This should make for a fun discussion

Source

Iowa grants permits for blind residents to carry guns in public
Sheriffs and advocates are divided on whether that's a good idea.

Here’s some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers scratching their heads:

Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it’s a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.

On one side: People such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for the Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different treatment based on disabilities.

On the other side: People such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn’t issue a permit to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.

Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.

“It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads, we can’t deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing,” said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County sheriff’s office, referring to a visual disability.

Polk County officials say they’ve issued weapons permits to at least three people who can’t legally drive and were unable to read the application forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments.

And sheriffs in three other counties — Jasper, Kossuth and Delaware — say they have granted permits to residents who they believe have severe visual impairments.

“I’m not an expert in vision,” Delaware Sheriff John LeClere said. “At what point do vision problems have a detrimental effect to fire a firearm? If you see nothing but a blurry mass in front of you, then I would say you probably shouldn’t be shooting something.”

One county sheriff shows how to train visually impaired

In one Iowa county, blind residents who want weapons would likely receive special training.

Wethington, the Cedar County sheriff, has a legally blind daughter who plans to obtain a permit to carry when she turns 21 in about two years. He demonstrated for the Register how he would train blind people who want to carry a gun.

“If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and not people with disabilities, their time would be more productive,” Wethington told the Register as he and his daughter took turns practice shooting with a semi-automatic handgun on private property in rural Cedar County.

The number of visually impaired or blind Iowans who can legally carry weapons in public is unknown because that information is not collected by the state or county sheriffs who issue the permits.

The Register became aware that a handful of Iowans with visual impairments can carry weapons in public because county sheriffs and their staffs recalled issuing those permits. Sheriff officials in most of the cases said they were uncertain about the extent of the visual impairments.

Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, said the range of sight among people who are classified as legally blind varies greatly. He believes there are situations where such applicants can safely handle a gun.

However, he also expressed concerns.

“Although people who are blind can participate fully in nearly all life’s experiences, there are some things, like the operation of a weapon, that may very well be an exception,” Clancy said.

It’s an issue that musician Stevie Wonder, who has been blind since birth, called attention to in January.

“Imagine me with a gun. It’s just crazy,” Wonder told CNN while calling for reforms to what he has previously called “ridiculous” gun laws.

Some states do consider vision in issuing permits

The Gun Control Act of 1968 and other federal laws do not prohibit blind people from owning guns. But unlike Iowa, some states have laws that spell out whether visually impaired people can obtain weapon permits.

Vision requirements are either directly or indirectly part of the weapon permit criteria in some surrounding states.

In Nebraska, for example, applicants for a permit to carry a concealed handgun must provide “proof of vision” by either presenting a valid state driver’s license or a statement by an eye doctor that the person meets vision requirements set for a typical vehicle operator’s license.

Other states have indirect requirements that could — but don’t automatically — disqualify people who are blind. That includes Missouri and Minnesota, where applicants must complete a live fire test, which means they have to shoot and hit a target.

A 50-state database of gun permit requirements published by USACarry.com also shows that South Carolina has a law that requires proof of vision before a person is approved for a weapons permit.

Wisconsin, like Iowa, has no visual restrictions on gun permit applicants. Illinois lawmakers enacted a concealed weapons law in July, but permits have not yet been issued.

Illinois’ qualifications don’t specifically require a visual test, but applicants must complete firearms training that includes range instruction.

The National Federation of the Blind does not track states that require vision tests as part of weapon permit processes and has not taken an official stand on the issue. But its members are generally opposed to such laws, said Chris Danielsen, director of public relations for the group.

“There’s no reason solely on the (basis) of blindness that a blind person shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon,” Danielsen said. “Presumably they’re going to have enough sense not to use a weapon in a situation where they would endanger other people, just like we would expect other people to have that common sense.”

Iowa requires training for anyone who is issued a permit to carry a weapon in public, but that requirement can be satisfied through an online course that does not include any hands-on instruction or a shooting test.

A provision in Iowa’s law allows sheriffs to deny a permit if probable cause exists to believe that the person is likely to use the weapon in such a way that it would endanger himself or others.

Many sheriffs noted, however, that the provision relates to specific documented actions, and applicants who appealed their cases would likely win.

Vrotsos, the Dubuque County sheriff, did not know whether any blind people had applied for permits in his county, but said he wouldn’t hesitate to deny them.

“We do not track these applicants, but ... if I knew the person was blind ... a permit would not be issued, and this person would then have the right to appeal,” Vrotsos said.

But Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, believes changing the state law to deny blind people or others with physical disabilities the right to carry arms would violate federal disability law.

Part of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires a public entity to conduct an individualized analysis to make a reasonable judgment before denying a service. Hudson believes someone could successfully challenge Nebraska’s proof of vision requirement as illegal.

“The fact that you can’t drive a car doesn’t mean you can’t go to a shooting range and see a target,” Hudson said.

Other issues cited by Iowa sheriffs
The Des Moines Register earlier this year published reports about Iowa’s 2011 law that requires sheriffs to adopt uniform standards in issuing permits to carry weapons in public. Read about issues cited by Iowa sheriffs, such as gaps in their ability to search a person’s background for mental health problems and their inability to deny permits to sex offenders.

I say fine, issue them, but only if they can meet a marksmanship standard.
(Which everyone should be able to meet to get a permit, In my opinion, if you're going to carry, you should be able to hit what you point the thing at)

 d-usa wrote:
This should make for a fun discussion

I can't believe you're one to discriminate against the blind like that, d-usa. Being legally blind in Washington State isn't an impediment to getting a drivers license and that's basically piloting a guided missile. Just saying.

