>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind-174507640.html
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that discrimination is a laughing matter? That the rights guaranteed by our Constitution should somehow be inequally doled out?
>>
>>If you're unfamiliar with the expression, you could try Googling first: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/not+know+whether+to+laugh+or+cry
>>
>>Hopefully this isn't news to you, but gun ownership is all about discrimination - deciding who to shoot vs. not to shoot. I happen to believe eyesight is a very important part of that.
>
>When one considers applying "rights" individually or by groups then there is a legal definition of "discrimination" we are dealing with. Are the physically mute not allowed freedom of speech? Perhaps lepers should not be allowed freedom to assemble?

Edge cases are very useful to illustrate issues with "rights" (sic). That's the point of my OP.

>>Maybe one day, in a perfect world, everyone will be armed with smartguns that automatically plug perps right between the eyes the moment intent is formed. But until then we'll just have to make do, and hope that when the chips are down we're as good as Will Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXNNqNfQBs
>>
>>As for the Constitution - let's travel back in time for a moment. Imagine you're in the room with its authors as they frame it. You stick up your hand and ask, "What about blind people? Should they have guns?"
>
>My guess is that they're response would be something along the lines of what part of "right" isn't clear? Followed by Washington asking if said blind person can hold a weapon straight would he care to join the army as we can use everyone willing. ;)

And there we have it, ladies & gentlemen. Can't say I'm surprised.

cRXNNqNfQBs