Think about the use of a fire arm for protection in a confined space like a home, compared to using it out in public.
First I personally think a long barrel weapon in such would be cumbersome to use over a handgun. The .308 round would not be good as it gives too much penetration over a pistol hollow point. But in such an environment, he could direct his aim pretty well at his aggressor as it would be within a few feet. Out on the street when one couldn't be sure of the target, or background. Not good for one having difficulty seeing. But such people do pretty well in their own home.
I have a sister in law who is blind. Any attacker would regret coming at her in her home.
There are the four basic rules of using a fire arm that every user must know and practice
The Four Basic Rules of Firearms Safety* 1. All guns are always loaded.
Treat every gun as if it was loaded, at all times, no matter what. Think and BELIEVE every time the gun is handled, it could fire.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Be conscious of the direction your muzzle is pointed at all times. Think of the muzzle as a LASER beam that you can't sweep across anything you don't want to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned with the target.
Keep your finger on the top of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.
4. Be sure of your target and its surroundings.
Pay attention to what is going on around your target.
YOU are responsible for the terminal resting place of the bullet, intentionally fired or not, no matter what happened.
There are 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
So are you suggesting that constitutional rights ought to be withheld from people if they're totally blind?
Or what degree of impairment is ok to withhold the constitutional right?
Is total blindness and guns like yelling fire in a crowded theater and free speech?
I guess what I've been trying to figure out all along here is not about the specifics of this case but about the absoluteness of constitutional rights. Free speech can be constrained, for instance. The right to vote can be constrained, as Steve keeps pointing out OH is setting out to do. Is the 2nd amendment always constraints free?
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Impaired vision or the complete absence of it is a matter of safety and common sense when it applies to any object, tool, or especially a weapon capable of lethality. And this is what the whole debate has been about for so painfully long.
A carpenter's hammer can harm or kill. So can a toaster. But purpose is the issue. When you consider what a firearm is meant to do, public safety becomes paramount. So yes, there should be restrictions that accommodate the safety of others when special circumstances are present. A restriction is hardly a repeal. No rights are withheld, but rather allowed conditionally. A person with Parkinson's or a neuromuscular disease has a constitutional right to own a deli slicer. But I would think that operation of that piece of machinery by someone with severely limited muscle control would be governed by appropriate safety-related restrictions.
But stepping back for the broader view, this case becomes a sick mutation of an already perverse law.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.