• Carry permits for the legally blind in Iowa - AKA stay away from Iowa
    82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JerryK;42143976][IMG]http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_des_moines_register_blind_gun_permits_thg_130909_16x9_992.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/0DhMVKK.jpg[/img] "That was a mistake."
[QUOTE=deadoon;42145396]Which can be challenged, which is what we are doing, and people have been doing for a while, thus this argument is all a matter of opinionated interpretation in which unless you are going to bring it to the supreme court so that [B]they[/B] can possibly reinterpret it, it shall stay as it has been interpreted. Also who determines if you and your buds with mosins aren't a local militia, do you have the federal government have regulations on what is and isn't a militia? That can be challenged as infringing on the right to bear arms in this case. In addition, how would you begin a militia without those arms in the first place?[/QUOTE] Since when has it ever been interpreted as every individual person has the right to bear arms? There have been restrictions on who can get guns for a while.
[QUOTE=Altimor;42145562]Since when has it ever been interpreted as every individual person has the right to bear arms? There have been restrictions on who can get guns for a while.[/QUOTE] A lot of which is probably unconstitutional.
Reminds me of that clip of Bowling for Columbine when it had some blind guy talking about all the guns he owns.
You guys are outdoing yourself by suggesting that people who are literally blind should be able to carry lethal firepower. I know that a large portion of Facepunch's member base has a particular hardon for gun rights, and that's all well and good, but what about giving somebody who cannot see where they are aiming or what they are shooting a loaded gun seems like a bright idea to you? Argue for individuals rights and liberty and the constitution and apple pie and pickup trucks and blah blah blah all you want to, but this isn't Daredevil: blind people cannot sense their assailants by the sound of raindrops pitter-pattering on their noggins. Giving somebody without sight a weapon that fires deadly chunks of lead hundreds of meters is a really, oustandingly, marvelously stupid idea.
[quote]"A visually impaired person, in my opinion, is more entitled for a permit to carry, just for the sheer fact that they don't pick up on the cues that a sighted person would have," said Wethington, who has a daughter who is legally blind.[/quote] Such cues are said to include people fleeing, putting their hands in the air and visibly not carrying firearms.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42145603]A lot of which is probably unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Laws change, especially the constitution. Even if the words aren't changed themselves, interpretation changes solely because there are situations which could have never been foreseen by the framers. To give a comparison, the United States in 1790 was a recovering country that was under a man who was a half rate military general. It had a weak agrarian economy, was suffering depopulation and economic de-growth due to the exodus of loyalists, had high rates of inflation, civil unrest, a wonky taxation system, a near powerless central government, and had contested elections and political instability. The population was small and composed mostly of English-speaking Europeans living in farms and coastal trading towns, clinging onto the east coast, wedged inbetween colonies and Indians. The USA today is an industrialized first world country, an economic powerhouse with a vast population, a powerful military, a superpower, massively influential, with a strong and stable political system. The constitution of the country has changed quite a fair deal, along with the laws and political system. These gun control laws are not unconstitutional, and I highly doubt they will be removed (look at when they tried to implement income tax and central banking. It took them ages but it was finally implemented in the end.) These restrictions will not go away, bar massive socioeconomic and political changes. In fact if anything I see them becoming gradually more restricted over time, for that has been the trend. Do you think the framers considered all of the changes and situations that would crop up over the next 200 years? I highly doubt that, and that is why they left the constitution to have the ability to be modified, and laws interpreted.
Just for the record, my legally blind uncle has a driver's license in New Jersey. Blind people in Iowa can fire off small pieces of metal at extremely high velocities. Blind people in New Jersey can drive Suburbans down the freeway.
If I was blind, I'd just use my walking stick as a weapon.
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;42146049]If I was blind, I'd just use my walking stick as a weapon.[/QUOTE] If you were blind you wouldn't be able to identify the thirty-odd guys who beat the everloving shit out of you for smacking them with your walking stick.
