New and Totally Ridiculous NRA Video Endorses Gun Permits for Blind People

FILED TO: Headline Articles

UPDATE: Yes, the video way too silly even for the NRA, so it’s been removed.

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 swear this isn’t a parody video.

1) If you disagree with Dom Raso, “you don’t take your rights seriously enough.” I’m pretty sure I do. I’m just not interested in being shot in the face by someone who can’t see me, or who can’t accurately find “a bad guy with a gun” in a crowded mall. Besides, even though Raso is built like a brick shithouse and there’s heavy metal music playing in the background, obviously to convey badassery, he might as well be dressed in a Gumby suit, squatting in a giant bowl of tapioca pudding. I simply refuse to take anyone seriously who’s telling me that blind people — people who have entirely lost their sight — should be able to publicly carry firearms. Or run around swinging samurai swords. Or drive cars. Or perform neurosurgery. This video is a serious-free zone.

2) Again, no, this isn’t from The Onion. John Rambo continues by asking, “Do you think that because they’re blind, they’re gonna start shooting in every direction and kill everyone?” Not everyone, and not in every direction, but again, they can’t see and therefore they can’t see their target(s). But while Dom Raso presents this somewhat plausible scenario, a graphic appears next to him of an old blind man wearing dark glasses, holding a white cane and flanked by a guide dog. The only thing missing from the stereotype is a tin-cup filled with pencils, accompanied by the sad music from the “soap poisoning” scene in A Christmas Story.

3) Better hearing solves everything. Raso makes with the science: “It’s been proven that people who lack vision have an increased awareness of their hearing and spatial surroundings.” Aside from the bad writing, how on earth does this make up for the total inability to see a target? Let’s say gunfire breaks out on a college campus. How does a blind person know the difference between a criminal gunman and law enforcement (or another “good guy with a gun”) who’s firing at the gunman? I can’t believe we’re even having this discussion.

4) What if there’s a rape? Raso presents a scenario in which you’re being raped by an assailant who’s “slowly squeezing your neck and yelling ‘I’m gonna kill you!,'” then Raso asks if you need to see where you’re shooting in order to save yourself. Realistically, if the attacker hasn’t already taken your gun and shot you with it, maybe not. So perhaps there’s an exception for home defense. In that instance, what could possibly go wrong — I mean besides the myriad of cases in which a firearm kept in a home is used against the home-owner, blind or not, by an intruder? But something tells me the NRA would lobby against restricting gun ownership for blind people to home-defense only, so never mind. By the way, the recently passed Iowa law that Raso is ultimately defending with this video allows blind people to carry firearms in public.

5) ????????????????? I don’t know what the hell this means: “Don’t get me wrong. The safety parameters of which a blind individual is gonna have to follow in a close-quarter scenario with a firearm is a lot stricter than somebody that can see.” So in this rape scenario, is Raso saying that there should be safety measures in place? Like what? Asking the rapist to wear protective goggles? I just don’t… what?

6) Your Logical Fallacy is… Dom Raso builds a strawman: “If you can show me that just because they are blind, they’re irresponsible and not allowed to take control of their own personal safety…?” No one is saying blind people are irresponsible because they can’t see. But it’s totally irresponsible for lawmakers in Iowa to allow the blind to pack heat in public.

7) The NRA is crazy like a fox. What’s obvious throughout all of these videos is that the NRA doesn’t care about being perceived as loony or overzealous. Unlike the gun control/safety movement, which measures its rhetoric and waters down its agenda, the NRA is, if nothing else, ballsy. In not accepting compromise while seizing the initiative, the NRA and its people are constantly pushing forward, not content to fight battles on the opposition’s terms. In a twisted way, there’s something admirable about it. They don’t win every fight, but they win more often than they lose, even now when a string of public massacres might’ve otherwise jettisoned the NRA to the wilderness. And mark my words: Iowa wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last state to pass laws allowing the blind to open- or conceal-carry firearms.


If you love what we do here at the Banter, please consider becoming a Banter Member and supporting independent media! Readers get access to the Magazine and unlimited monthly articles

  • NukeDoc

    To bigoted liberals, blind people aren’t smart enough to follow the 4 laws of firearm safety like the rest of us seein’ people. They were unfortunate enough to tragically lose their vision…and with it their rights and ability to make decisions on their own.

    Oh course not one mathematically-disabled anti-gun idiot can point to ONE instance where a visually-impaired person with a gun just started firing in random directions like in the concocted scenarios flying through their limited minds.

  • RadioPaul1

    I recently had a debate online after showing a video of guy who had concealed 15 guns on himself to show the ignorance of anti open carry movements. It showed how you most likely are in contact with people all the time who are armed but you have no clue. It is a choice to live in fear just like if you live in fear of blacks, gays or a religious group. But more than this, when someone says they will get up and walk out if they saw open carry, it is dishonest for them to say they are afraid. If they were truly afraid they would want to keep a low profile, what they are doing is showing intolerance and expressing disgust.

    In response to my posted video, someone commented “I’m also a huge fan of NRA’s guns for the blind initiative : )” and another respond “Shhhhh, that really wasn’t the NRA’s initiative. It has been quietly put to pasture.” Needless to say, we had a debate over their stereotypes, fear and bigotry. Below is a summation of my responses put in a editorial format that I want to share here.

    Yes, a blind person should be able to own a gun, please don’t discriminate. There is zero reason to not let a citizen own one because they are blind and guess what? THEY CAN OWN A GUN, yep there is no law against it. Name one place in the US that bans them from owning one solely because they are blind? You cannot, and this once again proves anti-gunners sell ignorance and fear and yet we don’t have blind maniacs dropping people in the streets.

    Then the anti-gunners move on to “should a blind person be allowed to drive” Ahhhh, the apples and oranges debate. If you cannot win an argument on it own merits just removing the subject to another debate. The fact is blind people can own a car, just not drive it if they cannot pass a road test. I would also add that even if you banned blind people from owning a car, they still have unfettered access to them and they are not going out mindlessly jumping in to cars and killing people. Peoples preconceived notions of others is more scary than the reality, anti gunners are just living in fear of everyone.

    Being that gun ownership is a constitutional right, to take it from them there would need to be due process, and anti-gunners never concern themselves with that do they? I might add that there are varying levels of being legally blind and the idea that anti-gunners are rushing to the judgment that blind people are incapable of making good decisions is as stereotypical as someone who is open carrying being a wing nut killer. There are blind people who carry and to my knowledge there has never been an incident, but according to the fear mongers, the blood should be pouring in to the streets with a middles blind maniac firing in every direction.

    The anti-gun community is rife with a bigot mentality, towards poor people, people of color and others that don’t fit in to their elitist world view, I guess we can now add the blind to their intolerant paranoia.

    For those that really care about the rights of the blind, I recommend this article on how they believe that they have the rights everyone else does.

    Selling NRA intolerance is just silly.

  • JasmineStarlight

    Sad to see that guy was Navy Seal, I thought they were bright!
    I find the video hysterical, in a bad way! Keep them coming NRA, shoot yourself in the foot too! Greedy bastarrrrdds!!

  • Bob Cesca
    • JasmineStarlight

      I wish they kept it up, for everyone to see how crazy/reckless NRA really is!
      Nice article, unbelievable!!

  • yardbird1947

    What is wrong with the visually impaired person owning a gun. They may have limited opportunities to shoot it but could still enjoy it, and may be able to defend their home with it. The attacker is probably in the dark too.

  • Odysseus M Tanner

    The author is crippled by his own bias and the fixation on “gun” as opposed to weapons in general. At grappling range a fist, knife, gun, all are viable weapons. Target detection and identification is the issue, not vision as the author erroneously assumes. Assessing whether an attacker has the intent, ability, and opportunity to do grave bodily harm naturally is more difficult for a blind person, and that addresses the author’s confusion over #5. And finally, as to #4, to say that “perhaps there’s an exception for home defense” is a non-sequitur, as rapes can happen anywhere – again, the author’s emotional bias leads to lapses in logic. As for “what can possibly go wrong” in a home invasion when you have a gun? Well, imagine going through such a terrifying experience without a gun. But the author is fearful the bad guy will take his gun from him and shoot him with it. The bias is so strong that a mere “civilian” cannot handle such power. Those who project such impotence might do well to avoid weapons, but recognize that others don’t share this sort of impotence and bias and irrational fear.

  • HG Pro

    Silly peasants! Only people who can afford $10,000 a plate Democratic Party fundraisers have a right to self-defense!

    • Tommygun

      Yeah, because there’s no rich Republicans.

      • don

        Yeah, but rich Republicans don’t pretend to give a shit.

        • Tommygun

          Your implication that liberals who are wealthy only pretend to care is a false premise. And if you think wealthy Republicans don’t pretend to care, then why did Mittens get so upset when his remarks about the 47% were made public? Cons are the biggest pretenders of all, pretending to care for the common folk while doing everything in their power to keep them down.

  • muselet

    As I said at the blog yesterday:

    Whenever I see one of these videos, I imagine Dom Raso—or whichever commentator it was who’s just delivered two and a half minutes of nonsense into a camera—walking off set and muttering, “I’m an actor, dammit. I studied acting for years, did crappy productions of Shakespeare, even had a line in an episode of NCIS and now I’m reduced to this. Where did I go wrong?”

