional bias is what distincts humans from animals, and is the basis of most of our societal rules that we have developed over the course of centuries.
    You deem the right to carry a gun in public, for yourself and legally blind deserve a higher status than my right to feel safe in public, which you admitted might be felt the same by the majority based on the emotional bias.
    You think you and the gun lobby has the right to judge on who's rights are more valuable, i say the majority rules. It's a concept called democracy.

  3. #103
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    This arbitrary emotional bias is what distincts humans from animals...
    The arbitrary bias I spoke of was the bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man. This bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man is what makes us different from animals?
    Is there a crossed wire somewhere. Cause that doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps it was it so deep it went over my head.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    You deem the right to carry a gun in public, for yourself and legally blind deserve a higher status than my right to feel safe in public
    Can you direct me to the law or rulings from whence the "right to feel safe" is derived? I have never heard of this right before and I would like to study up on it before we go further into the discussion of the "right to feel safe".

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    You think you and the gun lobby has the right to judge on who's rights are more valuable
    I am quite sure that this conclusion of your is not supported by anything I have ever written. The fact that you have expressed the idea makes me think I must not be doing the best job of communicating.

    The right to bear arms already exists. The default position is that people are allowed to bear arms. There are quite a number of reasons why this right is variously curtailed or outright denied for certain individuals and certain situations. "It doesn't feel safe," is not one of the arguments sufficient to take a fundamental liberty away from another human.

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    ...i say the majority rules. It's a concept called democracy.
    Would your love for "democracy" have caused you to back the majority approved Jim Crow laws?
    Or is there more to democracy, the rule of law, and civil society than mere mob rule?
    I may be wrong.

  4. #104
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    03-02-15 @ 05:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    102

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The arbitrary bias I spoke of was the bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man. This bias against the likelihood or ability of a woman to be as proficient with a firearm as a man is what makes us different from animals?
    Is there a crossed wire somewhere. Cause that doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps it was it so deep it went over my head.
    Yes, if there were a bias against the likelihood of a man being as proficient with a firearm as a woman, than that would be another example of emotional bias that differentiates us humans from animals, i stay with that opinion and argument.


    Can you direct me to the law or rulings from whence the "right to feel safe" is derived? I have never heard of this right before and I would like to study up on it before we go further into the discussion of the "right to feel safe".
    Sure, it's in the Declaration of Independence:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    Attorney Mario Apuzzo (who's ultra-conservative, a supporter of the birther movement and other conspiracies against President Obama, so noone could possibly suggest a liberal or progressive bias for him) follows that section with this interpretation:

    "From these fundamental truths we can see that safety and happiness are the essence of life and liberty. If life and liberty are themselves unalienable rights, so must be its essence, safety and happiness. It is also clear from these truths that government obtains its power to govern from the consent of the governed and that the people consent to give that power to a government for the sole purpose of having that government protect their safety and happiness. It is also a fundamental truth that when the people give their consent to the government to govern them, they have entrusted that government with the protection of their safety and happiness."


    The right to bear arms already exists. The default position is that people are allowed to bear arms. There are quite a number of reasons why this right is variously curtailed or outright denied for certain individuals and certain situations. "It doesn't feel safe," is not one of the arguments sufficient to take a fundamental liberty away from another human.
    That default as presented by you only exists since the politically motivated landmark decision of the SCOTUS in 2008, since mere 5 years, and at no point as such in any former times. That alone shows that it's not an "undeniable" and ever-existing right that is not up for change. Which is not even the point in this discussion per se, since this is about "extending" that right now to the legally blind, where it is currently or until very recently is limited.
    The right to bear arms to support a well regulated militia, is what was written in the bill of rights. It was clearly expressed that regulation of that right is allowed, and repeatedly interpreted and confirmed as such by the SCOTUS in all past prior 2008, especially on state level.


    Would your love for "democracy" have caused you to back the majority approved Jim Crow laws?
    Or is there more to democracy, the rule of law, and civil society than mere mob rule?
    If 90 % of the population supports increased background checks for gun purchases, and if their elected representatives would have respected that and voted accordingly, i do not call this "mob rule", but it looks we have a different opinion on this point too.

    The positive and needed change during the civil rights movement which resulted in the elimination of the Jim Crow laws was done because the ideas, convictions and the will of the majority of people has changed over the course of the time. Given, the movement was started by what you might call " the mob", but could only go as far as it went because it was supported by the majority.

  5. #105
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,062

    Re: Should the legally blind be allowed to carry guns in public?

    Not only should they be allowed to have and carry guns they should be allowed to drive a car and perform operations in the ER.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

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