I don't know maybe there's a couple of lawmakers in Iowa that are big samurai movie fans and they've just been watching a lot of Zatoichi. In all honesty that's the only logical explanation I can think of why you'd let people that legally blind own firearms. That or you just find the sound of gunfire and screaming soothing.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42145969]You guys are outdoing yourself by suggesting that people who are literally blind should be able to carry lethal firepower. I know that a large portion of Facepunch's member base has a particular hardon for gun rights, and that's all well and good, but what about giving somebody who cannot see where they are aiming or what they are shooting a loaded gun seems like a bright idea to you? Argue for individuals rights and liberty and the constitution and apple pie and pickup trucks and blah blah blah all you want to, but this isn't Daredevil: blind people cannot sense their assailants by the sound of raindrops pitter-pattering on their noggins. Giving somebody without sight a weapon that fires deadly chunks of lead hundreds of meters is a really, oustandingly, marvelously stupid idea.[/QUOTE] I get what you're saying, but the mere fact of them owning it isn't really dangerous. Yes, a blind person could horribly misuse a firearm, but the legality of owning a weapon is more about responsibility and intent than physical capability. Does it seem unreasonable, for example, that a blind person with no criminal record should own a rifle that is a family heirloom and keep it in his attic? We'd deny a convicted felon the right to own that weapon, on the basis that he's more likely to use it to commit a crime, but for an ordinary person to simply own a weapon doesn't risk other people if they're not using it. Competence with firearms is not a prerequisite for ownership. I'd feel safer with an armed blind person who knew to keep the weapon pointed downrange than a sighted person who didn't respect the weapon and put me inadvertently in danger. Sighted people do stupid things with firearms all the time that can and have resulted in the deaths of innocents. Our law gives people the benefit of the doubt unless they demonstrate otherwise. Why shouldn't this be treated the same? Also, as a side note, legally blind does not mean incapable of seeing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42146118]I get what you're saying, but the mere fact of them owning it isn't really dangerous. Yes, a blind person could horribly misuse a firearm, but the legality of owning a weapon is more about responsibility and intent than physical capability. Does it seem unreasonable, for example, that a blind person with no criminal record should own a rifle that is a family heirloom? We'd deny a convicted felon the right to own that weapon, on the basis that he's more likely to use it to commit a crime, but for an ordinary person to simply own a weapon doesn't risk other people if they're not using it. Competence with firearms is not a prerequisite for ownership. I'd feel safer with an armed blind person who knew to keep the weapon pointed downrange than a sighted person who didn't respect the weapon and put me inadvertently in danger. Sighted people do stupid things with firearms all the time that can and have resulted in the deaths of innocents. Our law gives people the benefit of the doubt unless they demonstrate otherwise. Why shouldn't this be treated the same? Also, as a side note, legally blind does not mean incapable of seeing.[/QUOTE] We're not talking about [I]owning[/I], we're talking about [I]carry permits.[/I] Somebody whose vision is so poor that they are considered legally blind (20/200: what a normal person can see clearly from 200 feet away or closer, they can see clearly from 20 feet away or closer) should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to carry a weapon with a lethal range extending hundreds of yards.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42146135]We're not talking about [I]owning[/I], we're talking about [I]carry permits.[/I][/QUOTE] Except that in Iowa, as in New York and many other states, [URL="http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ia.htm"]a permit is required[/URL] to purchase or own handguns. So yes, we're talking about [I]owning[/I].
[QUOTE=catbarf;42146177]Except that in Iowa, as in New York and many other states, [url=http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ia.htm]a carry permit is required[/url] to purchase or own handguns. So yes, we're talking about [i]owning[/i].[/QUOTE] Take it up with Iowa then. I don't care if a blind dude's got a gun in his attic, but he sure as hell shouldn't be walking down the street with it. That is stupendously irresponsible, and anybody who can't see that is disturbingly shortsighted. Heh.
What a shit article. There's no new law or issue at hand here. The journalist pretty much looked at a normal Shall-Issue CC law, went "This could apply to, I don't know, blind people! That sure sounds like something that would garnish ratings!" then wrote the article. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42145969]You guys are outdoing yourself by suggesting that people who are literally blind should be able to carry lethal firepower. I know that a large portion of Facepunch's member base has a particular hardon for gun rights, and that's all well and good, but what about giving somebody who cannot see where they are aiming or what they are shooting a loaded gun seems like a bright idea to you? Argue for individuals rights and liberty and the constitution and apple pie and pickup trucks and blah blah blah all you want to, but this isn't Daredevil: blind people cannot sense their assailants by the sound of raindrops pitter-pattering on their noggins. Giving somebody without sight a weapon that fires deadly chunks of lead hundreds of meters is a really, oustandingly, marvelously stupid idea.[/QUOTE] Legally blind does not mean blind. Plenty of legally blind people are more than able to distinguish a threat and a human outline and accurately aim a weapon at the sort of short standoff distances that defense situations typically occur at. Just because an individual isn't at the peak of physical condition and genetic purity doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to exercise their fundamental right to self defense.
