"Firing at a movement or a noise without being absolutely certain of what you are shooting at constitutes disregard for the safety of others. No target is so important that you cannot take the time before you pull the trigger to be absolutely certain of your target and where your shot will stop."
If a blind person can manage to live a fully functional life absent their site, I see no reason to limit their right to bear arms. Even a blind person knows when their habitat is being broken in. Hearing, even directionally, is a sense that is elevated with the blind. In fact I would venture to say that a blind person is even more acutely aware of their surroundings than a sighted person is as they take far less things for granted. And just because they are blind does not make them less able to make life saving decisions. Handguns would be a particularly good self defense choice for them.
Geezus, what a MORONICALLY stupid comment. In the last 2 weeks, fully sighted gunsuck morons have killed grandkids. Your moronically stupid idea indicates that more of this will be coming soon. Good by me. I am never sorry when a gunsuck kills a family member. These are not tragedies. These are simply inevitable results of gun owning stupidity.
And those last four sentences show that in spite of your claim to be concerned about the loss of lives, you really are just a bitter, hateful misanthrope with an irrational fear and hatred of weapons and their owners--emotions that lead you to cheer for the death of innocents whose only "crime" is being related to gun owners.
And, Mike, before you fuss at me or delete the previous comment for being a "personal attack," take a second look at those sentences again and tell me my words are not justified.
T., taking the position that blind people cannot safely operate firearms does not make one a "hateful misanthrope with an irrational fear and hatred of weapons and their owners." What the hell's wrong with you? First, for not admitting that blind people are not fit to be gun owners and secondly for getting all indignant for some one who does.
Read the comment. Yes, the Anonymous commenter was opposed to giving blind people guns, but he was basing that on the fact that he didn't even want sighted people to have them.
His comment talked about gun owners killing their grandchildren in the past couple of weeks and then said that it was fine with him if more children were killed because it's not a tragedy when the children of gun owners are killed.
If you support those sentiments he expressed, then there is something deeply wrong with you as well.
Your everyday comments that you don't care if people die; it's just the collateral damage to protect your right to own a gun, and forget ANY measures to try and curtail those deaths. We know you think that is just fine, you say so almost every day.
Gun control Jim, my comments here are to defend gun rights. I've yet to see a gun control proposal that would accomplish enough good to justify imposing it. You apparently believe that all it takes is passing a law and then the millennium will arrive, while I see that life is more complex.
Anonymous said: "I am never sorry when a gunsuck kills a family member. These are not tragedies. These are simply inevitable results of gun owning stupidity."
I agree with the "inevitable results of gun owning stupidity" part, but not with the "never sorry" part.
People often use the "darwinian" sarcasm to make their point. That's all this is. But, of course you pro-gun guys will try to make as big a deal out of this as you can. Have at it, boys.
"Darwinian sarcasm" eh? Well don't you just have an excuse for everything. You exaggerate, saying that there are literally a hundred accidental shootings per day and that's "legitimate hyperbole." I unintentionally overstate your exaggeration and suddenly I'm a liar who cannot make a point without exaggeration.
Here, a guy doesn't just celebrate the death of gun owners, but gloats over the death of their CHILDREN and you respond to it by saying that it's just some excusable "darwinian sarcasm" that's perfectly allowable when making a point.
And yet I'm guessing that it would be inexcusable for me to make "darwinianly sarcastic" remarks about the death of the family members of gun controllers simply being natures way of weeding out the weak or foolish? (Not that I would actually make such remarks because I'm not a total dick.)
Mikeb, I stand by what I said. I have yet to see a gun control proposal that would do enough good. I've seen a sufficient sample of such proposals here and elsewhere, and none of them offer anything approaching proof or even good sense.
The industry rules are written by lawyers who are working to keep the companies from being sued by idiots. There are lots of things in the owner's manual and other safety warnings that are not really about safety.
I addressed that in Laci's post. What it says is you must be aware of your target. This is true for anyone. Blind people are at a distinct disadvantage, but there are still situations where they can be fully aware of what they are shooting at.
Nothing says freedom like a blind person with an assault rifle!
ReplyDeleteThis goes against the Firearms industry's own safety rules--See Number 4:
http://nssf.org/safety/basics/
"Firing at a movement or a noise without being absolutely certain of what you are shooting at constitutes disregard for the safety of others. No target is so important that you cannot take the time before you pull the trigger to be absolutely certain of your target and where your shot will stop."
I'm sure this gives all you gun control freaks the vapors, and I couldn't be happier about that.
