Obviously, the 2nd amendment was brought up. The 2nd amendment basically protects the right to bear arms. The argument that the blind make is that there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about blind people not being able to own or carry guns. One blind man, Michael Barber, says “The Second Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless we're disabled. I should be able to protect my family just like you can, just like anyone else can.”
Barber makes a good point. In the Constitution, it is not exclusive as to who can have a gun, so why are people trying to add to it?
Currently in Iowa a blind person can legally do the same things with a gun that a person with normal sight can. Many of the police officers in Iowa have a problem with that. One county sheriff, Jerry Dunbar, says “If you can't see where that bullet is going to wind up then that's our concern, maybe you shouldn't be carrying.”
I happen to agree with Dunbar. I don’t think anyone who can’t see where they are shooting should be armed with a gun in public. That seems like common sense to me. I do think it is fine for someone who is blind to own a gun and keep it on their property, because then it is in a familiar place for self defense. Once they are in public, they put people around them in danger because they have no clue where the “target” is.
I recognize that it is up to the individual states to make these decisions, and not the federal government. If I were a governor though, I would push for my state to not allow those who were blind to be armed with guns in public.
Read more about the article here
Comment below to weigh in with your opinion
3 comments:
JJ this is a very good point and a very difficult topic to find a resoloution. I personally agree with you. I do not believe someone who cannot see should be allowed to carry a gun. They are blind, so if they trip over a curb because they cant see and the gun accidentally fires, then that is a very large safety concern. Also, someone can easily steal the gun off the blind man. Because the person cannot see to defend themself so the gun could fall into someones elses hands easily
I would agree with Niko that this is a very tough issue to resolve. On one hand there are safety issues but on the other hand, these people are more vulnerable than most so they probably feel the need for the protection more than anyone else. I would agree with JJ that although it seems discrimanatory and it may be infringing on their rights, to have a person with a gun, in public, who can't see the person they are shooting at seems like an accident waiting to happen. Also, I think they may be quicker to pull the trigger because they would be in adrenaline pumped state and not knowing exactly where the attacker is and what their doing would be pretty stressful. I think there are far safer methods of defense that are just as effective. For example a tazor would work just as we'll if not better because the multiple electrodes have a larger spread than a single bullet.
JJ,
You might begin with a link to the actual news source which sparked this opinion piece.
I don't have a problem with blind people having guns, actually. Here's why: there are so many other "incompetent" gun owners out there, so why should we discriminate against the blind??
It might be more interesting to analyze the words of the Second Amendment in light of this issue rather than just repeating the oft-mentioned "right to bear arms" interpretation.
For an example of this, check out Doc OC's post from 2007. (Note: it looks like I wrote it, but that's a coding error.)
Post a Comment