    Or maybe they don’t care what lines they have to say as long as the checks clear.

    I have no idea if I’m right or not, but it makes me feel better to think these loons are frustrated actors than to think they really believe the nonsense they say on behalf of the NRA.


    • NukeDoc

      Of course waging an actual counter argument to their arguments would just be too easy so naturally you skipped doing it.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Does anyone remember when the NRA actually represented gun owners and sportsmen, instead of gun manufacturers and dealers?

    What’s sad about this is how the gun industry has the NRA by the balls, and the NRA has gun fans by the balls, and none of them know it. The NRA will order its members and fans to buy whatever the gun industry orders the NRA to order them to buy, and they will buy whatever the NRA orders them to buy. All they have to do is say that “liberals,” or “Democrats,” or “the Left,” or “Obama,” or whomever, “wants to ban [X],” and like Pavlov’s dog they will immediately run out and fork over however much money the manufacturer and/or dealer wants in order to get [X] before it’s “banned.”

    What a great business model. Is any other product that easy to sell?

    Of course, no other product enjoys an explicit Constitutional “right to keep and bear” it. Which the manufacturers and sellers of that product deeply, deeply appreciate.

    • D_C_Wilson

      It’s gets around one of the major problems gun manufacturers have: Guns are a very durable product. A well-maintained firearm can continue to function for a century or more. Most hunters and those who want a gun for self-defense have little need to amass an arsenal. And there are only so many collectors of firearms out there. Without ginning up lots of “Git ’em ‘fore the gubmint comes to take ’em away” paranoia, the firearms industry could only sell a fraction of what they do.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Interesting point; “planned obsolescence” really isn’t an issue when it comes to guns, unlike, e.g., cars and electronics. Guns don’t really become obsolete; their durability and longevity is a selling point. I hadn’t thought of that before.

        • RimfireShooter

          They also tend to go up in value vs other products.

          Which becomes a little ironic if the model wasn’t commercially successful. Less numbers sold before the item was discontinued, the rarer and therefore more valuable. An 8k shotgun might sell at auction for 30k 40 years later.

          • JozefAL

            Of course, with inflation, that “30K 40 years later” is probably a lower value than the original “8K” used to pay for the shotgun.

          • RimfireShooter

            Shrug. It isn’t uncommon for a late 1800’s Colt single action to go at auction today for over $100,000.

            Unless the gun is trashed, one doesn’t usually lose money. Even with inflation.

      • RimfireShooter

        Aside from hunting and self-defense there are a plethora of different venues within the shooting sports. Depending on how many sports one plays may require anywhere from 1 to 3 to 5 different guns in any single venue times number of family members participating. It becomes fairly easy for any family of shooters to own 20 – 30 firearms

        • D_C_Wilson

          And how many families are made up of multiple competitive shooters participating in dozens of different sports? It’s like collectors. It’s not unusual for a collector to own 20-30 firearms, but there aren’t enough collectors to base an entire industry around.

          • RimfireShooter

            I couldn’t say one way or the other. IDPA, 3-gun, Cowboy Action, Vintage rifle, shotgun sports (trap/skeet/sporting clays) and a bunch of others are all growing fairly rapidly these days. And the self-defense crowd is growing I guess.

            Maybe all of those are on par with collectors as a segment. Maybe a lot bigger.

            I don’t hunt, and don’t own them for self-defense. For me, they are more akin to expensive sporting equipment I wouldn’t own if they were just going to sit in a closet

    • formerlywhatithink

      What’s sad about this is how the gun industry has the NRA by the balls, and the NRA has gun fans by the balls, and none of them know it.

      Seeing as they’re all dicks, it makes sense.

  • Vermillion

    I will ask this one question: does that mean the NRA is going to stop saying we need better mental health facilities, and blaming video games? Because if blindness shouldn’t be a limitation on gun usage, why should they?

    Maybe they can get rid of those silly laws preventing felons from owning guns! They should be able to protect themselves too, right? Even those who have proven to be violent, well that just means they have more to fear! As long as you are American, you should have the right to own a gun, and never be in fear of losing it, even if you prove to be totally incapable of wielding one safely.

    I mean, rah rah rah, Second Amendment and all! Gotta protect yourselves folks! Don’t want the boogeyman to get ya!

    An armed society is a polite society. Just look at Deadwood.

    You’ll always be safe with your gun. Always. ALWAYS.

    • D_C_Wilson

      The mental health/video game angle was just a ploy to get the public talking about something other than guns. If it were up to the NRA, the only requirement for purchasing a gun would be the ability to fog a mirror. And they would probably waive that if a vampire wanted to buy a gun.

    • RimfireShooter

      If you’ve served your time and are no longer incarcerated, I’m 100% in favor some pathway to regain one’s right to own a firearm and/or the ability to vote. Whether that’s from a non violent felony, felonious DUI, drug possession, etc.

      Besides, stop fooling yourself. Felons arent remotely slowed down from aquiring firearms regardless of background checks and/or even registration within states that require it. Civil war firearms are totally unregulated. Felony possession when not used in a crime is just another excuse to feed the prison industry

  • Jim Dandy

    1) You don’t take seriously a discussion of rights and just where that line should be? Thank goodness you’re not in control of the ACLU. When you start your rebuttal with an Argument by Dismissal, should you really be calling the kettle black over some alleged straw man logical fallacy? Argument by Dismissal Fallacy

    2) I don’t see an argument here, except conceding his point, and then complaining about the same practice of using a representational graphic by almost every local and national news opinion/editorial commentator around. Red Herring Fallacy

    3) Welcome to YOUR first straw man in your rebuttal. Where did the man say they would or should get involved in such a scenario? Or any sighted person for that matter? It’s an incredibly bad idea to jump into a gun fight between police and criminals, sighted or not. Straw Man Fallacy

    4) Are you suggesting rape only occurs in the victim’s home? Or that victims only have the right to defend themselves from rape in their home? Is that Moving The Goalposts? Can you tell me what exactly is your concern with a blind woman putting her pistol into her attacker’s stomach and pulling the trigger? Moving The Goalposts Fallacy?

    5) Reductio Ad Absurdum. Did you pick a different logical fallacy for each rebuttal intentionally or just get lucky? The “safety proceedures” you mock here would be things like having to get closer to their attacker. To wait longer to figure out an attacker is an attacker.

    6) No one is saying that? What exactly IS suggesting blind people will start popping off rounds in the general direction of gunfire without knowing what’s going on? You now, as you yourself just did in your Point Number 3? Straw Man Fallacy claiming a straw man fallacy

    7) MAIG/Everytown/Moms Demand measures their rhetoric? Which yardstick did they use when they included Tamerlan Tsarnayev a victim of gun violence? PS, Poisoning The Well.

    • don

      Wow. Good rebuttal.

    • feloniousgrammar

      And if that felon is caught with guns he’s prohibited from having, then he’s probably going back to prison. That crimes are always going to be committed does not mean that we should just not bother to outlaw it.

      • RimfireShooter

        They aren’t going back to prison. Laws on felony possession carry a mandatory 10 year sentence. Another 10 for every bullet found.

        Those laws are never enforced Federally. Heck, the Federal DA in Chicago has already stated on record that his office has zero intention of prosecuting such gun laws

    • Steven Skelton

      Well said. I like Bob, but he really doesn’t give a shit about our rights.

      • JozefAL

        Well, Steven, bear in mind that our FIRST Amendment rights are NOT completely free of restrictions or limitations yet for some insane reason, gun nuts seem to believe that the Second Amendment (which DOES come with a definite restriction–“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” in case you don’t remember) should be without restriction.

        You can worship Dagon or Baal if you want–that’s guaranteed under the First Amendment–but you can NOT practice human sacrifice as part of it.

        You can talk or write smack all you want to about someone–but once you cross the line with slander or libel, your ass can be sued. And that is NOT violating your First Amendment rights.

        You want to join the Communist Party? Go for it. The First Amendment lets you do it (McCarthy was wrong) and you can NOT lose your job for it–no matter what your job is (you probably wouldn’t want to join the military but if you don’t think of yourself as being an “enemy” of the United States, you can take the oath and serve honorably).

        You want to hold a protest march or you want to make a public speech, the First Amendment protects those choices. BUT, the march will most likely require a permit issued by local authorities and whatever venue you choose for the speech is within its rights to charge money for use of the facility with neither violating the First Amendment.

        But the Second Amendment does NOT guarantee you a right to walk around in public to intimidate others by displaying your weapon. The Second does NOT guarantee you a right to “open carry” that weapon (show me where the Second mentions “open carry”). But the so-called Second Amendment absolutists believe the contrary. And they are 100% wrong about it.

        • NukeDoc

          Are you implying that guns are not currently restricted?

          If it gun rights advocates that always forget the “well-regulated” part…I’m just curious as to what you think “shall not be infringed” means. Just some silly thing we can throw out without an amendment?

    • formerlywhatithink

      “3) Welcome to YOUR first straw man in your rebuttal. Where did the man say they would or should get involved in such a scenario? Or any sighted person for that matter? “

      You’re joking, right? It’s been the NRA’s mantra if more people had guns, there’d be less shootings and shootings would be greatly reduced because the “good” guy with the gun could kill/over power the bad guy with the gun.

