Constitutional rights vs. common sense?

Posted by: yoyo52

Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/25/14 06:53 PM

This story puts the pieces in play. A blind man in Florida has a constitutional right to bear arms.

Discuss.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/25/14 07:20 PM

1 word... used by the commander of Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge...


NUTS !! crazy
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/25/14 07:28 PM

Guess FL is challenging TX for bragging rights, David.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/25/14 09:40 PM


an open & shut case
of American Blind Justice. crazy
Posted by: MrB

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/25/14 10:12 PM

I couldn't find what rifle he used. . In one article it was called a remmington rifle in .308 caliber . Also called an "assault rifle" . I went to my bookmarked ?Remmington Arms site and no where could I find an assault rifle, what ever that is. I got no hits worn put in the search.

So I checked every model of rifle. Checked their "tactical" rifles group. In that group, I did find several .308 as that's a popular caliber for hunting. Found severa bolt action models . Maybe that's what he used.

Checked the center fire category to find several but none in .308.

Could be the author was wrong about the Assault rifle thing.

On the protection of ones self issue. I believe a person should be able to protect himself in his home. I think a blind person should also. I don't think they have fewer rights than sighted individuals.

As to this case, in particular, I haven't followed it so other then the few media accounts with extremely skimpy info which is pretty biases I don't know if he was guilty or not. It could be that the blind guy chased the victim around his home shooting him several times with his bolt action rifle. But maybe not.

The articles say the defendant claimed the guy attacked him and he shot him.

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 04:17 AM

A blind man, Dave. A F'N BLIND MAN — WITH A F'N GUN. And a drunk to boot! And now after committing murder he gets back the guns he CAN'T F'N SEE!!!

And you're worried about calibre and classification and technical specifications?

Dude, you need a profound brain adjustment. Seriously.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 04:18 AM

The right is a crowded place. So crowded that there's just no room for common sense.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 05:46 AM

I got run over by a pick up. Some say it was an F150. Some say it was a Silverado 1500. I won't be dead until I know which it was. Damned newspapers!

Sorry MrB, but what kind of gun the blind man owns is what's known in the business as a red herring. It could be a flintlock and the question would remain.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 06:25 AM

Now, if it was a new F150 — made from aluminum — it may have bounced right over you with little more than a skid mark. smirk
Posted by: DLC

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 06:51 AM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
Guess FL is challenging TX for bragging rights, David.

And doan forget AZ !! crazy crazy

The STUPID Trifecta !!! whistle
Posted by: MrB

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 06:13 PM

So if a man is in his home and is attacked, he should do the honorable thing and let himself be beaten to death with out taking all measures to protect himself.

If you believe that then I believe you Need to rethink things, mac

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 06:22 PM

Whether it's a red or blue fish, the article gives little information about what happens. They were very carefully to call it an assault rifle, which it wasn't, so what other parts of the issue was not mentioned.

Of course the name of the gun is not so important, that was my point. But it was to the writers to label it an assault rifle when the main issue is should a blind man be able to have the same rights as other citizens.

I assume he did not chase the guy down the street blazing away at him with S.A.W through a school yard. He was in his home.

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 06:44 PM

Dave,

I don't think anyone thinks you should not be able to SYG in your home or on your property (business). What most question is if you are in Public... who has the SYG right... it's very FUZZY there. That's all most are saying. There is no clear cut precedence like if you're on your OWN turf !! In that case, the other guy is trespassing... in PUBLIC no one is trespassing, each has equal Constitutional rights... who says who's right... esp. if one is dead. crazy
Plus it emboldens the crazies - they think they have an out if things go bad, and many DO with this FUBAR law !! eek
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/26/14 06:48 PM

Why not give driver's licenses to blind people, I wonder. Not that driving is a constitutional right, to be sure, but surely not letting blind people have driver's licenses is an infringement of the ADA. If I were blind, I'd sue.

