Not Satire: New NRA Video Endorses Gun Permits For Blind People

[KamaAina]

http://www.alan.com/2014/08/06/not-satire-new-nra-video-endorses-gun-permits-for-blind-people/

Several weeks ago, we covered one of several bizarre new videos released by the National Rifle Association in which a “commentator” pitches one or more ridiculous ideas for how to expand gun rights in the United States. In that video, a hipster commentator, Billy Johnson, made a case for government subsidies for guns, including free ammunition, justifying his plea by suggesting that the government subsidizes healthcare, so why not? Johnson went on to suggest that a right to an education is the same as the right to a firearm, clearly forgetting that guns are intended to hurt or kill living beings, while knowledge is generally intended to help living beings.

At the time, it was difficult to imagine a more absurd video from the group that gave us Wayne LaPierre and pearls of wisdom like “guns make people’s lives better.” But wow, the NRA just released a new video and it absolutely tops anything from its previous repertoire. I can’t imagine they’ll ever top this one.

Yes, the new video suggests that blind people should be allowed to own and use firearms. Clearly when the NRA titled its previous video “Everybody Gets A Gun,” he meant it.

Has it really come down to this? The NRA has reached a level of collective dementia in which all safety considerations should be jettisoned in lieu of making sure people who can’t see should be allowed to carry and discharge firearms — in public no less. This isn’t meant to disparage the blind, but there are two basic requirements for successfully using firearms in public places: the ability to hold and aim the gun, and the ability to see the target. But now, according to the NRA and commentator Dom Raso, those qualifications are irrelevant.

I'm all for access, but this is ridiculous!

[NightWatcher]

1. ...you hear someone break into your house, so you yell..."Marco"

and then blast the Hell out of whomever says "Polo"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. The stupid. It burns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[underpants]

3. Independence and equality are fiercely fought for in the world of the blind (you need to read this)

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) supports the right of blind people to own guns.

In my current job I work with and for the blind and vision impaired. I learn something new everyday about issues with blindness and the blind community's ability to figure out ways to negotiate the world. For instance - salt or pepper? They determine it by weight. Salt is heavier.

I have at least two co-workers who actively shoot at gun ranges. Why? Because why shouldn't they?

Independence is a huge issue for the blind. They may need some "special accommodations" - see the ADA - but the saying goes that there are only two things that blind people can't do -- fly a plane and drive a car..... a I have seen them drive cars and change flat tires.

FYI

From the NFB January 2014
https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm14/bm1401/bm140116.htm

In recent days there has been much discussion about whether blind individuals should be permitted to own and/or carry firearms. The National Federation of the Blind, the oldest and largest nationwide organization of blind Americans, understands that guns are dangerous weapons and that anyone who owns, carries, or uses them must therefore exercise great care and sound judgment in doing so. Blindness has no adverse impact on a person’s ability to exercise due care and good judgment. State firearms laws must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner to blind individuals. Recognizing that laws and regulations regarding the granting of permits to own and/or carry firearms vary throughout our country, our single position on firearms regulation is that a permit to own and/or carry a gun should not be denied to any individual solely on the basis of blindness.

It is indeed true that “blindness has no adverse impact on a person’s ability to exercise due care and good judgment.” Those who reflexively say that blind people should not possess guns are likely doing so under the mistaken belief that blind people are intrinsically unable to exercise good judgment or due care when deciding whether to own or discharge a firearm. That belief assumes that a blind person is incapable of being anything other than careless and that a blind person will haphazardly fire without any awareness or regard where the bullet may strike. Such a belief is based on a lack of understanding of blindness and of the capabilities of people who are blind. It assumes that blind people lack the ability to reason and exercise common sense.

[KamaAina]

4. They have a point about "the mistaken belief"

Ableism is even more rampant than all the other -isms.

But is a gun somehow less dangerous than a car? Or is the NFB advocating for blind drivers? That'd make Stevie Wonder happy; he once did a PSA that said "Before I ride with a drunk driver, I'll drive myself!"

Having also worked with many blind people over the years, I can almost picture them targeting by sound -- slowly. I would not have a problem with them firing at ranges -- but open carry?!

