Re: What is wrong with the NFB?
@28, so what do you then propose we do if a blind person slaughters people while defending themselves against one or two individuals; severely injures themselves while using a gun because he wasn't properly trained; ends up killing himself; etc? By your own logic we should remove every restriction and only abide by the constitution, which is completely nonsensical. The constitution is a framework, not a complete handbook that will allow us to function without fail. The constitution was explicitly designed so that we, the people, could hold the power, and could ensure that the country we have built is able to function in a stable manner. The constitution says that people should get a fair and speedy trial, but does not say how those trials should e caried out. Does that mean we should just carry out trials inan undefined, random manner every time a trial is required?
we established the constitution as a base framework that we could then build upon. We have built upon the second amendment by enacting restrictions to ensure that people know how to use their arms safely. The second amendment only says that the right to bear arms mustn't be infringed. Those restrictions do not infringe your right to own a firearm; they ensure that you can own one while using it safely. They are not intentionally discriminatory, but as I said, we need to work out the issues I've listed previously in this thread before we knowthat a blind person can use a firearm safely.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