    • Peter James

      >>>>>”It’s an incredibly bad idea to jump into a gun fight between police and criminals, sighted or not. Straw Man Fallacy”

      Oh really?

      Tell that to this SEEING “responsible” gun owner (TM)…who thought it was a good idea to lend the cops a hand.,0,2605611.story?track=rss

      You Gun Nuts (also TM) are so stupid sometimes I wonder if you ever hear yourselves talking to know what it sounds like.

      Go peddle your bullshit to someone with an room temperature IQ.

    • Peter James

      I was going to stay out of this, but fuck it…

      The Stupid, it BUUURRRNNNSSSS!!!

      1) Actually, the person guilty of “Argumentum ad lapidem” or Argument by Dismissal fallacy is Dom himself, when he dismisses anyone who disagrees with his premise as not taking their rights seriously enough.
      It is possible to disagree with him WHILE taking your rights seriously enough, and possibly even BECAUSE you take your rights seriously enough.

      But that’s how he chooses to open his argument.
      And yet you’re accusing Bob of being guilty of that despite the fact that he goes through the pains of explaining exactly why he thinks Dom’s argument is not sound and why he (Bob) feels as he does about DOm’s statement.

      Take another crack at it or learn the correct application of accusing someone of “Argumentum ad lapidem” before using it like an ignoramus.

      (yeah, some of us a studied Formal Logic and Argumentation too)

      2) Actually, Dom’s question here is guilty of “Argumentum ad reductio” by asking a ridiculous question which basically boils down to “Do you think blind people are crazy and unhinged?” and not really that one asking whether their blindness will lead them to start shooting everywhere and in every direction.

      Nobody would suggest that just because a person is blind they are going to just wildly start shooting in every direction in case of danger, unless said person is unhinged, unbalanced, crazy and not temperate.

      So why even ask the question?

      The point would be that in a situation calling for the use of a gun and a blind person starts shooting, chances of hitting a bystander with a stray shot or bullet (or many bystanders for that matter) exponentially increase with a blind person than would be the case with a seein person wherein there would DEFINITELY be collateral damage and missed shots.

      So basically, he asks a ridiculous question to avoid the hard truth that the possibility of untintended damage and injury or deaths is greatly increased when you remove sight (which isn’t even 100% reliable in seeing people’s case) from the equation.

      3) >>>”Where did the man say they would or should get involved in such a scenario? Or any sighted person for that matter?”

      He didn’t.

      He just pointlessly brought up the fact of blind people’s increased spatial awareness to their surrounding as a counter-point to his previous question (see (2)) of them being dangerous handling weapons, as well as to imply they would be more reliable with a gun due to said increased awareness.

      Bob was merely posing the question in response.

      And as for your point as to how it would be an “incredibly bad idea” to jump into a gun fight between police and criminals, like I said previously in another post, tell that to this “responsible” SEEING gun owner…,0,2605611.story?track=rss

      4) >>>”Are you suggesting rape only occurs in the victim’s home? ”

      No he’s not suggesting that.

      But thanks for posing the ultimately pointless question that had no bearing to the point he was making.

      >>>>”Is that Moving The Goalposts? ” Nope. Since clearly you can’t read, or think you’re smart by posing a question about something he wasn’t suggesting and then accusing him of that.

      But nice try there, sport.

      >>>>”Or that victims only have the right to defend themselves from rape in their home?”

      No, only that this push to have blind people own guns would make more sense if it were referring to a situations restricted to their homes where damage and deaths from misfires and stray bullets are limited.

      As Bob pointed out, the law being defended in this video gives blind people the right to carry guns IN PUBLIC.

      >>>>”Can you tell me what exactly is your concern with a blind woman putting her pistol into her attacker’s stomach and pulling the trigger?”

      What? Assuming she already has it in her hand (before her attacker notices her reaching for it and gets it before her in case she doesn’t), somehow knowing full well ahead of time that she was going to be attacked and having the spatial awareness to point it in the right direction (Remember….. BLIND!) and fire within the fraction of the seconds during which she’s physically struggling against someone who’s likely stronger and bigger than her and who already has the jump on her?

      Do you really want me to count for you the number of ways this scenario could go horribly, HORRIBLY wrong, and that’s assuming the stars line up just right for all the events to happen as precisely as I’ve laid them out? (because it never works out that way in real life. In real life, likely her gun drops out as she’s struggling and her assailant…who’s NOT blind… SEES it before she can reach it, and gets it and now you have a rapist with a gun.That’s just ONE way it could go wrong.

      Of many HUNDREDS).

      5) >>>>”The “safety proceedures” you mock here would be things like having to get closer to their attacker. To wait longer to figure out an attacker is an attacker.”

      Because the attacker is going to allow you the room and time to do all that?

      What freaking universe are you living in?

      6) >>>>”What exactly IS suggesting blind people will start popping off rounds in the general direction of gunfire without knowing what’s going on? You now, as you yourself just did in your Point Number 3? ”

      Actually, he DIDN’T suggest that.

      You said he did but he didn’t suggest they would do that.

      Go back and read what he said and try to distinguish what he was positing as a POSSIBLE scenario from what YOU are claiming he is suggesting as a LIKELY eventuality and then learn the difference in meaning between those two words and their application while you’re also learning how to read.

      7) I have no response to what you said here (mainly because it’s too stupid) other than to observe that thhe guy who’s making a horrid analogy between the NRA’s divisive tactics and rhetoric to the likes of MAIG/Everytown/Moms Demand (as if they represent the totality of the Gun Control movement side, or are in anyway singularly representative) using Tsarnayev as part of their talking points, – is, without the slightest hint of self-awareness or irony, accusing Bob of Poisoning the Well
      (which, incidentally, isn’t a formal Logical Fallacy, I’m sure you’re aware of that being the “expert” you are. Neither are “Moving the Goal posts” or some other nonsensical shit like “Strawman claiming a Strawman”.
      In fact, I think we should all agree that the word “Fallacy” probably doesn’t mean what YOU think it does, and leave it at that.
      You’ve made enough of a fool of yourself for one day.)

      • NukeDoc

        lol you referenced gawker

      • Jim Dandy

        1) Wait, so it’s ok for one to open that way, but not the other? You’d forgive the author here, but not Dom?

        2) So Dom asks a question one would have to be unhinged to agree with, and you then proceed to agree with it? People with disabilities adapt to them every day. To claim they wouldn’t be able to come up with a shoot-no-shoot decision tree avoiding a situation “wherein there would DEFINITELY be collateral damage and missed shots.”?

        3) So because some idiot did something stupid, that’s reason enough to believe everyone else is an idiot who will also do the same something stupid? We’ll certainly lose a lot of rights under that paradigm. People voted for David Duke. They may have literally drank the Kool-Aid in Jonestown.

        4) “But thanks for posing the ultimately pointless question that had no bearing to the point he was making.”

        Allowing for defense in the home, to a crime that isn’t limited to the home has no bearing on the point he was making? Really?

        “As Bob pointed out, the law being defended in this video gives blind people the right to carry guns IN PUBLIC.”

        Wait, I thought my question wasn’t relevant? But we’re back to in the home vs “IN PUBLIC” – Was it relevant or not?

        “Do you really want me to count for you the number of ways this scenario could go horribly, HORRIBLY wrong, ”

        That can’t happen to a sighted person? I’ve had things I dropped handed back to me any number of times. But let’s move on- Because you can create a hypothetical chain of events that leads directly to a hypothetical result that supports your position, we shouldn’t risk those events coming to pass, no matter how unlikely or no matter how much someone who hasn’t done anything wrong should have the ability to defend themselves?

        5) “What freaking universe are you living in?” The one where the legally blind, and the truly blind who haven’t been convicted of a crime or adjudicated mentally defective are assumed to be good, decent people who can be trusted to act responsibly while adapting to their disability. Which one are you living in?

        6) Possible scenario? Are we stripping rights for possible scenarios now? Hey, it’s possible any of us could lead the revolt to overthrow the government. There goes free speech.

        7) A horrid analogy. Between a multi-armed group that, while being the face of the movement, doesn’t represent the entirety of one side of the gun control debate, and another multi-armed group that, while being the face of the movement, doesn’t represent the totality of the other side of the gun control debate. Oh my Lord, how could I have been so blind. You’re absolutely right.

        8) Bonus: There is one basic reason we attach a firearms disability to people in this country. Prior proof that that INDIVIDUAL cannot be trusted to act responsibly. There are a number of specific circumstances but they all boil back down to that specific premise. Conviction of a serious crime. Addiction/Illegal use of controlled substances. The inability to manage a mental disease or disability to the point of requiring the State to step in and manage it for you. Blindness doesn’t met ANY of those criteria.

        You still haven’t answered the basic question behind this whole debate. What is it about being blind that makes one incapable of acting responsibly? What mental defect does blindness cause that prevents the creation and implementation of a responsible shoot-no-shoot decision tree to justify removing one of their rights?

  • Steven Skelton

    Which other consititutional rights rights would you take from the disabled?

    • D_C_Wilson

      I for one support giving quadriplegics a gun. Sure, there’s no possible way for them to physically pull the trigger, but, rights! Besides, if not being able to see was an impediment to being able to use a firearm safetly, wouldn’t the US military have a requirement that you pass a basic eyesight test before you could enlist?