Still, the image of Stevie Wonder flailing around, shooting a .38 special at random is a bit comical.

Steve Benen wrote:The blind arming the blind

Earlier in the year, when the debate over gun safety was still a dominant issue on the national stage, musician Stevie Wonder suggested he might try to buy a gun just to help demonstrate the ways in which current laws defy common sense. "Imagine me with a gun," Wonder said. "It's just crazy.

In Iowa, there's apparently some disagreement on just how crazy this would be.

Here's some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers scratching their heads: Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

The quandary centers squarely on public safety.

Ya don't say.

The Des Moines Register's report noted quite a few folks in Iowa, including county sheriffs, who argued that there's no reason to discriminate against the blind if Iowans with visual impairments want weapons permits and firearms.

In practical terms, it creates a curious policy landscape: if you're legally blind in Iowa, the state will prohibit you from getting a driver's license and getting behind the wheel. The state will not, however, stop you from buying a loaded assault rifle and carrying a handgun.

This is not, incidentally, an academic exercise about hypothetical scenarios. There are actually Iowans who are too blind to drive but who are nevertheless getting gun permits.

From the DMR piece:

Private gun ownership -- even hunting -- by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.

"It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads, we can't deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing," said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County sheriff's office, referring to a visual disability.

Polk County officials say they've issued weapons permits to at least three people who can't legally drive and were unable to read the application forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments.

And sheriffs in three other counties -- Jasper, Kossuth and Delaware -- say they have granted permits to residents who they believe have severe visual impairments.

For rhetorical purposes, this should help crystalize the debate a bit further. We've reached the point at which opponents of gun reforms not only oppose background checks and support allowing suspected terrorists to buy an arsenal, they're also ready to quite literally arm the blind.

This will not end well.

Screw that blind master kung fu crap. Now we have blind Dirty Harry!

 Breotan wrote:
Still, the image of Stevie Wonder flailing around, shooting a .38 special at random is a bit comical.

The image of anyone "flailing around, shooting a .38 special at random" is bad, blind or not.

And I have no issue with permits being issued to the blind. The people in the article make it sound like handing a blind person a gun means they'll immediately shoot a random bystander; they're blind, not stupid.

1. Many that are "legally blind" can, in fact, see. Their vision is just so bad that the ADA decides they are blind. It doesn't mean that they can't see a target, just that it would be very vague and blurry. For something like target shooting, I don't see the issue. For something like home defense, knowing your door just got kicked open is all you really need.

2. For the completely blind (as in 0 actual ability to see), there are other ways to find a target. I believe there is a youtube video of a kid doing skateboard tricks who is completely blind. Like many blind people he uses tongue-clicking as a sort of echolocation. If someone can handle skateboarding, they can handle target shooting.

The biggest issue, as with any gun owner, is responsible ownership. No one, sighted or not, should be flailing their gun around "shooting randomly". No one, sighted or not, should be leaving a loaded gun out for anyone to pick up. These are important factors, independent of whether the gun owner can actually see.

 marv335 wrote:
I say fine, issue them, but only if they can meet a marksmanship standard.
(Which everyone should be able to meet to get a permit, In my opinion, if you're going to carry, you should be able to hit what you point the thing at)

I'd agree, if the test is in the dark. If they can shoot as well in the dark in their own abode as regularly sighted people, then go for it. Having shot in the dark, its completely different and a blind person could probably kick all our asses (for the first shot).

Anyone remember Wait Until Dark? If she had a gun, it would have been a short play...


(hidden fact, for jury purposes Frazzled is legally blind. Most people think the wife is definitely blind as well, after seeing me in the flesh)

I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

I understand the disabliities act, but this? What's the difference between a blind person shooting a gun, and a blind person driving? This is just plain silly.

 Frazzled wrote:
Screw that blind master kung fu crap. Now we have blind Dirty Harry!

Do you feel lucky punk?



Brings a whole new level of meaning to the question I think.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

You have the luxury of being a sighted person. I too, would never shoot at a vague sound. When I'm at the range, if I remove my glasses my distance vision sometimes reduces the paper-person target to a black blob between white edges. I still manage to hit the paper most of the time, and I'm nowhere close to legally blind.

 mega_bassist wrote:
I understand the disabliities act, but this? What's the difference between a blind person shooting a gun, and a blind person driving? This is just plain silly.

One is a person pulling a trigger, the other is a person driving a car. The two actions are literally nothing at all the same.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

You have the luxury of being a sighted person. I too, would never shoot at a vague sound. When I'm at the range, if I remove my glasses my distance vision sometimes reduces the paper-person target to a black blob between white edges. I still manage to hit the paper most of the time, and I'm nowhere close to legally blind.

 mega_bassist wrote:
I understand the disabliities act, but this? What's the difference between a blind person shooting a gun, and a blind person driving? This is just plain silly.

One is a person pulling a trigger, the other is a person driving a car. The two actions are literally nothing at all the same.

Remember, legally and ethically, every bullet you fire from a firearm has your signature on it. Hitting a paper "most of the time" is one thing, shooting at something you cant see has life-altering consequences, for both the shooter and the one shot.

From a self defense standpoint, youre probably looking at a 3-5 yard distance from a threat. This somewhat mitigates against hitting something other-than the attacker. If the person feels responsible enough to exercise this right, well , they are adults.....

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

You have the luxury of being a sighted person. I too, would never shoot at a vague sound. When I'm at the range, if I remove my glasses my distance vision sometimes reduces the paper-person target to a black blob between white edges. I still manage to hit the paper most of the time, and I'm nowhere close to legally blind.

Remember, legally and ethically, every bullet you fire from a firearm has your signature on it. Hitting a paper "most of the time" is one thing, shooting at something you cant see has life-altering consequences, for both the shooter and the one shot.

