>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>So we use edge cases to determine whose rights we're willing to violate? For the 2nd time today I'm reminded that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others.
>>>>
>>>>The thing with Constitutional rights is that the Constitution itself provides a mechanism to remove those rights which society has determined should no longer exist. Until such time, they shall be upheld less we dilute all rights. See privacy, speech, property and any number of today's headlines for numerous examples of what happens when rights are diluted.
>>>
>>>You just answered your own question. No, we don't use edge cases to determine whose rights to violate - we use them to determine rights to remove. Excellent news that the Constitution itself offers a mechanism to do so!
>>>
>>>I suggest removing the right to bear arms, and replacing it with a licensed privilege, similar to driving.
>>
>>>(cue screams of outrage)
>>
>>No outrage. You are now making a perfectly Constitutional suggestion. You are not alone in suggesting this, so I suggest you convince hearts and minds, follow the Constitution and if you get enough people to agree, you may change the 2nd Amendment. Until such time, the law of the land says we have the right and it shall not be infringed.
>>
>>>Having uncritical faith in something like the US Constitution is much like that other kind of faith, organized religion. One of the side effects is one no longer has to think.
>>
>>And now you've dove into the deep pool of insults as debate tactic. The US Constitution IS the supreme law of the land. We are a nation of laws not men. If we do not operate within the framework set forth to govern the country then there is no country.
>
>That was a statement of pure fact; if you choose to interpret it as an insult, then so be it.

One of the side effects is one no longer has to think.

How is that not an insult?

>>>When asked if convicted felons, paranoid schizophrenics or the legally blind have the right to bear arms, one's answer is "yes".
>>
>>Allow me to use my "uncritical faith in something like the US Constitution" to find a response.
>>5th Amendment
>>http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/amendment.html
>>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
>>
>>Convicted felons have given up their Constitutional rights.
>>
>>Do paranoid schizophrenics lose their right to vote? To assemble? To speech? To own property? On who's authority? One doctor? Two? A family member?
>>Same questions for the legally blind.
>>What about quadriplegics?
>>http://www.broadenedhorizons.com/quadriplegic-powered-gun-mount
>
>Googling a little shows that some of my concerns are already addressed in the US Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#g
>
>Interesting about (g)(3) - is it correct that if you were convicted of possessing weed, or tested positive on a urine sample, they could take away your guns?

I believe this is true in certain states and it wouldn't surprise me. Seizure laws are a nasty unconstitutional reality which the Supreme Court has punted on and thus we are presently stuck with them.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alvarez-v-smith/

>Re: legally blind - if it were a privilege rather than a right, then like driving it could be necessary to pass a practical test to be allowed to own a firearm.

You are correct and it is an important distinction.