      Or we can just use common sense and acknowledge that having a disability means you simply aren’t able to do some things. That isn’t taking away anyone’s rights. It’s simply acknowledging reality.

      • RimfireShooter

        Quads can shoot and are even taken hunting by various groups.

        I can’t imagine there are many totally blind people to begin with. Let alone many totally blind people who would want a gun, let alone be in the small percentage that carry, but generally speaking…….

        It seems the best way to get someone to do something, or buy something, is tell them they aren’t allowed when everyone else can.

        • JozefAL

          “I can’t imagine there are many totally blind people to begin with.”

          What fucking world do you live in?

          Do you know the names Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Ronnie Milsap, Andrea Bocelli, John Milton, Helen Keller? These are people who were TOTALLY blind–if not from birth, then for a large portion of their lives.

          But the WHO defines blindness as less than 20/500 in a person’s BEST eye and the AMA accepts less than 20/200 in the person’s best eye. IOW, for the AMA, who sees at 20 feet what the average person sees at 200 feet is blind. Now, consider the average shooting range. Most target practice starts at 20 feet; a “legally” blind person (per the AMA guides) wouldn’t be able to see that far away–they’d need to start with a target ONE FOOT away to gain any initial proficiency (IOW, quite literally in front of their face) and a target 20 feet away might as well not even be there.

          • RimfireShooter

            You still missed the point that the number of totally blind people who might carry is statistically almost irrelevant

  • don

    Since the mass shooting seems to be the evidence often sited as the prima facie evidence we need gun control shouldn’t you be waiting for a blind mass shooter event to get on your indigent soap box? Actually, Bob, you have exposed the gun control turns quickly into a legitimacy of person-hood test. Some people get to carry guns and some do not based on what criteria? They wear a uniform? They live in a certain place? They think like you do?

    By-the-way a blind person sitting in their home doesn’t have a right to shoot someone entering without identifying themselves when asked? A shot gun is pretty effective at assuring they do.

    • formerlywhatithink

      There’s stupid, there’s ignorant and there’s this, which makes stupid and ignorant look good.

      • don

        Somehow, I am reminded of Stewart Smally ;).

    • RimfireShooter

      Try not to read Bob’s work as serious commentary but satire geared for the hard left fringe.

      • Vermillion

        Really? That’s amazing. I thought the hard left fringe would be whining about how Bob is being ableist for pointed out the FUCKING OBVIOUS STUPIDITY OF THIS.

        • RimfireShooter

          The only thing obvious about this topic presented here is the inability to distinguish between being 100% blind and varying degrees of legal blindness. Which might vary from as little as a stigma that prevents driving and/or some depth perception to total blindness. And depending on state whether COLOR blindness is included under the broad category of ‘legally blind.’

          • Vermillion

            The video is not making that distinction. It even has the blatant caricature of an old blind man with dark glasses on. They have no intention of limiting this ti legally blind people.

          • RimfireShooter

            I’m not commenting on the lame video, but Bob ought to be bright enough to get it, and make the distinction. Or maybe not.

    • Vermillion


      1) The mass shootings aren’t the “prima facie evidence” we need gun control. The numerous instances of gun injuries and deaths are. Prima facie evidence is evidence that, unless directly rebutted, is strong enough to make a case for for a certain outcome. Even if there were no mass shootings, there is still enough evidence of reckless and callous use of firearms to make a case for gun control. The fact that a majority of Americans actually DO want common-sense gun control should point to that. The mass shootings are simply the only times the media are willing to crack through the narrative folks like the NRA keep trying to sell.

      2) A “person-hood” test? Tell me, how many nio-whites have there been in these NRA ads? How many non-whites have there been prominently promoted by the NRA at all? How come the NRA never defends the high gun death rate of Chicago? I mean, where is teh outreach there? YOu mean to tell me that poor, non-white people in the city somehow have less crime and violence to fear than the average white suburban? How come all these threats they seem to want to protect themselves against never seem to be whites?

      3) “That wear a uniform?” At least with the uniform, I can have a quick judgment as to how much firearm safety training this person may have had, rather than trust that the yahoo in Wal-Mart bought fatigues carrying a semi-auto rifle is magically more competent and trained than your average soldier.

      4) If you really feel that blind people should have guns, please, go down to your local shooting range and wear a blindfold while shooting. See how welcome they will make you feel while there. Because guns don’t have GUNSIGHTS for a reason.

      5) Even if people were to use the Daredevil logic he uses, even Daredevil could have his hearing confused by loud or multiple sounds. Like, the kind of sounds during a firefight.

      6) Since we are dealing with hypotheticals and all, what if the person CAN’T announce themselves? Their mouths are full, they could not be able to speak, they may not speak the same language, they might be frightened silent by a blind person leveling a shotgun at them…

      • feloniousgrammar

        In my peace-time experience in the military, when we weren’t on armed guard duty, our weapons were locked up and all accounted for— people walking around a base with a gun for no particular reason wasn’t tolerated in my day. Anyone know how it is now? Do soldiers walk around demonstrating their second amendment rights while in uniform?

      • don

        1. “Numerous instances of gun injuries and deaths” … the problem is that with out the mass shootings its hard to make an argument that guns don’t save as many lives and they take defending people.

        2. “YOu mean to tell me that poor, non-white people in the city somehow have less crime and violence to fear than the average white suburban?” No, quite the opposite. White suburbia is designed to export risk anywhere but there. And, it is white suburban women who are afraid of guns, men, and generally everything else under the sun.

        3. True, in the day when men helped raised their sons (and daughters) there was a ritual of teaching them how to shoot and handle a gun. Most gun owners take training and safety very seriously. The “yahoo” at Walmart is a problem. Maybe the concept of Walmart is the greater threat you should be worried about.

        4. This is why people shouldn’t tell other people how to live or survive. There are several scenarios in which a blind person can defend themselves with a weapon at close range without putting anyone else in danger.

        5. I am not sure what to make of this section. I guess, in a firefight, let’s make sure the blind person is the one that is unarmed.

        6. If you are stupid enough to walk into a house unannounced, without knocking, and expect the world to accommodate you … well ….

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Some people get to carry guns and some do not based on what criteria?


  • labman57

    The (ethically) blind leading the (physically) blind.

  • RimfireShooter

    Its already legal in a number of other states for those legally blind to own and/or carry a firearm. I haven’t followed it, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there hasn’t been any accidents or problems allowing people to do so.

    Legally blind is not necessarily “blind,” though i suppose those 100% blind or just blind beyond 20 feet are included. There’s a range of vision one might have and still be legally blind.

    Most ‘gun fights,’ or self defensive gun use is under 10 feet. If you can see shapes, you’re good to go.

    Active shooters on a campus or in public? Unless the gun carrier is religious and feels compelled to head toward gun fire, I’d say most if not all people who carry (legally blind or not) are going the other direction. I don’t carry, but the friends I have that do on a daily basis don’t carry to protect you. You’ve made your bed. You’re on your own until the police show up

    • D_C_Wilson

      But how do you tell whether a shape is a good shape with a gun or a bad shape with a gun?

      • RimfireShooter

        I’m not legally blind but I bet it would be the shape lunging toward me, twisting one of my arms in some way, and/or otherwise pulling on my clothing.

        • Vermillion

          Ah yes, because people wanting to hurt will only do so in close quarters or arm’s length. Especially if you produce a long-range weapon and indicate that you cannot aim but so far away.

          • feloniousgrammar

            I picture the bad guy throwing something across the room to make the blind guy shoot someone else.

            But seriously, I understand that the blind are vulnerable to predators that prey on the most vulnerable and I am 100% in favor of licensed gun owners having a gun for self-defense; but nine times out of ten, when it comes to the poor and the working poor who rent, they would be much more safe and secure if their landlords were required to provide good security, burglar bars, solid doors with deadbolts and home security services.

            I’ve never lived in a house or apartment in which I could not kick in the front door if I wanted to.

          • RimfireShooter

            And I picture you attacking windmills at the few blind people who might carry in the first place. I’m not going to do the math but I’d bet its almost a statistically insignificant risk you’re worrying about

        • D_C_Wilson

          Why would a bad shape with a gun need to lunge at you or pull on your clothing? Wouldn’t the bad shape with a gun just shoot you? Also, what if you think a bad shape with a gun is lunging toward you, but he’s actually a good shape with a gun lunging toward a bad shape with a gun that’s behind you?

          • RimfireShooter


      • Peter James

        The only thing that can stop a bad shape with a gun, is a good shape with a gun.

        • feloniousgrammar


    • Vermillion

      “If you can see shapes, you’re good to go.”

      Know what? I quit. I fucking quit. Have all the guns you want., blow each other’s brain all over the fucking pavement. I don’t give a shit anymore. Just fuck it.

      Just…the utter delusional rationalization of this kind of thing. I just….you feel like you need guns so badly? You feel so scared of the outside world you need to know every person within reach is packing heat, go right ahead. Count me out of this. I don’t care anymore.

      And if someone were to shoot up a place I am in, and I am hit, well good goddamn riddance, because I don’t want to live in the kind of world where that sentence makes sense to anybody. Apparently the world is so chaotic and civilization is ready to crumble into dust that we have to arm up like it’s Mad Max.

      • Ipecac

        Totally agree with the sentiment.

