[nabs-l] an interesting question

Fri Sep 11 17:24:09 UTC 2009

Mark,

I like your constitutional point.  It is a difficult one to counter, but in
thinking of it I remember something my high school history teacher used to
repeat over and over, that just as in the dictionary, we must have
responsibility before we have rights.  It's cheesy, but I think it's valid
for this discussion.  A blind person may clear, draw and aim with stunning
precision, but without the element of accuracy the activity is
irresponsible.  In hunting it is expected that missed shots will inevitably
occur, but even in hunting great steps are taken to make sure that the
missed shot does not result in a wounded bystander.  Hunting is not the same
as street encounters.  One presumes that if a gun is drawn it is to defend,
and if one is defending one is also under enormous stress.  Adrenaline,
coupled with the inability to clearly gauge a target, makes for an already
tense situation turn all the more risky where human lives are at stake.

If blind people are allowed to legally carry guns then I should think I have
the right to pursue my original ambition of joining the Marine Corps.  The
second amendment, after all, spins out of defense of self and state, and so
if I understand the risks and knowingly place my life at risk I should not
be barred from joining the armed forces on account of my sight alone.
Actually, the Air Force should be studying ways to accommodate blind people
in the flying of their aircraft.  Never mind the gentleman who spoke at
convention about his own experience with flying.  It is not independent
until the aircraft is launched, flown and brought down by that individual.

Again, in response to Peter's thoughtful contribution, my hesitation has
nothing to do with ability but rather with the technology that stands
between the person and the result.  Some people feel adamant about driving
or shooting or flying or whatever the case may be.  I am not convinced that
innocent people's lives should be put at risk because we believe in a very
literal definition of equality.  Why spend so much money on reinforcing that
middle man when the funds could be devoted to fixing the root of the problem
in the first place.  My own life will not crumble if medicine does not allow
me to see better before I die, but if the technology could be used to the
advantage of eliminating the need for technology itself, I think we will
carve out that equality far quicker than the current means of advocacy and
education that takes years to make tangible differences.

Joe Orozco

"A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the
crowd."--Max Lucado 

-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org 
[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mark J. Cadigan
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:08 AM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] an interesting question

It is both. The right to bare arms is a right guaranteed by the 
constitution; this is not to be confused with a privilege. 
Having a weapon in the house is a good way of keeping safe, it 
has saved many peoples lives. 
As a political issue, it is important because it is clearly 
stating that blind people have exactly the same rights as 
sighted people.

As a side bar, driving is a privelige. There is nothing in the 
constitution that guarantees it as a right.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Teal Bloodworth" <tealbloodworth at gmail.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] an interesting question

> so you are saying that its not necessarily actually carrying 
a gun but 
> rather its the priveledge of  being able to carry a gun with 
appropriate 
> training and license like everyone else?
>
>            -Teal
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark J. Cadigan" <kramc11 at gmail.com>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 6:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] an interesting question
>
>
>> The 2nd amendment should apply to all Americans, not just 
those of us 
>> that the government deems fit a certain criteria. The 
question of whether 
>> a blind person can safely use a fire arm is not the main question at 
>> stake. In my opinion there is not a question that with the proper 
>> training a blind person can be just as safe as a sighted 
one. The bigger 
>> question is if the government denies us protections under the 2nd 
>> amendment, it will set a precedent and who knows ware it 
might lead to.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "alberto arreola" <alberto.2500 at gmail.com>
>> To: "'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'" 
>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] an interesting question
>>
>>
>>>I think a blind person could carry a gun if he or she 
receives training 
>>>to
>>> use it properly.  I don't think anyone should carry a 
weapon if they 
>>> don't
>>> know how to handle it the way it is supposed to be used.
>>>
>>> You might be interested in checking out this website which 
you might of
>>> heard of already.  www.careymcwilliams.com This guy actually has two
>>> conceals weapon permits.
>>> Alberto
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org 
[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On 
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Kevin Wassmer
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:41 PM
>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>> Subject: [nabs-l] an interesting question
>>>
>>> Hello folks. I have an interesting question for you all. Do 
you think a
>>> blind person can cary a hand gun for self defence? If the 
answer is yes,
>>> then how would a blind person be able to shoot someone if 
by the time 
>>> the
>>> gun was loaded the other berson atempting to hurt the blind person 
>>> turned
>>> around very fast? Can a blind person cary a hand gun and defend 
>>> themselves?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your 
account info for
>>> nabs-l:
>>> 
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/alberto.
2500%40gmail
>>> .com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your 
account info for 
>>> nabs-l:
>>> 
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kramc11%
40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
info for 
>> nabs-l:
>> 
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/tealbloo
dworth%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nabs-l:
> 
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kramc11%
40gmail.com 

_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account 
info for nabs-l:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jsorozco
%40gmail.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of 
virus signature database 4417 (20090911) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4417 (20090911) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com