From a self defense standpoint, youre probably looking at a 3-5 yard distance from a threat. This somewhat mitigates against hitting something other-than the attacker. If the person feels responsible enough to exercise this right, well , they are adults.....

I'm well aware of the significance of each shot. I'm just not sure why people seem to think someone being blind means that person can't understand that significance also.

Aren't some people who are legally blind able to see just fine, or at least well enough, with glasses or contacts?


Or does legally blind mean they can't see even with glasses or contacts?

 Hordini wrote:
Aren't some people who are legally blind able to see just fine, or at least well enough, with glasses or contacts?


Or does legally blind mean they can't see even with glasses or contacts?

In the US, being legally blind means that their vision is worse than 20/200 with corrective means in place. This means that what they see at 20 feet, we all see at 200 feet. So a person with 20/10 vision sees details at 20 feet that a person with normal eyesight sees at 10 feet.

Total blindness is a range of absolutely no sight to light source perception (kind of like when you close your eyes, you can still perceive some light through your eyelids.

Funny fact, my dad is legally blind in both eyes without his classes, and legally blind in his left eye with glasses.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

You have the luxury of being a sighted person. I too, would never shoot at a vague sound. When I'm at the range, if I remove my glasses my distance vision sometimes reduces the paper-person target to a black blob between white edges. I still manage to hit the paper most of the time, and I'm nowhere close to legally blind.

Remember, legally and ethically, every bullet you fire from a firearm has your signature on it. Hitting a paper "most of the time" is one thing, shooting at something you cant see has life-altering consequences, for both the shooter and the one shot.

From a self defense standpoint, youre probably looking at a 3-5 yard distance from a threat. This somewhat mitigates against hitting something other-than the attacker. If the person feels responsible enough to exercise this right, well , they are adults.....

I'm well aware of the significance of each shot. I'm just not sure why people seem to think someone being blind means that person can't understand that significance also.

I think it's that some dont even want to give them that option. It's a right, leave it to the individual to exercise....

cars kill plenty of people, and one car with a full tank of gas can easily kill more people then a fully loaded handgun in the hands of a irresponsable person, blind or not.

beleive it or not, plenty of blind people can sense what is around them just fine, and while I do fully support CCW/open carry permits being issued to trained people, being "legally" blind doesnt actually mean you are unable to safely and responsably operate a car/handgun/ect

i have met legally blind people, who can ride a bike, with no dog or anything, around trees posts ect, using only the click method.

no reason why they cannot apply that to other things, such as cars or guns.

far more danger from cars anyways, get upset about the blind driving before you get upset about them carrying.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

You have the luxury of being a sighted person. I too, would never shoot at a vague sound. When I'm at the range, if I remove my glasses my distance vision sometimes reduces the paper-person target to a black blob between white edges. I still manage to hit the paper most of the time, and I'm nowhere close to legally blind.

Remember, legally and ethically, every bullet you fire from a firearm has your signature on it. Hitting a paper "most of the time" is one thing, shooting at something you cant see has life-altering consequences, for both the shooter and the one shot.

From a self defense standpoint, youre probably looking at a 3-5 yard distance from a threat. This somewhat mitigates against hitting something other-than the attacker. If the person feels responsible enough to exercise this right, well , they are adults.....

I'm well aware of the significance of each shot. I'm just not sure why people seem to think someone being blind means that person can't understand that significance also.

I think it's that some dont even want to give them that option. It's a right, leave it to the individual to exercise....

I'm not saying we should force every blind person to own and carry a gun. I'm disagreeing with the idea presented in the OP's article: that being blind should automatically preclude someone from gun ownership.

Even if they can't shoot it, being able to have on on their person to to reveal during a robbery is a great deterrent.

This made me lol.

Don't see too many of these being issues honestly. Not gonna get my arms up about it, but it's certainly an example of the law resulting in a silly outcome I tell you what

 LordofHats wrote:
This made me lol.

Don't see too many of these being issues honestly. Not gonna get my arms up about it, but it's certainly an example of the law resulting in a silly outcome I tell you what

Well if we've moved beyond vision correctable, I think I finally see a use for a Judge/Governor's shotshell option...

I am normally fr gun rights now. But to me this is a firm no. This isnlt like skateboarding thing someone mentioned. This is someone who cannot see clearly wielding a weapon. If someone needs a dog to tell them when to cross the street why would we let them have a dangerous weapon?

What if they just have a sawed off gat?
Where are they at boy?
Woof!
BLAM!

Again, irrespective there are multiple levels of vision impaired here.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I am normally fr gun rights now. But to me this is a firm no. This isnlt like skateboarding thing someone mentioned. This is someone who cannot see clearly wielding a weapon. If someone needs a dog to tell them when to cross the street why would we let them have a dangerous weapon?

I might be the only one, but I'm in support of allowing even completely blind people to carry a firearm. Just having a weapon on your person can aid you in self defense by acting as a deterrent if it's ever drawn.

Just because someone is blind doesn't mean they're going to shoot anything they're not supposed to.

Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

Blind people should carry hand grenades, like in "X Marks The Pedwalk".

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

But a gun does not need to shoot to be useful in defense.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense. Drive a car, not so much.

But remember boys and girls, nobody walks in LA!

Not every blind person is dare devil..

 SheSpits wrote:
Not every blind person is dare devil..

"You shoot like crap. What are you, blind? Oh..."

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense. Drive a car, not so much.

But remember boys and girls, nobody walks in LA!