        Here’s the thing. I don’t WANT the ability to instantly kill another person. I don’t WANT the “temptation” or whatever the hell it might be to actually pull the trigger on someone else. Yes, I will defend myself if attacked, but to actually choose to make someone die? No thank you.

        (And spare me all the ridiculous hypotheticals about my family being held at gunpoint, blah, blah, blah. The odds of those scenarios actually happening is ridiculously small.)

        If you are so scared for your life while in your home, community and work that you need to carry a gun, maybe you should move somewhere else. Or grow some balls.

        • feloniousgrammar

          I’m a 5 foot 2″ 117 pound woman who has traveled around this country and Europe on my own and have lived in Houston, which is the fourth largest city in this country.

          Since I can’t drive, I decided in my early twenties that I was going to walk where I wanted to go, even at night. There have been a few incidents I had to deal with, and I’m quite aware of the risks, but I just walked as if I carried a loaded gun and had no desire to use it. I paid attention to my surroundings and was never confrontational. I was lucky in many regards, but I wasn’t afraid all the time. I can’t imagine spending my life in a state of constant paranoia.

          All risks cannot be eliminated or accounted for. I feel like I hardly recognize this country sometimes. Who are all these cowards? Where did they come from?

          • RimfireShooter

            I dont carry but know many people who do. Like yourself, they recognize their own limitations but unlike you take steps to be proactive in their own safety.

            For many who live in urban areas and do carry, having a firearm makes them no more scared of the outside world, then wearing a seat belt makes you scared to be driving on the road.

            Low risk in both cases. To them its simply dumb not to do both.

            This ‘fear’ thing that gets stated often doesn’t actually exist. Its purely projection on your end.

          • feloniousgrammar

            Oh, really now? Tell me about the War on Whites, Rimfire. And Obama’s gonna take our guns! Pretend for a moment that you can see this gun mania as part of something larger.

            I grew up in a hard-assed working poor redneck neighborhood. While cities were burning across the U.S. and Manson and serial killers were in the news, we all started locking our doors and windows when we left our houses and stopped leaving keys in cars while we dashed into a store.

            What we did not do during the absolutely tumultuous year of 1969, was arm ourselves to the teeth against any possible predator.

            I’m 53 years old and I have never seen anything like this. It’s not normal. It’s not laid back. It’s not casual. It’s not the behavior of people who aren’t afraid to step out into the world without a gun. It’s the behavior of people gunning for a fight and the paranoid.

          • RimfireShooter

            I have no idea on what the ‘war on whites’ is. I know that gun culture has been growing for quite some time. Its becoming mainstream again. CCWs with urbanites and women being a big clump in that growth. Carrying a firearm on a daily basis is NORMAL behavior without a second thought. Promoted by law enforcement in many parts of the country. And yes, its carrying for an extremely rare event that is unlikely.

            But aside from the general stuff, and touching on what you’re observing, is the mass behavior of people who dont feel like they have an outlet to vent their frustration. R or D they feel like nobody represents them. Dont feel they have a voice with a government that seems hugely out of control fiscally and in scope. Its the behavior of people who have a strong distrust of an ever growing, ever intrusive federal government that neither thinks twice about arming up with surplus military vehicles, hoarding ammunition well beyond training purposes, gathering information at ridiculous levels, etc.

            People are on edge for a lot of reasons. You seem to be noticing different aspects, but its there nonetheless.

          • Ipecac

            I know that gun culture has been growing for quite some time. Its becoming mainstream again. … Carrying a firearm on a daily basis is NORMAL behavior without a second thought. Promoted by law enforcement in many parts of the country. And yes, its carrying for an extremely rare event that is unlikely.

            And the only cost is thousands of dead Americans a year from suicide, accidents, and homicides, including hundreds of children.

            (And, yes, apart from accidents, many suicides and homicides might still happen without easy access to guns. But guns make it a lot easier and more convenient. Look at ALL other modern industrial countries in comparison.)

          • RimfireShooter

            You mean all those other countries that never had gun violence to begin with right?

            Most gun owners I know break down the numbers and aren’t overly persuaded by your arguments. 2/3rds are suicides. An act of choice. The other 1/3 is according to the FBI largely drug and gang related. Also unpersuasive.

            And really, if the govt cared so much, it would be actively enforcing current gun laws which carry mandatory sentences. Something many Federal DAs aren’t remotely interested in doing.

          • Ipecac

            Yeah, you’re right. Those other countries have a HISTORY of not slaughtering their own countrymen. Why would we want to emulate those pussies?

            And if people want to kill themselves, screw them. And the rest of those gun deaths are just druggies. Who needs ’em? The children, domestic abuse victims, and other “bystanders” don’t exist and aren’t worth caring about, amiright?

          • RimfireShooter

            They don’t have a history of GUN VIOLENCE. There’s simply no correlation between gun violence and preventing tragedy. Its a gang and drug issue; not a gun issue.

            You simpletons have told yourselves its a gun problem so long, you’ve totally ignored the cultural issues that make people into violent monsters

            As to the rest? You mean the 20 or so young children as the teenagers that die predominantly are gang affiliated.

            And stop. You don’t give 2 shits about them either. If you did, you’d be screaming to have the felons who are caught with guns put away forever.

          • Ipecac

            It must be “nice” to live in a world where the only child victims of gun violence are “gang affiliated”. I didn’t realize that Sandy Hook was a haven for gang-bangers.

            It’s not a gang and drug issue, it’s an issue of easy availability of weapons of destruction. Other countries don’t have the availability and don’t have the carnage. You can blame video games and music (cultural issues) all you want, but “Gun worship” is the cultural issue you should be worried about.

          • RimfireShooter

            Yes, its called reading actual reports put out by experts like the CDC, the FBI, the NIJ, and actual acedemic research Face it, if your knowledge base is coming from Bob, Huffpo, the Gawker and Mother Jones you likely have dumbed yourself down by huge proportions.

            People have always had easy access to firearms and always will. Don’t push that BS meme on me. Its nothing more than deflection. Same shit Sharpton uses calling everything racism because addressing the underlying problems within black culture itself must be avoided at all cost. The difference today is the culture, period.

            And Sandy Hook? Different problem sport. You can either talk mass shootings (which also occur in other countries), or general violence, but they both aren’t the same. Different problems that require different solutions.

          • Ipecac

            You mean the entities that Republicans have forbidden by law from conducting gun studies? Yeah.

            I’ll trade our rate of mass shootings with nearly any other country in the world.

            It is the culture, “sport”, but it’s also the availability of guns.

          • RimfireShooter

            The CDC does plenty of studies with or without govt fiscal assistance. Always have. They lost funding for a time for stating to Congress itself that they wanted to do biased research. They have themselves to blame on that one.

            Fortunately there are plenty of Govt agencies that aren’t interested in producing biased work.

            BTW – Maybe the CDC’s learned their lesson. The finding of one CDC study post Sandy Hook at the President’s bequest found that you are less likely to be injured, or victimized in any manner if you carry a firearm for self-defense. (As if anyone needed a study for that).

            “It is the culture, “sport”, but it’s also the availability of guns.” – Yup. Inner city culture predominantly. Lots of guns out rurally in many states with almost no homicides. Perhaps you can explain how availability is somehow different today (or worse) then say before 1960 when anyone could have a gun mailed to their front door along with ammo and without a background check at all? Especially since crime rates were half what they are now, which is also half what they were when they peaked.

          • Ipecac

            Yup. Inner city culture predominantly.

            And . . . . there it is. We’re done.

          • RimfireShooter

            Why is that? Is it racist to you to point out the truth? Is it just easier to believe propaganda vs using that lump 3ft above your ass? How can you even begin to address the problem of violence if you’re unwilling to examine the culture and locations that cause the majority of it?

            The FBI and NIJ put gang and drug related activities at 85% of the gun violence problem discounting suicide.

            So tell me again about which culture is to blame? And since you didn’t answer the previous question on availability, I’m going to assume your just parroting another empty talking point.

          • Regina Wanassa

            No, people have not always had easy access to firearms. And the nitty gritty about access to firearms in this country is that the glorious Founding Fathers actually did forbid those who were “Notoriously Disaffected to the American Cause” from owning firearms.

          • RimfireShooter

            Ridiculous. Of course they have. Any such declaration by a founding father would’ve been meaningless and you know it.

            Do you just invent these factually innacurate posts or do you actually believe this nonsense?

          • Regina Wanassa

            My post is factually inaccurate because you are ignorant of history…. that’s about the size of it.

            Continental Congress, March 14th, 1776:

            “Resolved, That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions, Councils, or Committees of Safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed, within their Respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the Cause of America….”

          • RimfireShooter

            So are you also arguing Ipecac’s assertion that the availability to obtain guns was lower before background checks? That the availability was lower when guns and ammo could be mailed to one’s front door. I think we both know availability was much higher in the 1960’s while the violent crime rate was much lower then today. That’s easy to verify

            “Resolved….America….” – Enforced how? Um. Wasn’t. I think you’ll find no resources were allocated to enforcing the proclamation. Much as a restraining order sets conditions that are all but unenforceable except on the willing. Here’s another modern example. It is illegal for a felon to vote. Background checks cost money and are not generally conducted on registered voters. The reality is that while we bar felons from voting, we don’t verify it one way or another in most states. We assume it via the honor code.

