Gun permits for the blind? Iowa grants them, stirs debate?!!

Capgras said:
if a blind person was robbed in their home they could still just pray and spray and hopefully kill their assailent. At least they would have a chance. And for that, blind people should be able to own guns.

With very few exceptions, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it is sacred.
Click to expand...

OH! so you're a religious nut! I should have guessed that ages ago. Religious nuts hate it when people point out the flaws in their religion. And like with PMP, there's not arguing against them; they'll never see reason.

Sacred to me is kids being able to go to school without getting gunned down... People being able to live not worrying about being shot by a 5 yr old who just found a gun... you know, LIFE.
 
tekkychick said:
OH! so you're a religious nut! I should have guessed that ages ago. Religious nuts hate it when people point out the flaws in their religion. And like with PMP, there's not arguing against them; they'll never see reason.

Sacred to me is kids being able to go to school without getting gunned down... People being able to live not worrying about being shot by a 5 yr old who just found a gun... you know, LIFE.
Click to expand...

Grind is an atheist. Probably far more radical in it than you.
 
It is a legal thing to own.

You can NOT refuse a legal citizen the right to own what others have simply because they are handicapped.


even a blind person can shoot and intruder.

their ears still work and if your close enough they can sure hit you.
 
tekkychick said:
OH! so you're a religious nut! I should have guessed that ages ago. Religious nuts hate it when people point out the flaws in their religion. And like with PMP, there's not arguing against them; they'll never see reason.
Click to expand...

I am not religious, unless you are saying my stance on guns is a religious one.

As for not seeing "reason" - no, that's not it. I just don't agree with what you find "sensible and reasonable"

Gun control is not some objective reasonable standard.
 
I mean, there are many countries with high gun ownership and low gun crime. Many areas of this country that have large amount of guns have some of the lowest crime rates vs. the areas with strict gun control. I would call this pretty blatant reason but that will go in one ear and out the other.

10,000 people being dead each year is a small price to pay for gun rights. I have seen the numbers, and I accept the dead as payment for our rights.

We accept 30k dead each year for the ability to drive cars. To us, that is a palatable number, cars are too important to our society to get rid of them, even if it results in 10 9/11's each year.

So to, is the importance of guns.
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
So Tekky thinks that rights should be denied to people based on physical 'ailments'.
Click to expand...

not only that, but on legal definitions of those ailments. Maybe the gov can decide anything under 20/40 vision is "legally blind"

wear glasses? you are "legally blind"

I'll take my chances with .001% of the population being blind and armed.
 
tekkychick said:
We deny the right to vote to felons. We do deny rights for many reasons.
Click to expand...

So you'd have no problem with gays not marrying? Up until rather recently, it was a 'ailment' to be a homosexual.

I know I've spelled it out as best I can here, but I doubt you'll see the parallels and precedents you advocate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top