What is more important? The right of society or the right of individuals?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Maybe my reluctance is because i think of a nice old grannie who is blind ans using a walker wielding a dessert eagle when i think of blind people with guns

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

Rights are an entirely human construct that can be removed at any time. However if you want to pretend that a piece of paper is magical protection against that, feel free.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense. Drive a car, not so much.

But remember boys and girls, nobody walks in LA!

What is more important? The right of society or the right of individuals?

The right of the individual.

A society that does not respect the rights of the individual is a collective dictatorship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

Rights are an entirely human construct that can be removed at any time. However if you want to pretend that a piece of paper is magical protection against that, feel free.

No, it was the bullets that convinced your ancestors. The paper only defined why they were getting shot.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

I notice you almost never ask aliens that question.

So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

Or drive drunk. Clearly my right to drive totally intoxicated should be more important than everyone elses right not to be run down when I fly off the road onto the sidewalk and into the corner store.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

Because driving is NOT a right.

Then why is gun ownership an inalienable right? Because a piece of paper that is subject to the whims of law makers says so?

 Spacemanvic wrote:
No, it was the bullets that convinced your ancestors. The paper only defined why they were getting shot.

Ah, I see, you will simply ignore the point being made and spout some jingoistic crap.

No right is inalienable, as any right can be removed since they are not a fundamental element of the universe, but a (fairly recent in most cases) human invention.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

Because driving is NOT a right.

Neither is walking into a movie theater and yelling fire (see, right != unrestricted/unregulated)

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense. Drive a car, not so much.

But remember boys and girls, nobody walks in LA!

What is more important? The right of society or the right of individuals?

"Society can suck my balls"
-Betsy Ross

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Maybe my reluctance is because i think of a nice old grannie who is blind ans using a walker wielding a dessert eagle when i think of blind people with guns

Thats why grandmas make the best assassins. You expect freshly baked chocolate chip cookies and its STAB STAB STAB STAB!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

Rights are an entirely human construct that can be removed at any time. However if you want to pretend that a piece of paper is magical protection against that, feel free.

Thats what the gun permits and blood sucking ACLU/NRA lawyers are for.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

I notice you almost never ask aliens that question.

I didn't ask a question, I made a statement. But given that, no, I have almost never asked aliens anything. Except for that one time...

We are just a few sets of votes away from changing any single thing we want on the constitution. We only have rights as long as congress and the states think we should have them.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

Your rights end at my nose. Welcome to the Libertarian Party. Your aluminum hat and membership card are in the mail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

I notice you almost never ask aliens that question.

I didn't ask a question, I made a statement. But given that, no, I have almost never asked aliens anything. Except for that one time...

And look how badly that turned out...

 d-usa wrote:
We are just a few sets of votes away from changing any single thing we want on the constitution. We only have rights as long as congress and the states think we should have them.

And its not like the US government has shown that they'll happily ignore what our rights are and do something that a piece of paper says they shouldn't or anything.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

Rights are an entirely human construct that can be removed at any time. However if you want to pretend that a piece of paper is magical protection against that, feel free.

actually the whole "hold these truths to be self evident" is the part youneed to pay attention too,
peice of paper or not, we all have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
the only one who can alienate it is ourselves.

Just give them assault cannons, they can't miss

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why is gun ownership an inalienable right? Because a piece of paper that is subject to the whims of law makers says so?

As enumerated (NOT provided) by the US Constitution.

You should read a lil bit on the US Constitution. It was written in such a way so as to not be "subject to the whims of the law makers".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pities2004 wrote:
Just give them assault cannons, they can't miss

Obviously, you've never seen my Space Marines shoot.....

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why is gun ownership an inalienable right? Because a piece of paper that is subject to the whims of law makers says so?

As enumerated (NOT provided) by the US Constitution.

You should read a lil bit on the US Constitution. It was written in such a way so as to not be "subject to the whims of the law makers".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pities2004 wrote:
Just give them assault cannons, they can't miss

Obviously, you've never seen my Space Marines shoot.....

That whole amendment process is in there you know, and evidently you're unfamiliar with prohibition.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

Can they still buy a car?

 pities2004 wrote:
Just give them assault cannons, they can't miss

Or a flamethrower. Thats even better. Template weapon - no BS required!

 d-usa wrote:
We are just a few sets of votes away from changing any single thing we want on the constitution. We only have rights as long as congress and the states think we should have them.

Let's see them try do away with the 2nd Amendment.......3 million+ people might have a say about that.....

 Frazzled wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Just give them assault cannons, they can't miss

Or a flamethrower. Thats even better. Template weapon - no BS required!

No BS in every sense of the word!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why is gun ownership an inalienable right? Because a piece of paper that is subject to the whims of law makers says so?

As enumerated (NOT provided) by the US Constitution.

You should read a lil bit on the US Constitution. It was written in such a way so as to not be "subject to the whims of the law makers".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pities2004 wrote:
Just give them assault cannons, they can't miss

Obviously, you've never seen my Space Marines shoot.....

That whole amendment process is in there you know, and evidently you're unfamiliar with prohibition.

Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So thr right for someone to wield or do something dangerous is more important then someones safety? Then why do we not allow people the right to drive even though they are blind?

Can they still buy a car?

Not in his utopian society....

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

They're talking about the US Constitution as a whole, not a singular part of the document. The Constitution can be amended, and has been amended in the past.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then why is gun ownership an inalienable right? Because a piece of paper that is subject to the whims of law makers says so?

As enumerated (NOT provided) by the US Constitution.

You should read a lil bit on the US Constitution. It was written in such a way so as to not be "subject to the whims of the law makers". .

Yet, the very first thing they did was to make ten changes to it...

It even has a section in the constitution saying how you can make changes to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
We are just a few sets of votes away from changing any single thing we want on the constitution. We only have rights as long as congress and the states think we should have them.