          • Regina Wanassa

            I didn’t reply to Ipacec; I replied to you, and I wasn’t referencing anything Ipacec had to say. Your assertion concerning gun ownership was incorrect as is your current one regarding resources and enforcement. Again, you would do well to study American history much more in depth. Plenty of resources were allocated to accommodate the nascent infrastructure as the early republic evolved – the entire disaffection endeavor was pretty well coordinated via numerous commissions and committees. All things considered they were quite successful and arguably America couldn’t have come into being without those efforts – it is those efforts that created a nation out of an unjoined set of colonies.

            As to arguing for Ipecac’s assertions: It appears to me that Ipacec is on the right track. It is an historically revisionist and fundamentally dysfunctional gun culture that is driving the myriad firearms crises in America today. Guns and gun ownership place every American citizen in a condition of systemic crises. Should you care to take an objective eye at research I think you’ll find that the statistics in the U.S. and abroad bear out the notion that the number of guns and the presence of guns matter considerably – access, availability, and ownership are the central factors responsible for high rates of gun violence; gun suicide; and gun accidents resulting in death or injury. Guns are a systemic problem in America which require a comprehensive solution predicated upon sound first principles. I won’t play link-a-study with you in part because your evaluative skills, thus far, leave much to be desired. You are free to believe what you will. I think it’s quite plain you and I occupy very different starting points when entering into the questions at hand. I understand precisely where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree. While you parrot NRA’s talking points well – that perspective has proven ill-advised and, in the main, erroneous.

            On background checks: They are an inexpensive necessity if America is going to continue on its current path of legitimizing an illegitimate right and even if America adopts a more rational and historically accurate course. Moreover, background checks are only the tiniest fraction of a solution. Every armed citizen is an imminent threat to every other citizen in America. There are no such things as “responsible gun owners” because there is no system in place to ensure that every gun owner in America is responsible and accountable for themselves and their firearms according to an objective standard designed to secure public safety. Japan does have such a system and American legislators would do well to emulate it in part or in whole.

            You make a good point about willingness. When there are those unwilling to conform to common standards and public authority, a great number of measures (not just gun control) become more challenging to enforce, but not unenforceable. Again, other countries (like Japan) have shown tremendous success in the area of gun control because gun owners are willing to submit to the necessities that maintaining the public welfare requires. The cost we need concern ourselves with is not monetary but the price paid in human lives and the unbearable cost of families who must endure after gun tragedy. The cost is the quality of life in America. Reducing the quantity of guns to preserve the quality of life is well worth the the price paid – well worth it, many generations over.

            Alexander Hamilton was absolutely correct when he asserted that weapons and ammunition manufacturing should never be placed in the avaricious hands of the private sector. Altering that grave error would also be a step in the right direction. Guns serve no purpose or function in modern society, that is, if we are to maintain modern society in any civilized manner. Their manufacture and distribution are best kept under the public authority.

            You may have some meaningful parallel developing there between voting and gun ownership, but it is as yet undeveloped. Voting isn’t achieved through the honor system and gun ownership isn’t a natural right conveyed by the Constitution. Voting is a natural right. If Voter ID is a reasonable solution for preventing felons from voting then there must be some verifiable evidence that felons routinely commit voter fraud. There is no such evidence. Voter fraud of any kind isn’t a problem in America today other than voter fraud committed by Right Wing activists attempting to force the issue of Voter ID. Death and injury attributable to firearms, on the other hand, are serious and multitiered problems. By scale, then, much more stringent measures ensuring felons don’t acquire firearms are surely in order. Such measures are likely to impact non-felons. That’s really where the willingness issue starts to get a little gritty.

          • RimfireShooter

            Holy cow, that was a lot of nothing. Can’t say i read past the 1st paragraph or two. Way too much incorrect public education to wade through. Tell me you didn’t pay too much for college.

            I wish i could state you wrote it in jest, but I’m sure you actually believe it! Wow. Hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic

            “Your assertion concerning gun ownership was incorrect as is your current one regarding resources and enforcement”

            BS – This the 3rd or 4th time you stated this followed by …….. wait for it………. no evidence to back your OPINION.

            Not a clue with this one.

            PS – What NRA talking points? You mean stats from the FBI, CDC, and NIJ cause those are the only ones i use.

          • Regina Wanassa


            If you’re ignorant of the “war on whites” meme you’re uninformed and you’re probably going to play catch-up. I don’t want to second guess Felonious, and I’m also certain she would summarize much better than I. You’d be wise to contemplate her comments as her perspective in general is sound and sensible. Her point is insightful you’d do well to contemplate it further. I recommend you read her comment more than once.

            As to your observation: what you describe is a Conservative society. Its characteristics are all the aftershocks of decades-long Conservative belligerence, Conservative governance, and NRA propaganda-marketing. The solution for the disarray isn’t an armed citizenry. You’re right to note that the country is fracturing apart. We need unity, union, and a stronger federal government to remedy that situation.

          • RimfireShooter

            An even stronger more ambivalent abusive slow responsive government is the answer?

            You got you head firmly inside your rear if you think more is the answer. I’m hardly right wing, but it doesn’t take brain surgery to understand that were stronger allowing regional and state cultures to thrive while having a central govt do only basic things. It allows a natural release valve for people to move.

            Maybe some are right and the only thing that’ll save this experiment is a full blown Article IV ConCon

          • Regina Wanassa


            I didn’t suggest you were Conservative, though now that you bring it up, whether or not you align with the Republican Party or Libertarianism, the perspectives you express here and on previous threads are thoroughly Conservative in nature. I’d add your perspectives are conspicuously regressive in nature. Your party affiliation is immaterial to your level of Conservativeness or the level of regressiveness embedded in your ideas.

            The Conservatism I noted in my comment references the Conservative features you pointed to. American society is a Conservative society. Conservatives intend to keep it that way.

            “An even stronger more ambivalent abusive slow responsive government is the answer?” No. That isn’t the answer, nor is that a wholly accurate description of the federal government. At this juncture, I’d say take a look at how other countries have applied America’s great Democratic experiment. We have much to learn from others. Scandinavia is a good place to examine. Japan too. The inefficacies of the federal government are not due to the essence of federalism – the federal government has been systematically sabotaged by small-minded, small-government saboteurs.

            American democracy isn’t failing due to sound federalism. Federalization, union, and creating a stronger, more energetic government are the Constitution’s reasons-for-being. In 1787 American society was imploding in on itself and it was threatened from without, not unlike what we see in the 21st century. The reasons for internal degradation in 1787 are comparable to today. Too much power accorded to tyrannical states and too much power concentrated in the hands of too few individuals. The solution then was stronger federalization. It is the same solution now.

            America today is failing because the American people are incapable of self-governance due to deliberate subversion from within, authoritarian diffusion rather than open-minded unity, petty tyranny due to abuse of the Bill of Rights, predatory capitalism, political belligerence, fanatical religiosity, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and bigotry. All products of small minds. Small government is the product of small minds.

            Small government furthers predatory capitalism, political belligerence, fanatical religiosity, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and bigotry.

            I urge you to recognize that regionalism and “state culture,” as you put it, are the sources of American decline. It doesn’t take brain surgery, or rocket science if you prefer, to figure out that this is exactly the opposite direction that the Constitution was intended to lead. It was the state governments that were seats of tyranny and corruption then. It is regionalism and its resultant factionalism that corrodes America today. Diversity is a double-edged sword – it can operate as weakness or strength. You articulate its weakness.

            It also doesn’t take brain surgery, or rocket science if you prefer, to understand that sound federalism isn’t a competitive principle. Federalism doesn’t diminish state and regional culture. If anything it enhances it and attempts to preserve the positive elements of regional culture or regional resources. Sound federalism operates on matters common to all citizens irrespective of where that citizen abides. Federalism and union operate democratically (and upon individuals) to form a cohesive unit which conveys the positive and healthy benefits of diversity. At least that’s the principle underpinning our Constitutional government. It’s now the 21st century. It’s high time Americans reevaluate our federalism in order to strengthen it.

            Repealing the 2nd Amendment and enacting a comprehensive, federalized solution for gun control allows for the protection to all while allowing the freedom of communities to determine their own composition. It allows more freedom for all. At the moment, no community in America has the right to declare itself gun-free because the 2nd Amendment is currently subverted to mean what it clearly doesn’t and never did. Even when interpreted properly, the 2nd Amendment no longer applies to 21st century society. It is outmoded and outdated. We no longer have a need for state governments to form and regulate a militia.

            I’d stress two more points again. You were wise to admit your own ignorance in your earlier comment. For your own edification I strongly suggest you remedy your lack of knowledge in this sphere. That’s not a cut, Rimfire. While “ignorance” is often used as a cut, the term itself is neutral. It simply refers to a condition of being uninformed, a condition which you yourself admitted. One easy way to get yourself up to speed is to review the recent posts here at the Daily Banter. Also try asking Felonious to explicate on what she meant by “war on whites” so it might inform her comment for you.

            Again, re-read Felonious’s comment which you initially responded to. Note this insight from that comment:

            “I’m 53 years old and I have never seen anything like this. It’s not normal. It’s not laid back. It’s not casual. it’s not the behavior of people who aren’t afraid to step out into the world without a gun. It’s the behavior of people who are gunning for a fight and the paranoid.”