And I repeat: whether the car is red or blue is as irrelevant as wether it's a blunderbuss or an AK.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 03:01 AM

Well pardon me, mac, but how come in states where one is obligated to first seek a means of retreat before using deadly force, the murder rate is much lower? And if you're telling me that putting a gun in there hands of a blind person is just fine & dandy (do you want to issue drivers' licenses to blind people, too?), then never mind re-thinking, mac. You need to THINK period.

Sorry, mac, but you're full of shˇt.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 08:58 AM

Well, dontchaknow, it's important to preserve firearms as a health benefit. I mean, hell, it might even cure blindness! sick
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 09:44 AM

Seems to me it would cure blindness. Permanently. For the individual.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 09:47 AM

Sorry dude, this instance is about protecting oneself in his house, not driving on a public street. He was in his own house.


Now if we want to discuss driving we can do that on another thread.

My stand here is, in his home, a blind person might use any means legally to defend him self. I do not know enough about this one particular instance and there was hardly any actual evidence in the article ast to what transpired here for me to attest the guilt of this man. But from what was mention, since he was found not guilty, I believe his guns should be returned. If he was found guilty, probably not.

I think what has most folks whities in a knot here is the use of a gun. If he had used any other means to protect himself this wouldn't have made the papers. A sword, axe, hatchet, chef's knife, shovel wouldn't interest anyone.

But mention, "GUN" and it's "Holy Hell, he used a gun!"

Dave
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 09:55 AM

Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 10:06 AM

Spoken like a true vigilante.

Nuc, that dear might be fixin' to throw his popcorn at you. Better shoot the sucker!
Posted by: MrB

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 10:09 AM

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.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 10:10 AM

Here are the trees. Where is the forest?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 10:17 AM

I can't stand to watch a man dig himself into a hole.



Better this way.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 11:14 AM

yes that stare is menacing and threatening !! eek

I think he's gonna spit on ya !! Shoot first ask ?s later !!
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 11:32 AM

You all do realize that he is not totally blind, but legally blind, he does have some vision.

Conveniently, probably for sensationalism, the article didn't state that. Saying that a blind man owns a gun has great WTF to it.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 12:47 PM

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?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 01:11 PM

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.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 01:13 PM

I have a constitutional right to go on a scary carnival ride. But if I do not meet certain criteria that are driven by safety and liability, I can't ride.

Not that I would ever suggest that I'm not tall enough! grin
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
So are you suggesting that constitutional rights ought to be withheld from people if they're totally blind?
Were you were replying to me, or yourself? smirk
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 02/27/14 01:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jim_
Originally Posted By: yoyo52
So are you suggesting that constitutional rights ought to be withheld from people if they're totally blind?
Were you were replying to me, or yourself? smirk


Not really replying at all, Jim, just really trying to think through the relation between rights and common sense. And I'm aware that "common sense" is a loaded and also imprecise term!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 03/01/14 02:50 AM

And the hits just keep on comin'.
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 03/01/14 06:31 AM

I think you are being a little bit unfair. Even if you disagree with a guy, you don't have to stick your fingers in your ears and taunt him.

Dave is right about a couple of things. First of all, any news report that gets the facts of the matter wrong is going to reveal something about itself. I think that a lot of the NRA stance on what is and is not an assault rifle is splitting hairs, but I also think that a newspaper ought to get it right when they are reporting. This is something that you see a whole lot of in British reports about American guns. It's grating to anyone who cares about the issues either way.

When disability rights bump up against the second amendment, you are bound to have some pretty effed up test cases. It's just like how much of our free speech case law is the responsibility of pornographers like Larry Flynt. The interesting thing is that gun rights absolutists *do* have to consider these kinds of test cases when they talk about their side just as much as gun law advocates need to consider other values.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 03/01/14 07:28 AM

Well golly, NK, do I need a timeout? Or should I just have you ghost write my posts and manage my account from now on?
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 03/01/14 11:05 AM

You do what you want there, chief. Feel free to call me out whenever you think I'm being a pain.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Constitutional rights vs. common sense? - 03/02/14 02:45 AM

A hall pass, too? I am not worthy…