why havn't I left this state yet
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42146193]Take it up with Iowa then.[/QUOTE] Do it yourself, since you're the one who has a problem with the law. The law says that a legally blind person can buy a firearm and I really don't see a problem with that. Yes, for a blind person to concealed carry and shoot randomly at any suspicious noise is extremely irresponsible. For a legally blind person who can still see well enough to identify a target to carry, or for a completely blind person to keep a weapon in their attic, is not unreasonable at all. We don't screen for irresponsibility so the mere threat of a blind person being irresponsible with a firearm is not grounds for a blanket ban. I should also mention that since the permits are issued by the local sheriff, he has the legal authority to deny a permit if he feels the individual presents a threat to others.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;42146243]What a shit article. There's no new law or issue at hand here. The journalist pretty much looked at a normal Shall-Issue CC law, went "This could apply to, I don't know, blind people! That sure sounds like something that would garnish ratings!" then wrote the article. Legally blind does not mean blind. Plenty of legally blind people are more than able to distinguish a threat and a human outline and accurately aim a weapon at the sort of short standoff distances that defense situations typically occur at. Just because an individual isn't at the peak of physical condition and genetic purity doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to exercise their fundamental right to self defense.[/QUOTE] A firearm that is used in self-defense within 20ft of yourself doesn't stop being lethal after 20 feet. Legally blind is a visual accuity of at least 20/200, which means that what normal folks can clearly see within 200 feet, a legally blind person needs to be within 20ft of. If you cannot clearly distinguish your surroundings farther than 20ft away from you, then you should definitely assuredly positively not be given a weapon that is lethal to ranges hundreds of yards past that. Suggesting otherwise is positively absurd, and so is attempting to argue that I am in any way stating that blind people shouldn't be given guns on the basis that they are "genically impure." Don't make me laugh, ya friggin dork. They have as much a right to self-defense as anybody else, but [B]not[/B] if what they are using to defend themselves presents a clear and present risk of collateral damage to everybody around them on the basis that they are not physically capable of using it safely. I'm trying to think of a good analogy here, but I am really fucking pressed to find something more wrecklessly irresponsible sounding than giving a blind person a gun. How can you even suggest that with a straight face?
[QUOTE=Altimor;42145273]My point is that the amendment refers to groups and not individuals.[/QUOTE] Your argument (you can prevent individuals from having guns with a good reason) has nothing to do with your reasoning (any amendment refers to mass rights and not individual ones). [URL="http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/BillofRights/Pages/default.aspx"]The entire Bill of Rights exists because Federalists needed to enumerate individual liberties to mollify Antifederalists.[/URL] You probably ought to read up on what the words used meant before deciding you know how to read them.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42146327]A weapon that needs to be used in self-defense within 20ft of yourself doesn't stop being lethal after 20 feet. Legally blind is a visual accuity of at least 20/200, which means that what normal folks can clearly see within 200 feet, a legally blind person needs to be within 20ft of. If you cannot clearly distinguish your surroundings farther than 20ft away from you, then you should definitely assuredly positively not be given a weapon that is lethal to ranges hundreds of yards past that. Suggesting otherwise is positively absurd, and so is attempting to argue that I am in any way stating that blind people shouldn't be given guns on the basis that they are "genically impure." Don't make me laugh, ya friggin dork.[/QUOTE] Yes, you are directly implying that people who don't have the privilege of proper eyesight shouldn't be able to defend themselves if they are otherwise unable to do so without a weapon. You're implying that constitutional rights shouldn't apply to certain people, completely innocent, due to physical matters often beyond their control. If someone can distinguish and aim at a man sized target at less than 20 feet then the risk of them not being able to defend themselves from a violent assailant far outweighs the risk of the round causing collateral damage, especially (though, once again, this entire deal has nothing in specific to do with Iowa) in a state with a population density as low as Iowa.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;42146515]Yes, you are directly implying that people who don't have the privilege of proper eyesight shouldn't be able to defend themselves if they are otherwise unable to do so without a weapon. You're implying that constitutional rights shouldn't apply to certain people, completely innocent, due to physical matters often beyond their control. If someone can distinguish and aim at a man sized target at less than 20 feet then the risk of them not being able to defend themselves from a violent assailant far outweighs the risk of the round causing collateral damage, especially (though, once again, this entire deal has nothing in specific to do with Iowa) in a state with a population density as low as Iowa.[/QUOTE] No, it absolutely doesn't outweigh the risks, you nutter. Here is what 20/200 vision looks like. I'll remind you that this is the [I]minimum[/I] rating for legal blindness. [img]http://www.lowvisionsimulators.com/sitecontent/wp-content/uploads/low-vision-goggles/prod_107.jpg[/img] Assuming you [I]just barely[/I] tip into the "legally blind" range, this is the world to you. How far away until you can't tell if there's a person there or not? You are not physically able to safely fire a gun if you cannot verify whether or not there are people downrange from you, which means that you should not be carrying a gun, because doing so puts everyone around you at risk. This is [B]basic gun safety.[/b]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;42146515]Yes, you are directly implying that people who don't have the privilege of proper eyesight shouldn't be able to defend themselves if they are otherwise unable to do so without a weapon. You're implying that constitutional rights shouldn't apply to certain people, completely innocent, due to physical matters often beyond their control. If someone can distinguish and aim at a man sized target at less than 20 feet then the risk of them not being able to defend themselves from a violent assailant far outweighs the risk of the round causing collateral damage, especially (though, once again, this entire deal has nothing in specific to do with Iowa) in a state with a population density as low as Iowa.[/QUOTE] do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds?