          • RimfireShooter

            There are roughly 40 pro-gun states. Repeal is delusional thinking. You must live in a big blue state that has a lot of gun control. Most other states are going the opposite direction. The only thing you’ll do is force an additional amendment strengthening it, which frankly I’m surprised hasn’t happened already

            “At this juncture, I’d say take a look at how other countries have applied America’s great Democratic experiment.” – OK. Just because we share a common language doesn’t mean we share the same values. The EU specifically stays out of a lot of cultural issues limiting itself and leaving most to individual countries (some of which are quite small). The EU just isn’t dumb enough to push that direction.

            I live in WA that’s very liberal AND very pro-gun. Liberals like myself around here think you’ve got more than just a few screws loose if you’re anti-gun. And that sentiment isnt just found in this state.

          • Regina Wanassa

            Not sure what you mean by 40 pro-gun states. In any case, states don’t matter. Guns are not a state issue. The issues inherent to guns are not confined or peculiar to any region. The issues pertaining to guns apply to all citizens and therefore require a federalized solution. As to the state-by-state approach – you’re again describing a deliberate and well-coordinated Conservative strategy largely funded by the private sector so it isn’t an argument of any kind.

            Repeal and replace with a sensible, comprehensive approach to how the United States of America treats gun control may, indeed, be delusional thinking. But, I tend to give the human potential a great deal of leeway. I think humans should and will continue thinking, imagining, and progressing toward the betterment of our society – and humanity. I suppose human flight was delusional thinking too, but that didn’t stop people from expanding their mindsets so as to soar the skies did it? I believe Americans are sensible enough to comprehend that repealing and replacing the 2nd Amendment is the most prudent plan for how Americans treat guns in our 21st century society.

            That said, there’s nothing delusional at all in the idea that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. In the 21st century, it doesn’t serve its intended 18th century purpose. The 2nd Amendment only allows for the formation of a government organized militia. Nothing more.

            Your point that other countries don’t share our values isn’t germane. What is germane is learning how other people around the world problem-solve. Those who subvert the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to convey gun ownership don’t share American values either. The latter, in fact, distort American values into disfigured ugliness of the highest order because they distort the values that the Constitution was founded upon.

            There are other countries who, after adopting our great Democratic experiment, hold values much closer to our Framers and Founders (take some of the Scandinavian countries, for example) who devised our Constitution. Much closer, in fact, than the values espoused by the Gun Extremists or even mild gun enthusiasts who subvert the 2nd Amendment for their own purposes at the expense of the public good.

            I don’t know what Article IV Con Con is, I’m eager to hear your explication of it.

            Again, it is you who mentioned that you weren’t familiar with the “War on Whites” meme, which contrary to Spiderbucket’s misidentification is both an attitude and term coined by the Right Wing. Again, my suggestion is if you don’t understand a reference you should query the person who used it. Find out what it means if you are genuinely concerned about discourse, a fuller perspective on this issue or any other issue for that matter, or self-improvement. And again, Daily Banter has posted on the meme. But without making even the minimal effort to discover what it is you do not understand, well that’s just willful ignorance and isn’t conducive to discourse or discussion. That you actively choose willful ignorance is duly noted. Your judgment and the value of your opinion shall hold less weight.

            To be clear, I take no offense at your decision to choose willful ignorance. I do, in fact, understand it to some degree. The process of critical thinking demands a degree of acceptance and rejection. I wouldn’t regard your process thus far as meaningfully critical, but I do respect your effort.

            You can choose to call yourself a Liberal, but your description doesn’t conform to anything in the modern-day that denotes Liberal. 19th century Liberal perhaps, but not 21st century. Again, you’re free to call yourself anything you like, your ideas are still fundamentally Conservative. I think I’ve noted on previous occasion that I’m not a Liberal.

            You are also wise to be wary of unhealthy echo chambers so it is curious that your perspective is reflective of the Extremist Right Wing echo chamber. Or maybe it isn’t. Maybe in Washington Liberals are indistinguishable from Conservatives. I can’t speak to that. I’ve only visited Washington and a few other places in the Pacific Northwest very briefly. To my recollection it was very much to my liking, and I never encountered such Conservative Liberalism as you describe. Perhaps what you describe is more consistent with Libertarian than Liberal?

            I imagine repeal and replace is a threatening prospect to you. It needn’t be. Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t necessarily mean no gun ownership in America because gun ownership isn’t a right to begin with. No rights are lost in repeal. The Constitution wasn’t intended to be a prison, but at the moment that is how it is being treated by those who subvert the rights and liberties conveyed in it.

            Truth be told, as much as I respect the Constitution and as much as I love the ideas that inspired it, there may come a day not too distant in the future when it really should be reworked to better fit the needs of 21st century society and in so doing set a better course than the one we’re on now. I fear that would require much more honest deliberation than what is seen in the national discourse today. Perhaps we need a 2nd Enlightenment in America.

            At any rate, think about Repeal and Replace this way: Repeal would allow for devising a rational framework that takes into consideration all the needs and desires of gun owners. Repeal wouldn’t necessarily mean that you couldn’t skeet shoot on your landed estate, but it would mean genuine “give and take” compromise.

          • RimfireShooter

            Too long to respond to everything. Never call someone brighter than you ignorant.

            “Not sure what you mean by 40 pro-gun states.” – It takes 38 to ratify a repeal. You’re short by a bunch. There are however enough to introduce and pass another clarifying the 2A right ending gun control altogether.

            “Guns are not a state issue. The issues inherent to guns are not confined or peculiar to any region.” – Its a civil rights issue whose attitudes are regional and urban vs rural. Not R vs D

            “The issues pertaining to guns apply to all citizens and therefore require a federalized solution.” – You’re going to be disappointed for a long time.

            “Repeal and replace with a sensible, comprehensive approach to how the United States of America treats gun control may, indeed, be delusional thinking.” – It might also double the homicide rate. See Brazil and Russia’s rates for large diverse countries with a lot of gun control.

            “The 2nd Amendment only allows for the formation of a government organized militia. Nothing more.” – Yawn, you’ve been told you’re wrong before. SCOTUS decisions defining amendments are so rarely I overturned. If yoy cant let it go, I suppose at some point another amendment will need to clarify it for you.

            “Again, it is you who mentioned that you weren’t familiar with the “War on Whites” meme, which contrary to Spiderbucket’s misidentification is both an attitude and term coined by the Right Wing.” – Just not interested enough to research it. Likely a term used to deflect like calling people racist for being opposed to the President vs policy. Or being against immigration vs downward economic pressure on wages. Anything to avoid actually addressing the substance of the issue combined with projection of racism by people who are likely racist themselves.

            And again, Daily Banter has posted on the meme.” – I’m selective on artcles i read here. I read and post purely for entertainment purposes and/or to educate on the gun issue. Honestly I’m not sure many who post here have triple digit IQs and the critical thinking skills are abysmal. I laugh a lot reading responses to my posts.

            “You can choose to call yourself a Liberal, but your description doesn’t conform to anything in the modern-day that denotes Liberal.” – Mostly for environmental reasons as my advanced degrees are in science. I don’t doubt that I don’t conform to the group think you’re used to.

            You are also wise to be wary of unhealthy echo chambers so it is curious that your perspective is reflective of the Extremist Right Wing echo chamber.” – Or yours is so far left you don’t recognize moderate. I read from both ends of the political spectrum. Usually to analyze information. However, I fully admit I’m far right on gun issues. To me its settled science with guns as a net social benefit to society

            “Washington Liberals are indistinguishable from Conservatives.” – Nope. We just haven’t dumbed ourselves down on the gun issue. Pro gay, pro pot legalization, pro legal suicide, pro-gun. At least on guns, you’ll find the same with Dems in many other parts of the country. Remember, Governor Gore had an A rating from the NRA before going national.

            “I imagine repeal and replace is a threatening prospect to you.” – The idea is laughable. Why would it be threatening? That sort of humor is why I waste time here.

            “Repeal wouldn’t necessarily mean that you couldn’t skeet shoot on your landed estate, but it would mean genuine “give and take” compromise.” – Now this is funny right here. Your side can’t get background checks for used guns and you’re talking repeal?

            “Compromise?” – Lol. You go ahead and list 5 things your willing to give gun owners they currently don’t have for background checks on used guns? And provided that they are free on the consumer and done without record in person or by phone (like in WA). I dont pay to go vote. I’m certainly not going to pay for a check when I buy a used gun.

            5 things. Let’s here them

          • Regina Wanassa


            You’ve admitted your own ignorance, you’ve demonstrated your own ignorance, you’ve admitted and demonstrated willful ignorance. Only the ignorant remain so after they’ve been made aware of their condition. Again, ignorance is simply a condition of not being properly informed. I have full faith and confidence in your ability to inform yourself. Whether you are willing to do so is another matter, and whether you are willing to remain ignorant is none of my concern.

            I see now your point regarding 40 states regarding a repeal. Again, all 50 states have been victimized by Right Wing Extremist propaganda, your position mirrors that effort. If your figures are accurate – it speaks to the effectiveness of Extreme Right Wing propaganda. And it is very effective, but unreflective of anything but a dishonest political strategy and certainly nothing unsurmountable. At its core – the rationale behind the politics is toxic for America and will not stand indefinitely.