Let's see them try do away with the 2nd Amendment.......3 million+ people might have a say about that.....

They might, but that doesn't mean that the entire document can't be changed.

I was literally looking at a news tab and saw this story when I switched over the Dakka's page and realized someone posted about it. Gotta love Iowa!

Personally, I love my hands on my AR. But thank goodness I've still got operational eyesight.

 Spacemanvic wrote:


Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

The sheer fact that you miss than an amendment is an alteration to the Constitution, including Prohibition which was a political whim (just a famous example among many), says it all. There's nothing within the words of the Constitution that prevents congress from passing an amendment revoking another amendment including the first 10. All it takes is political will (which is unlikely to ever happen) but the Constitution is not an omnipotent deity that watches us from on high to make sure we're all happy and safe.

Society defines political rights and liberties, and society can change them.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:


Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

The sheer fact that you miss than an amendment is an alteration to the Constitution, including Prohibition which was a political whim (just a famous example among many), says it all. There's nothing within the words of the Constitution that prevents congress from passing an amendment revoking another amendment including the first 10. All it takes is political will (which is unlikely to ever happen) but the Constitution is not an omnipotent deity that watches us from on high to make sure we're all happy and safe.

Where did you go to school, my friend?

 StyleXHobby wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:


Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

The sheer fact that you miss than an amendment is an alteration to the Constitution, including Prohibition which was a political whim (just a famous example among many), says it all. There's nothing within the words of the Constitution that prevents congress from passing an amendment revoking another amendment including the first 10. All it takes is political will (which is unlikely to ever happen) but the Constitution is not an omnipotent deity that watches us from on high to make sure we're all happy and safe.

Where did you go to school, my friend?

Somewhere that taught civics.

 LordofHats wrote:

 StyleXHobby wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:


Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

The sheer fact that you miss than an amendment is an alteration to the Constitution, including Prohibition which was a political whim (just a famous example among many), says it all. There's nothing within the words of the Constitution that prevents congress from passing an amendment revoking another amendment including the first 10. All it takes is political will (which is unlikely to ever happen) but the Constitution is not an omnipotent deity that watches us from on high to make sure we're all happy and safe.

Where did you go to school, my friend?

Somewhere that taught civics.

Respectable.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

They're talking about the US Constitution as a whole, not a singular part of the document. The Constitution can be amended, and has been amended in the past.

An Amendment can be introduced to attempt to supersede an existing Amendment, that's true. It'll take 2/3rds of the House to do it. But in regards to the Second Amendment, it'll be a damned fool who does it and a sorry soul who tries to enforce it in this country. The Bill of Rights have never been Amended.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

They're talking about the US Constitution as a whole, not a singular part of the document. The Constitution can be amended, and has been amended in the past.

An Amendment can be introduced to attempt to supersede an existing Amendment, that's true. It'll take 2/3rds of the House to do it. But in regards to the Second Amendment, it'll be a damned fool who does it and a sorry soul who tries to enforce it in this country. The Bill of Rights have never been Amended.

...and probably never will be so long as there is the 2nd?

I've heard stories of blind people showing up to qualify for their carry permit who were so blind a friend had to physically point their body at the target, but who knows if those are real.

If they're at the "still pretty blurry, but they can make out a person" level blind, I might be ok with it. They can see their target well enough to point the pistol in the right direction. What I would be worried about though is them being able to determine when deadly force is necessary (for example, is the guy holding a knife, or just a cell phone) and also what's behind their target, such as a persons house or even possibly shooting across a street.

For a 100% blind person, I'll admit that I would be uncomfortable with them carrying, if only for the fact that they might hit an innocent person by accident. The attacker would have to be pretty much right in front of them to guarantee a hit. I sympathize with blind individuals wanting to be treated as normal people, but there are just some things you have to accept you can't do. A guy who is paralyzed from the neck down shouldn't be climbing mount Everest. A pregnant woman shouldn't ride roller coasters or smoke. And a guy who can't see the hand in front of his face probably shouldn't be wielding a weapon where a key skill in using it involves careful aim

 StyleXHobby wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Refresh my memory, Prohibition was part of which of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights?

They're talking about the US Constitution as a whole, not a singular part of the document. The Constitution can be amended, and has been amended in the past.

An Amendment can be introduced to attempt to supersede an existing Amendment, that's true. It'll take 2/3rds of the House to do it. But in regards to the Second Amendment, it'll be a damned fool who does it and a sorry soul who tries to enforce it in this country. The Bill of Rights have never been Amended.

...and probably never will be so long as there is the 2nd?

The power of force.

 easysauce wrote:
we all have the inalienable right to...
the only one who can alienate it is ourselves.

Kind of indicates that there is no such thing as an inalienable right if those rights can be taken away...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
we all have the inalienable right to...
the only one who can alienate it is ourselves.

Kind of indicates that there is no such thing as an inalienable right if those rights can be taken away...

"To be taken away" means you have them in the first place. A right exercised is a right retained.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The power of force.

A truely utopian society where the stong, or at least the more willing to commit violence, rule everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
"To be taken away" means you have them in the first place. A right exercised is a right retained.

And a right taken away is not inalienable.

It would be funny to see a blind person trying to shoot someone.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The power of force.

A truely utopian society where the stong, or at least the more willing to commit violence, rule everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
"To be taken away" means you have them in the first place. A right exercised is a right retained.

And a right taken away is not inalienable.

Forget I even started this "conversation" with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sing your life wrote:
It would be funny to see a blind person trying to shoot someone.

Hell no! I wouldnt want to be anywhere near there LOL.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Forget I even started this "conversation" with you.