[underpants]

5. Also from the NFB

I can't find anything about their stance on open carry. Yes that would appear to pose the risk of the gun being taken.... Whoops I didn't.... There is no reason blind people can't do or should be excluded.

I don't like the open carry thing but I am just trying represent what the pro dominant force for the blind says. They didn't get what they have achieved by taking little steps.


http://nfbco.blogspot.com/2013/10/should-blind-people-be-allowed-to-own.html?m=1



We of the National Federation of the Blind believe that anyone who owns or operates a gun has to be able to make a decision on when it is necessary and safe to shoot. We as blind people are not trying to put society in greater danger, we are merely trying to have the privilege to hunt or shoot for sport or defend our selves like any other American. Generally when a person is defending themselves with a gun, it is at close range and the person feels that they are in danger. A blind person is certainly capable of listening to the sounds that an intruder or threatening person is making to determine where to shoot. People, blind or sighted are generally not pulling their guns out on the street to have a brawl so it is silly to say that blind people will be a greater danger to society in crowded areas. When we hunt, we are aware of safety considerations that need to be made and make those considerations and modifications prudently.

There are many accidents with guns that occur when people are being careless. Although there has not previously been a law preventing blind people from owning and operating guns, none of the accidents that you hear about have to do with a blind person accidentally shooting someone. Our track record with safe and responsible gun use should speak for itself. Perhaps we should put laws in place stating that people have to have a certain IQ to own and operate a gun or maybe that they have to pass tests to show that they will be able to demonstrate their level of common sense or responsibility. instead of advocating for the types of regulations that might stop some of the many gun accidents that occur around our nation, people are arguing for pointless regulations to discriminate against a specific cross section of society who has done nothing to demonstrate incompetence, irresponsibility, or lack of ability to make own and use a gun in a safe manner.

[KamaAina]

6. I am quite familiar with the NFB

Believe it or not, there is one faction that is opposed to guide dogs because "you are being led around by an animal". Another is opposed to audible traffic signals!

[underpants]

8. Yes there is no coddling with the NFB

Unlike to some degree the AFB and certainly AER

I asked about audible traffic signals when I first started here and was told, "What if you get used to them and they stop working?"

Ironically I bought a hybrid car recently - they still give me some light needling about that.

[KamaAina]

19. From the article

there are two basic requirements for successfully using firearms in public places: the ability to hold and aim the gun, and the ability to see the target.

Perhaps someone who barely qualifies as legally blind could do that. But totally blind?

Come to think of it, this is why we have the concept of "legally blind".

[underpants]

24. Low vision

Good point though

[flamin lib]

25. Drivers license too?

I'm sorry but some conditions preclude some activities.

Shooting at a range with a qualified safety range officer at their side is OK by me but concealed carry of a loaded firearm in public is a whole 'mother matter.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. If everybody should get a gun

Then we should be arming all of this little Honduran kids as soon as they cross the border.

[UncleYoder]

9. Pardon me,

but we have a strict policy concerning the handling of the instruments.
An employee of Ray's Music Exchange must be present. Now, may I help you?

[KamaAina]

11. DUzy!!

[Lurks Often]

10. So you are willing to discriminate and remove a right without due process based on a disability?

Blind covers more then the complete absence of sight and while a person may be legally blind, it doesn't mean they can't see at all.

I know a shooter that is considered legally blind and is unable to drive himself, but still has sufficient vision to compete regularly in one of the shooting sports.

For a person in the United States to be deprived of a right requires due process, normally either a jury trial or by being declared incomptent by a judge, with the person entitled a defense and provide opposing testimony or evidence.

[KamaAina]

12. I was thinking of total blindness

perhaps there could be a visual acuity cutoff, as there is for driver's licenses.

[Lurks Often]

14. Driving is a privilege, not a right

So again I ask: Are you willing to discriminate and remove a right without due process based on a disability?

I mean there has to be a wealth of statistics proving blind gun owners committing crimes and randomly shooting up their surroundings and the people nearby, right?