It's straight up scary. How can you possibly claim to follow responsible gun ownership and safety precautions if seriously believe that somebody who cannot distinguish the world around them farther than twenty feet from their person is capable of safely using a gun in a self-defense situation? In the real world, "down range" is wherever you're firing, not wherever the paper target is set up. There will be other people in the area, and your bullet will continue flying well beyond the range where you can tell if there are bystanders caught in your line of fire if you miss. That is 100% not okay.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;42146515]You're implying that constitutional rights shouldn't apply to certain people, completely innocent, due to physical matters often beyond their control.[/QUOTE] Clarify this for us all then scooter, are you opposed to existing prohibitions on the mentally handcapped and youths owning firearms? Since they're "completely innocent" and the prohibitions are "due to physical matters beyond their control" and all. Like brain damage. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42146613]It's straight up scary. How can you possibly claim to follow responsible gun ownership and safety precautions if seriously believe that somebody who cannot distinguish the world around them farther than twenty feet from their person is capable of safely using a gun in a self-defense situation?[/QUOTE] Maybe he thinks blind people would stick to munitions with an extremely short range. They make .410 shells with an effective range of like 20 meters with a hope and a prayer, so clearly it's totally safe for blind dudes to run around with shotguns.
So. Curious. How would those of you against this prefer a blind person to defend themselves? What'll stop the rape, the assaults, and the attempted murders and be valid in your book? People also seem to forget most self defense scenarios involve distances under ten feet.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;42146646]Clarify this for us all then scooter, are you opposed to existing prohibitions on the mentally handcapped and youths owning firearms? Since they're "completely innocent" and the prohibitions are "due to physical matters beyond their control" and all. Like brain damage.[/QUOTE] Yes, I believe all innocent people have an inalienable right to defend themselves. The only people who should be excluded from direct access from weapons are currently incarcerated prisoners who have been proven guilty and convicted of breaking just laws, and people in due process pertaining to certain relevant crimes. Arbitrary age barriers and vague possibilities derived from mental profiling shouldn't override the ability of the individual to secure their own existence and well-being. A right isn't a right unless we treat it like one.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;42146850]So. Curious. How would those of you against this prefer a blind person to defend themselves? What'll stop the rape, the assaults, and the attempted murders and be valid in your book? People also seem to forget most self defense scenarios involve distances under ten feet.[/QUOTE] Nightsticks, stun guns, that sort of thing. Anything really which only has a small chance of hurting people the user doesn't intend to hurt.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;42146930]Yes, I believe all innocent people have an inalienable right to defend themselves. The only people who should be excluded from direct access from weapons are currently incarcerated prisoners who have been proven guilty and convicted of breaking just laws, and people in due process pertaining to certain relevant crimes. Arbitrary age barriers and vague possibilities derived from mental profiling shouldn't override the ability of the individual to secure their own existence and well-being. A right isn't a right unless we treat it like one.[/QUOTE] So who's gonna defend the folks who are caught in the blind guy's line of fire because he can't tell there are innocents there? Your entire conception of "self-defense" is terrifying, because you believe that defending yourself is worth putting everybody else around you at extreme risk of death or injury. I'm now not only convinced that blind people shouldn't own guns, but that [I]you[/I] shouldn't own a gun. [editline]10th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HkSniper;42146850]So. Curious. How would those of you against this prefer a blind person to defend themselves? What'll stop the rape, the assaults, and the attempted murders and be valid in your book? People also seem to forget most self defense scenarios involve distances under ten feet.[/QUOTE] How about something that won't injure, maim, or kill bystanders caught in the line of fire as a result of the blind person having such poor vision that he can barely tell where his target is, let alone anybody beyond his target?
[QUOTE=Camundongo;42147010]Nightsticks, stun guns, that sort of thing. Anything really which only has a small chance of hurting people the user doesn't intend to hurt.[/QUOTE] Night sticks, stunguns, and other LTL weapons either require a level of requisite physical strength that not all individuals will be able to provide, or cannot be relied upon to sufficiently incapacitate an assailant in certain situations; not to mention they require an extremely close level of contact with the assailant during which time the victim could possibly be easily overwhelmed. Lethal force in the form of firearms is, for most people, the only defensive tool that can be consistently relied on if a situation escalates to the point where violence is necessary.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.