Well, I feel like I have been banging my head against a wall since it started, so you never know

But if you ever want to know what the word "inalienable" actually means, google is only a click away.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Forget I even started this "conversation" with you.

Well, I feel like I have been banging my head against a wall since it started, so you never know

But if you ever want to know what the word "inalienable" actually means, google is only a click away.

LIES!

I also have to type!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Forget I even started this "conversation" with you.

Well, I feel like I have been banging my head against a wall since it started, so you never know

But if you ever want to know what the word "inalienable" actually means, google is only a click away.

LIES!

I also have to type!

Pft

 Spacemanvic wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sing your life wrote:
It would be funny to see a blind person trying to shoot someone.

Hell no! I wouldnt want to be anywhere near there LOL.

A recording would be mostly safe [as long as the camera wasn't hit]

A friend of mine plays cricket with a guy who's legally blind. He's a really good bowler, relative to the grade of cricket they play, but he pretty much judges where he has to bowl by where the white blurry shape is. He can't bat, obviously, and so his side just declares when he's the only one left to bat.

I guess I could see him being effective enough with a gun, aiming for the blurry man shaped object. He'd be a fair chance of hitting any bystanders, but then so is just about everyone when they pull out a gun.

 LordofHats wrote:
The sheer fact that you miss than an amendment is an alteration to the Constitution, including Prohibition which was a political whim (just a famous example among many), says it all. There's nothing within the words of the Constitution that prevents congress from passing an amendment revoking another amendment including the first 10. All it takes is political will (which is unlikely to ever happen) but the Constitution is not an omnipotent deity that watches us from on high to make sure we're all happy and safe.

Yep.

"The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."

George Orwell, printed in the Tribune on 7th December 1945.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because they might not shoot doesn't mean they wont. And I think this is just like a drivers license, you nee t see to work a gun just like a car.

Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense. Drive a car, not so much.

But remember boys and girls, nobody walks in LA!

What is more important? The right of society or the right of individuals?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Maybe my reluctance is because i think of a nice old grannie who is blind ans using a walker wielding a dessert eagle when i think of blind people with guns

Society doesn't have Rights. Individuals do.

And remember, legally blind doesn't mean you are totally blind. You are just blind enough to where you can't operate a vehicle. You could still be able to read and walk around without any aids.

I remember reading somewhere that most "blind" people aren't actually totally blind, but rather only legally blind. They still can see something, even if its only light sources.


And in the event of a night time home invasion, a blind person might be better suited to "seeing" around the house than a normal sighted person. They aren't inhibited by the darkness and their other senses are much sharper to compensate.

They aren't inhibited by the darkness and their other senses are much sharper to compensate.

I thought that only happened when you were blinded by a radioactive substance from a passing vehicle. Is this actually a thing?

The few blind people I've met had pretty sharp hearing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The few blind people I've met had pretty sharp hearing.

I meant along the lines of scientific experiments and what not rather than anecdotal evidence. Its probably out there, I'm flicking through my uni library now looking for it, I'm actually keen to find out. And not (only) trying to be a smartass

Sure give Gun permits for Blind people..just make the restriction only for shotguns with laser sights..oh and a helper monkey to assist in aiming...maybe that will curb people attacking the blind...(the laser is just for coolness, and for the monkey, they respond well to bright lights.)

Well after watching Blind Fury (the film with Rutger Hauer), surely only good can come from this?

The few blind people I've met had pretty sharp hearing.

admit it.. you were thinking of that scene from The Bodyguard?

Well you don't need eyes to stick a gun into a man's stomach and pull the trigger. But at the same time... what's to stop the blind person from just shooting in the direction of their attacker? I could go both ways on this one.

I've been looking around and found that their sense of smell and ability to recognise things through touch are improved to an extent, but I haven't come across sound yet. So maybe if the bad guys smell/feel different?

 sebster wrote:
A friend of mine plays cricket with a guy who's legally blind. He's a really good bowler, relative to the grade of cricket they play, but he pretty much judges where he has to bowl by where the white blurry shape is. He can't bat, obviously, and so his side just declares when he's the only one left to bat..

This space reserved for a joke about the Ashes

 motyak wrote:
I've been looking around and found that their sense of smell and ability to recognise things through touch are improved to an extent, but I haven't come across sound yet. So maybe if the bad guys smell/feel different?

Youtube the video on the guy that teaches the blind to use Echo Location. He can ride a bike down the street and is 100% blind. As in his eyes do not work. Its pretty impressive

Ashes? Can't leave us non knowing Cricket sport whatever hanging like that Red

No one and I mean no one. In all the gun threads we had never even considered or mention this. I'm afraid to Google for recent court challenges denying the Blind to purchase and own weapons incase I jinx it. Only time I ever had to deal with a legally blind person was when one of my soldiers got his ass beat by one. The guy was whatever belt before black and whatever martial arts that involved grappling/keeping the opponent close.

 KingCracker wrote:

 motyak wrote:
I've been looking around and found that their sense of smell and ability to recognise things through touch are improved to an extent, but I haven't come across sound yet. So maybe if the bad guys smell/feel different?

Youtube the video on the guy that teaches the blind to use Echo Location. He can ride a bike down the street and is 100% blind. As in his eyes do not work. Its pretty impressive

Oh I'm not doubting that some do, I mean that as a general population they don't, at least that I can find.

 sebster wrote:
"The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them."

Something, something, Jim Crow law.

Good place for this if it hasn't been posted already:


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l95IUUNnpjg

Old time western with Ringo called "Blindman".

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Sounds like something an alien would say. . . a communist alien.

I recall seeing a youtube video rebuttal to this...