There are lots of ways we could die as we go about our daily routine, a blind gun owner shooting me by accident is so far down the list of ways to die as to be nearly impossible.

[KamaAina]

16. But it is far more essential to daily life than gun ownership

well, except for those anatomically-challenged males you see carrying assault rifles into Chipotle.

[Lurks Often]

20. So is food and water and for some coffee :D

, but I don't see those enumerated in the Constitution.

I would even argue the essential part, the vast majority of us PREFER the choices having a car gives us, but in most cities and even suburbs there are alternative options for people who can not or choose not to drive, be it town shuttle, bus, rail, trolley car & taxi.

Food, some supermarkets are offering food deliveries right to the home now, pretty much everything else you can get through Amazon. So maybe the car isn't quite as essential as we think it to be. Not that I have any intention of giving up my car though.

[KamaAina]

17. You do have a point

Sighted gun owners are far more dangerous.

[loyalsister]

13. I can see your point and I dislike the idea for the most part

But, I think if a "right" exists it should not necessarily be limited by a condition which may or may not affect whether it can be used safely.
To codify in law that people who are blind can't be trusted to know their limits makes a much larger statement than one about gun safety.

[KamaAina]

15. Again, driving.

[loyalsister]

21. Driving hasn't been classified as a right

I don't like that gun ownership has, but if it is we're stuck with the consequences. If one group is excluded, there is potential to use that as justification to exclude others.

[Rex]

18. So if this is all about rights and freedoms...what about the freedoms and rights of the

now deceased...whose only crime was being an innocent bystander? The NRA is nothing more than a death merchant selling death to anyone that will take it, in the name of freedom! You have the right to give up your life to a gun...that is ALL the NRA cares about next to their vault of money.

[KamaAina]

22. What really frosts me is the RW using people with disabilities to further their cause

the anti-choicers are the best at this. "Abortion is genocide against disabled people!"

[Rex]

23. The NRA would pitch guns to zombies, if they existed.

All the NRA cares about is money and power. To them, their client base is completely expendable. As we can see.

[Turbineguy]

26. They forgot

drunks and children. They should be armed too.

[4now]

27. Discriminating against people with disabilities is wrong.

[KamaAina]

28. So is using us to pitch RW talking points.

[4now]

30. Supporting the rights of the disabled is a right wing talking point?

Very interesting attitude.
Whether you like guns or not it is illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities.
Sight impaired people have the same needs as everybody else.
If you don't like guns then get rid of guns. Don't discriminate against the disabled.

[KamaAina]

32. No, guns for everyone is a right-wing talking point.

As I've mentioned, anti-choicers claim that abortion is genocide against us (and African Americans as well).

[NutmegYankee]

43. According the classic definition of right wing, it's not.

Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.

Our political parties are not perfectly in line with the classic french divide that gave us the left/right division.

[KamaAina]

44. Mmmm-kay. Which party almost unanimously supports the NRA?

And which one is divided on the gun issue?

[NutmegYankee]

46. Neither unanimously supports it.

There are pro and anti in each party. I personally know several vehemently anti-gun Republicans.

[KamaAina]

47. That's several more than there are in Congress

I thought James Brady, who passed away the other day, might have been the last one.

[NutmegYankee]

52. Bloomberg is a high ranking example.

The reason we don't see it more openly is the Republicans are very good at forcing dissent to stay hidden so that they appear to be a uniform group. The teabaggers fubar'd that uniformity, but most members still appear to fall into line every time.

Our party on the other hand seems to form a circular firing squad at any given chance. We love to eat our own.

[KamaAina]

54. Bloomberg left the GOP a few years ago.

He is officially an independent.

[NutmegYankee]

56. That's news to me.

I saw him described as one just a few months ago.

[beevul]

50. "Guns for everyone" is an anti-gun strawman.

Because nobody argues for that.

But then, you knew that, didn't you.

[KamaAina]

51. Guns for blind people IS pretty much everyone.

Except, as mentioned upthread, drunks and infants.

[beevul]

53. If theres an "except", then by definition, it isn't "everyone".

And you left out, in your loose definition of "except", violent convicted criminals, convicted domestic abusers, and such.