ReplyDeleteIf a blind person can manage to live a fully functional life absent their site, I see no reason to limit their right to bear arms. Even a blind person knows when their habitat is being broken in. Hearing, even directionally, is a sense that is elevated with the blind. In fact I would venture to say that a blind person is even more acutely aware of their surroundings than a sighted person is as they take far less things for granted. And just because they are blind does not make them less able to make life saving decisions. Handguns would be a particularly good self defense choice for them.
ReplyDeleteGeezus, what a MORONICALLY stupid comment. In the last 2 weeks, fully sighted gunsuck morons have killed grandkids. Your moronically stupid idea indicates that more of this will be coming soon. Good by me. I am never sorry when a gunsuck kills a family member. These are not tragedies. These are simply inevitable results of gun owning stupidity.
DeleteAnd those last four sentences show that in spite of your claim to be concerned about the loss of lives, you really are just a bitter, hateful misanthrope with an irrational fear and hatred of weapons and their owners--emotions that lead you to cheer for the death of innocents whose only "crime" is being related to gun owners.
DeleteYou are disgusting.
And, Mike, before you fuss at me or delete the previous comment for being a "personal attack," take a second look at those sentences again and tell me my words are not justified.
DeleteT., taking the position that blind people cannot safely operate firearms does not make one a "hateful misanthrope with an irrational fear and hatred of weapons and their owners." What the hell's wrong with you? First, for not admitting that blind people are not fit to be gun owners and secondly for getting all indignant for some one who does.
DeleteBut Anonymous's statement that he doesn't care if gun owners and their families die is just fine?
DeleteMike,
DeleteRead the comment. Yes, the Anonymous commenter was opposed to giving blind people guns, but he was basing that on the fact that he didn't even want sighted people to have them.
His comment talked about gun owners killing their grandchildren in the past couple of weeks and then said that it was fine with him if more children were killed because it's not a tragedy when the children of gun owners are killed.
If you support those sentiments he expressed, then there is something deeply wrong with you as well.
Your everyday comments that you don't care if people die; it's just the collateral damage to protect your right to own a gun, and forget ANY measures to try and curtail those deaths. We know you think that is just fine, you say so almost every day.
DeleteGun control Jim, my comments here are to defend gun rights. I've yet to see a gun control proposal that would accomplish enough good to justify imposing it. You apparently believe that all it takes is passing a law and then the millennium will arrive, while I see that life is more complex.
Delete"I've yet to see a gun control proposal that would accomplish enough good to justify imposing it."
DeleteGreg, sometimes you say the stupidest shit.
Lately, it seems like you're evolving more and more towards that Libertarian philosophy, which as everyone knows, is all talk and no action.
Anonymous said: "I am never sorry when a gunsuck kills a family member. These are not tragedies. These are simply inevitable results of gun owning stupidity."
DeleteI agree with the "inevitable results of gun owning stupidity" part, but not with the "never sorry" part.
People often use the "darwinian" sarcasm to make their point. That's all this is. But, of course you pro-gun guys will try to make as big a deal out of this as you can. Have at it, boys.
"Darwinian sarcasm" eh? Well don't you just have an excuse for everything. You exaggerate, saying that there are literally a hundred accidental shootings per day and that's "legitimate hyperbole." I unintentionally overstate your exaggeration and suddenly I'm a liar who cannot make a point without exaggeration.
DeleteHere, a guy doesn't just celebrate the death of gun owners, but gloats over the death of their CHILDREN and you respond to it by saying that it's just some excusable "darwinian sarcasm" that's perfectly allowable when making a point.
And yet I'm guessing that it would be inexcusable for me to make "darwinianly sarcastic" remarks about the death of the family members of gun controllers simply being natures way of weeding out the weak or foolish? (Not that I would actually make such remarks because I'm not a total dick.)
Mikeb, I stand by what I said. I have yet to see a gun control proposal that would do enough good. I've seen a sufficient sample of such proposals here and elsewhere, and none of them offer anything approaching proof or even good sense.
DeleteIf all they see is a fuzzy blob, but they can feel that the fuzzy blob is severely beating them- go ahead and shoot the fuzzy blob.
ReplyDeleteAnd be damned with the Firearm Industry's own statement that Laci provided?
DeleteThe industry rules are written by lawyers who are working to keep the companies from being sued by idiots. There are lots of things in the owner's manual and other safety warnings that are not really about safety.
DeleteI addressed that in Laci's post. What it says is you must be aware of your target. This is true for anyone. Blind people are at a distinct disadvantage, but there are still situations where they can be fully aware of what they are shooting at.
Delete