Basically, it boiled down to, when more innocent bystanders are shot by NYPD than their intended target, we should have no problem with actually blind people owning/carrying guns in public


I mean, yeah, it's youtube and all that... but i still found it entertaining, funny, and somewhat true.

 reds8n wrote:
This space reserved for a joke about the Ashes

Your winnings, sir.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Something, something, Jim Crow law.

Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of why public sentiment, and not the law, are what ultimately matters.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, every human has an inalienable right to self defense.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

Hence 1776....

Rights are an entirely human construct that can be removed at any time. However if you want to pretend that a piece of paper is magical protection against that, feel free.

I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

Inalienable means "unable to be taken away". Any right can be taken away. Hell, even the right to self defence given by your constitution is not unlimited - try the old "self defence" line when the police come knocking on your door and you will be charged with extra crimes (on top of "living in the house next door to where the police swat team actually wanted to raid but they got the wrong house", having your pets being shot, etc ).

You have no inherent or intrinsic rights that cannot be infringed, therefore no right is inalienable. You may have certain rights granted to you and some may have more protections than others, but that does not and cannot make them inalienable.

You may want to look up what inalienable actually means before saying you have a magical bit of paper which says you have inalienable rights. I even provided a link on the previous page to a google search for the word "inalienable" (the first link of which is the definition) so you don't even have to type the word in...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

Inalienable means "unable to be taken away". Any right can be taken away. Hell, even the right to self defence given by your constitution is not unlimited - try the old "self defence" line when the police come knocking on your door and you will be charged with extra crimes (on top of "living in the house next door to where the police swat team actually wanted to raid but they got the wrong house", having your pets being shot, etc ).

You have no inherent or intrinsic rights that cannot be infringed, therefore no right is inalienable. You may have certain rights granted to you and some may have more protections than others, but that does not and cannot make them inalienable.

You may want to look up what inalienable actually means before saying you have a magical bit of paper which says you have inalienable rights. I even provided a link on the previous page to a google search for the word "inalienable" (the first link of which is the definition) so you don't even have to type the word in...

No... those are example of rights being infringed upon, the right remains even if its violated. When you murder someone you are INFRINGEING on their right to live, they lose their life not the right to it.

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

The US constitution is a piece of law. The highest law of your land, but law none the less. As a statement of what are, and are not inalienable rights, it only has relevance as long as those rights remain the laws of the land. But you've argued that even if the law is changed, and they are no longer rights, then really they still remain inalienable rights, just because you really believe they are, and not only for you, but for people all over the world who've never had the protection of your constitution.

So why is it your list of inalienable rights that are important for all people, and not, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? What is it about your particular piece of law on rights that makes it so much more inherent to the human condition than the ones drafted by the UN or other countries?

 sebster wrote:

Spartak wrote:
I'm assuming you are just misunderstanding what inalienable means. There is no right that cannot be violated or infringed upon that is the truth. But infringing on my right to self-defense or free speech etc. does not remove my right to such things. I have a right to self-defense, if you then pass a law making self-defense illegal you are infringing on my right, but I still have it and it is still valid. The "piece of paper" outlines human rights universal to all people, everywhere. It does not grant them and they are not limited to Americans or America. You might want to do some research on the U.S. Constitution before making inflammatory statements about it.

The US constitution is a piece of law. The highest law of your land, but law none the less. As a statement of what are, and are not inalienable rights, it only has relevance as long as those rights remain the laws of the land. But you've argued that even if the law is changed, and they are no longer rights, then really they still remain inalienable rights, just because you really believe they are, and not only for you, but for people all over the world who've never had the protection of your constitution.

So why is it your list of inalienable rights that are important for all people, and not, say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen? What is it about your particular piece of law on rights that makes it so much more inherent to the human condition than the ones drafted by the UN or other countries?

Who said anything about my list being any better? All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. constitution outlines universal human rights. Are you saying it doesn't? The bill of rights declares our rights and enforces them through law it does not grant them.

Spartak wrote:
No... those are example of rights being infringed upon, the right remains even if its violated. When you murder someone you are INFRINGEING on their right to live, they lose their life not the right to it.

Is a glass of water still a glass of water when there is no water in it? A right which is not upheld is not a right any more than an empty glass is a glass of water. Nor is the glass intrinsically a glass of water simply because there is the potential for the glass to contain water.

Because there is the potential for people to be granted certain rights, that does not mean that those rights are an intrinsic condition of being a person.

Rights are a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will, to greater or lesser extents from totally to not at all. They cannot by their very nature be inalienable.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
No... those are example of rights being infringed upon, the right remains even if its violated. When you murder someone you are INFRINGEING on their right to live, they lose their life not the right to it.

Is a glass of water still a glass of water when there is no water in it? A right which is not upheld is not a right any more than an empty glass is a glass of water. Nor is the glass intrinsically a glass of water simply because there is the potential for the glass to contain water.

Because there is the potential for people to be granted certain rights, that does not mean that those rights are an intrinsic condition of being a person.

Rights are a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will, to greater or lesser extents from totally to not at all. They cannot by their very nature be inalienable.

No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

This is why we can't have nice things...

 d-usa wrote:
This is why we can't have nice things...

lol, sorry were a bit off topic. All blind and physically disabled individuals should be given subsidized firearms. The can pick them up at planned parenthood, that way we don't have to build a totally new infrastructure to distribute them. Buy birth control and the Gun's free!

Spartak wrote:
No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

There is no intrinsic right to life. You seem to be mistaking rights for some kind of fundamental feature of the universe, like Planck's constant (at least as far as we have been able to determine it is a fundamental feature of the universe). Without Planck's constant the universe simply would not function (at least, not function as it currently does anyway!). One cannot simply say that Planck's constant is whatever one wishes it to be. It is a fixed, immovable value. An intrinsic part of how the universe functions and how the universe is "assembled".