Who says they should have guns? Nobody? Right.


So yeah, strawman.

[Eleanors38]

59. Actually, I can't think of anyone advocating for violent criminals'

right to keep and bare arms. BTW, I owned and used a revolver and a shotgun by age 13 back when the NRA was a 3-column-inch ad in Outdoor Life, featuring a hunter in plaid & Stormy Kromer hat. In B&W.

I must observe that if what you say is true, then that puts paid to the argument that the Second Amendment was a racist measure to keep blacks in their place.

[KamaAina]

33. Again, the relevant example is driving.

Yes, it is a privilege, not a right, but by your logic (?), refusing to grant it to someone on the basis of his/her disability would constitute discrimination.

[4now]

35. Visually impaired people are allowed to drive

I know people who have lost vision in one eye during the war and are allowed to drive an automobile and even fly an airplane.
Yes it would be discrimination otherwise.

[KamaAina]

37. Up to a certain point

You have to take an eye test to get a driver's license. If your corrected vision is below a certain level, no license. Is that discrimination?

[4now]

39. Not the same as an arbitrary ban on sight impaired people owning guns.

Just as an arbitrary ban on sight impaired people getting a drivers license would be discrimination.
There is a lot of information on blindness, sight impairment and disability out there but many people prefer their own preconceptions.

[KamaAina]

40. Where did I say I was for an arbitrary ban?

[NutmegYankee]

45. They are not banned from owning cars, only operating them in public roads.

A non-drivers license holder may operate a vehicle on private land. The appropriate analog would be denying concealed carry permits but otherwise allowing ownership.

[beevul]

57. Is that license required to own a motor vehicle?

Is that license required to own a motor vehicle?

No?

Which license is required to own a motor vehicle?

There isn't one?


You mean people can own motor vehicles without being required to have a license to own one?

I'm outraged.


When people like you compare a license to drive on public roads with simple ownership of of a gun, you are comparing apples and oranges.

[KamaAina]

60. It is required to register said vehicle

but of course any attempt to register guns meets with this kind of shrill opposition.

[beevul]

63. No, in most places it isn't.

A vehicle is only required to be registered if it is to be used on public roads, in the great majority of jurisdictions in America.

[aikoaiko]

36. Owning a gun is a right that can be taken away but not for being blind

If Iowa wants to create a practical shooting test for carrying a weapon then it can for every permit applicant.

[aikoaiko]

29. My brother who is legally blind from birth goes to a shooting range and is assisted while shooting

He loves shooting at the range.

Other blind folks may simply want to collect them as the interesting little machines they are.

[4now]

31. Some people don't understand blindness

Sight impaired people have the same needs and desires as everyone else.
As long as gun ownership is a right how can you discriminate.

[rock]

34. Hey! How else are they gonna crack walnuts?

Give them a break!

[KamaAina]

38. DUzy!!

[4now]

48. is making fun of blind people really that funny?

[KamaAina]

49. Blind people themselves make tons of blind jokes

I'm actually surprised there isn't a blind stand-up comedian that I know of.

[4now]

55. I stand corrected making fun of the disabled is great fun.

[KamaAina]

61. You must hate Family Guy and Farrelly Brothers movies.

[4now]

62. You are free to laugh at the disabled all that you want.

But you are no Seth MacFarlane.

[KamaAina]

41. One of my friends with low vision just checked in. His response:

Uhhm, being visually impaired....all I can say about this is...SAY WHAT?!

[Paladin]

42. Those of you eagerly supporting the right of blind people to have guns......

....better not pitch a fit, next time somebody accuses the gun militancy movement of a "Guns For Everybody" philosophy.

Oh, and while you're at it: Better think of a replacement for the traditional first rule of gun handling safety: Always be sure of your target. This blindness advocacy kind of kicks that notion to the curb, don't you think?

[NutmegYankee]

58. Defending civil rights for all is a core Liberal value.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Barring a court denying the right via due process, a nation of rights and laws cannot deny a person the right to exercise them, even if it seems dumb.