Rights are privilages, in so far as they are things granted to people by other people and/or the societies they represent. Different societies grant different privilages to different extents, with different limitations, different penalties on the privilages of people who offend against the laws of said society, etc.

I will agree that there are certain privilages which are extremely important, which should be protected and which should be exported and fostered in societies which do not have them.

But they are not inalienable.

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

If there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, why are drugs banned?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, why are drugs banned?

Excellent question, I wish I had a good answer for you. Suffice it to say your right to get loaded is being infringed upon.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, why are drugs banned?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

There is no intrinsic right to life. You seem to be mistaking rights for some kind of fundamental feature of the universe, like Planck's constant (at least as far as we have been able to determine it is a fundamental feature of the universe). Without Planck's constant the universe simply would not function (at least, not function as it currently does anyway!). One cannot simply say that Planck's constant is whatever one wishes it to be. It is a fixed, immovable value. An intrinsic part of how the universe functions and how the universe is "assembled".

Rights are privilages, in so far as they are things granted to people by other people and/or the societies they represent. Different societies grant different privilages to different extents, with different limitations, different penalties on the privilages of people who offend against the laws of said society, etc.

I will agree that there are certain privilages which are extremely important, which should be protected and which should be exported and fostered in societies which do not have them.

But they are not inalienable.

Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe they are "some kind of fundamental feature of the universe" myself.

Spartak wrote:
Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe they are "some kind of fundamental feature of the universe" myself.

Unfortunately belief in something does not cause it to be so. However, that is your choice.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
Well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I happen to believe they are "some kind of fundamental feature of the universe" myself.

Unfortunately belief in something does not cause it to be so. However, that is your choice.

There are two sides to that coin my friend.

Spartak wrote:
There are two sides to that coin my friend.

Indeed there are. However, since rights can be unilaterally removed (or not given to start with) by human agencies, rights are not and cannot be inalienable. There is very little else to be said on the matter.

As to them being a fundamental part of the universe... I am afraid that is little more than wishful thinking tinged with a desire for humanity to be in any way important in an utterly impartial universe.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Spartak wrote:
There are two sides to that coin my friend.

Indeed there are. However, since rights can be unilaterally removed (or not given to start with) by human agencies, rights are not and cannot be inalienable. There is very little else to be said on the matter.

As to them being a fundamental part of the universe... I am afraid that is little more than wishful thinking tinged with a desire for humanity to be in any way important in an utterly impartial universe.

And were still takling about this why? I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong, good game. As I said agree to disagree.

Spartak wrote:
And were still takling about this why? I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong, good game. As I said agree to disagree.

[comic strip]There are people who are wrong on the internet![/comic strip]

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

No, you really shouldn't have...

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Spartak wrote:
Who said anything about my list being any better? All I am saying is that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. constitution outlines universal human rights. Are you saying it doesn't? The bill of rights declares our rights and enforces them through law it does not grant them.

Well, if your set of rights are inalienable, and applicable to all people, then they must be somehow better than other lists of human rights. Either that or all lists of human rights are all inalienable, and they all apply to all people...

It's just, I think you should spend some time thinking about how the rights that you seem to believe are inherent just happen to line up very closely with the rights expressed in the constitution of your country.

Consider if a person were to claim that our inherent rights included the right to a basic standard of living, to be provided by the government. Such a claim has been believed by various governments over time, and I'm curious as to how you reason that a right such as that isn't an inherent right, but some other rights are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spartak wrote:
No, if rights were "a social construct which can be granted or taken away at will" then they would not be "rights" they would be privileges. You as a human being have rights, those rights can be violated by individuals, governments and societies but they cannot be taken away. We can go back to my example of murder which you seem to have ignored. If I kill you your right to life has been violated, infringed if you will but you still have the right to that life. This is the basis of right and wrong, if you have no right to your life then I have done no wrong by taking it. Killing people is wrong weather there is a law prohibiting it or not. Right vs Privilege.

Not really. Consider a dystopian world, where the government is able to kill anyone it deems an inefficient use of resources relative to the happiness they enjoy/provide to others. Consider that in this strange world, one day a guy stands up and says 'you can't just kill us when we're not happy enough relative to the resources we produce, I have an inherent right to life!' The government deems that speachmaking a nuisance, and the individual a drain on public happiness, and drags him off to the execution chamber.

And then there's no outrage, because in this bizarre world people agree with that decision. They prefer their government mandated happiness.

Does the right to life exist there? It isn't protected, and it doesn't even seem to be wanted by the people. The only thing that makes it inherent is you (and the dead guy) saying it is an inherent right, and what does that matter?

 d-usa wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

Hindsight is 20/20.

It doesn't look like you guys are going to see eye to eye on this.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is why blind people can't have nice things...

Fixed that for you.

I should have seen that coming...

Sometimes you just get blindsided.

Hindsight is 20/20.

It doesn't look like you guys are going to see eye to eye on this.

I can see this quote pyramid going great places

Unfortunately, sooner or later a mod is going to lay eyes on it, and then it will be out of sight.



Indeed.

Reds8n

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

I think that's what they taught in WWII. That's also a completely different situation. It was also something that veterans had to teach to recruits, which involved unteaching the official training that was intended to conserve ammo.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I always train that you never shoot at a vague "shape" or a sound. Not sure how these shooters will be able to responsibly employ their firearms.

I think that's what they taught in WWII. That's also a completely different situation. It was also something that veterans had to teach to recruits, which involved unteaching the official training that was intended to conserve ammo.

No, my training is intended to avoid lawsuits.