            Whether guns are a civil rights issue or not (they’re not) isn’t material to the factors that are common to the tragic problems associated with guns. There are no regional differences between rural and urban that play any role in a comprehensive and federalized solution because legitimate gun use is the same across all 50 states. Difference in legitimate purpose doesn’t affect a comprehensive solution and there are so few legitimate purposes that the nation is fairly homogenized in that arena.

            At your suggestion, I will look at Brazil and Russia’s gun control measures more closely.

            The 2nd Amendment does only allow for the formation of a government organized militia and nothing more – I recommend you examine the process undertaken to determine the Amendment’s exact wording. Gun ownership is never suggested, implied or alluded to because the single intent was understood, and it is that intent that is reflected in the debate. That intent is a collective right to form a government regulated militia not an individual right to own or indiscriminately use a commercial product or a weapon of any kind. It wasn’t really much of a debate either. That SCOTUS has chosen to subvert that intent isn’t evidence of anything more than intentional subversion and a broken SCOTUS that isn’t functioning as it should.

            The War on Whites meme: Ah, I see. So you’ve chosen to give your own spontaneous definition to a term without comprehending its meanings or implications. In which case, willful ignorance is accurate and then some. If you are genuinely interested in addressing issues and policy it is probably a good idea to stay informed. That you choose to intentionally misinform yourself indicates your opinion isn’t of value to anyone who does care to problem-solve. You’re off the mark, by the way, with your personalized definition. If you are ever interested to learn what’s happening in the wider world I’m sure you will encounter it again. I hope at that time you will have opened your mind.

            Rimfire, I’ve not stereotyped you – your perspective conforms to a Conservative and Regressive mode of thought. Your political affiliation may tend toward Liberal but your ideas are not liberal. Your ideas aren’t even republican (small r) or democratic (small d). Your ideas and the ways in which you derive them have nothing to do with me. I’ve responded only to those ideas you’ve provided in discussion. I don’t speak to the totality of your person, only to the ideas you offer.

            I do imagine that repeal and replace is threatening to you and I wouldn’t suspect that you’d admit fear.

            I’ll put some thought into those 5 things, Rim. But “you” don’t want anything so it’s not really an honest question on your part, is it? You’re really not genuinely talking compromise, are you? You already have everything you want so you are unwilling to even submit to your own argumentation – that there may regional differences respective to guns – or call it differing wants.

            Given your sentiments it would seem that you are not at “hanging out” at the Daily Banter to engage in honest discourse. That’s a pity. But, at least you’ve been candid about it and that’s appreciated.

            Peace to you, Rim. Again, I hope there comes a day when courage finds you so that you might open your mind.

          • RimfireShooter

            So more of the same dribble without anything but insults to add to the flame. The biggest clue of your ignorance is the basic inability to understand how the amendment process even works via ratification and repeal. High School stuff.

            Heck, i expect more from undergraduates.

            Still no 5 things your willing to offer as ‘compromise’ huh? Could it be because you haven’t a clue as to what gun owners want?

          • spiderbucket

            “War On Whites” Is a meme created to shut down any conversation that does not fit the narrative. feloniousgrammar uses it on pretty much every issue that comes up. She does that instead of thinking.

      • RimfireShooter

        I don’t carry. You missed that. Take some deep breaths and then recognize a lot of people own firearms for sport and recreation. Self-defense for many just becomes an additional bonus in case of national disaster, rioting, and or a rare emergency.

        Justification for ownership isn’t needed.

        Agan, i dont carry. I live rurally where I’m more likely to see a bear running away from me. But for many who live in urban areas and do, having a firearm makes them no more scared of the outside world, then wearing a seat belt makes you scared to be driving on the road.

        • Regina Wanassa

          Hi again:

          You’re right. Justification for ownership isn’t needed. You omitted the pertinent part – “why.” Justification for ownership isn’t needed because gun ownership isn’t a natural right conveyed by the 2nd Amendment. Sport and recreational use of firearms have nothing at all to do with the 2nd Amendment. They aren’t germane at all and aren’t protected as natural rights in the Constitution.

          • RimfireShooter

            The why isn’t relevant. You’re right, sport and recreation have nothing to do with the purpose of the 2nd. Other than perheps to become more proficient should we be called to defend the country, assist the sherrif, or protect our neighbor during a riot/national disaster. Such arms are still protected however as the Heller decision protects all common arms.

            Self-defense is the natural right. In the modern world, guns are the most effective means to do so, and hence why the ability for individuals to own and use them has been ratified into the Constitution

          • Regina Wanassa

            Heller marked a major departure from Constitutionality. Again, you’re pointing to Conservative subversion rather than Constitutional principle.

            Self-defense is a natural right. Agreed. Though, it is not a declared principle in the Constitution as such. It should, therefore be regarded more extensively and with much deeper thought than currently is the norm. There are quite a number of threats to which individuals and communities must defend against. Some more subtle than others.

            Owning a gun isn’t a natural right. Even forming a state militia wasn’t regarded among what Madison termed “the great rights.” Allowing for the formation of state militias was a compromise not a structural feature of Constitutional design. It is now outmoded and should be discarded.

            The 2nd Amendment wasn’t designed to protect a right to individual self-defense by means of a firearm. “Arms” in the context of the 2nd Amendment does not translate to the noun “guns.” “Arms” refers to the the verb form – it pertains only to the right to form a regulated militia – not self-regulated, but state regulated militia. The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to impart the right to defend the nation against foreign invasion or domestic insurrection.

            Again, repealing the 2nd Amendment has no bearing on individual gun ownership for purposes of self-defense. It does mean a rational approach to self-defense.

          • RimfireShooter

            Funny. I’ve read a ton of case law and there’s all kinds of cases prior to Heller where the 2nd is mentioned as an individual right (just not as holding). I’ve also read the briefs submitted by both sides in Heller; those in favor outnumbering those against by almost 2:1. I feel no need to argue settled legal questions or call sour grapes to losing on what was obvious to the majority of people.

            Repeal? Please! I read enough crazy around here. There are over 40 pro-gun states. The only Amendment that’s going to pass will be strengthening the 2nd. Something im surpised hasnt happened already.

            So don’t kid yourself. The majority of the country has been moving the opposite direction for decades. The support for gun control peaked in the 70’s and has been dropping slowly ever since.

            Heck, the only aspect of the last federal gun control push to receive a majority in the Senate was national CCW reciprocity which expanded gun rifhts. Heck, even the polls reflected only a minority of people upset that the bill failed. And that’s after Sandy Hook!

          • Regina Wanassa

            If you’ve read a ton of case law then you’re familiar with Heller’s departure. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge how the 2nd Amendment was treated historically is your choice. Again, you’re free to engage in willful ignorance. Case law really isn’t at issue, however. At issue are the utility of guns in America today and the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

            Again, you can pose your inevitability argument as often as you see fit, but your claim is invalid if majority opinion has been surreptitiously shaped by decades of Conservative-Libertarian belligerence – which it has. The failed efforts after Sandy Hook weren’t due to majority opinion. Majority opinion after Sandy Hook was well in favor of strengthening federal gun control measures. Those efforts were derailed by a minority of fanatical extremists. So, with all due respect, don’t kid yourself.

            I’m very patient, Rimfire, so I don’t suck on sour grapes too much.

            I wish you well and I hope you have the courage to someday open your mind.

          • RimfireShooter

            “At issue are the utility of guns in America today and the intent of the 2nd Amendment.” – A utility that works just fine and just as valid today as ever.

            Its hardly willful ignorance when one can easily keep refuting misinformation. And actually, Im not even sure gun control activists have valid arguments.

            “Minority of fanatical extremists” – BWAHAHAHA. P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.O.N. Can’t get a majority in the Senate, dead before it began in the House.

            47% is only a majority in your world.

          • Regina Wanassa

            Research 2nd Amendment precedence prior to Heller if the Heller briefs aren’t clear enough for you. You’ve demonstrated that history is your weakness. Here is an opportunity to turn it into a strength.

          • RimfireShooter

            I have researched prior precedent. They are almost entirely prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment (and therefore irrelevant), or cases pertaining to the regulated militia civil right (1st civil right) vs the right of the people (2nd civil right). Heller correctly notes that one right is not dependant on the other (just as freedom to protest is not dependent on freedom of religion).

            And before you state US vs Miller, you ought to know its back story and how it was contrived by the Govt. Its also a demurer as Govt informant Miller was assassinated before sawed off shotguns used in WWI could be entered into evidence.


            Regardless, Scalia quotes Miller in Heller destroying the collectivist nonsense. You shouldn’t complain about Heller. It was quite dumbed down to obtain Kennedy’s vote.

          • Regina Wanassa

            Oh, I almost forgot, Rim. Have you bothered to research the “War on Whites” meme yet?

            Also, you previously made reference to Article IV Con Con. I don’t know what that is. Would you please offer me your understanding of it so I might better understand your perspective?

          • RimfireShooter

            An Article IV ConCon is a Constitutional Convention called by 34 States who 1st petition the Federal Govt, then convene and introduce amendments. Amendments are then sent to states to pass or fail if ratified by 38. A ConCon is essentially the 4th branch of the rebuplic reasserting itself Federally. The 4 branches being the Executive branch, the Judiciary, Congress, and the states themselves.

            Attempts to call one in the past have failed quite a few times (attempts common in the 20th century). The latest attempt has been over a Balanced Budget Amendment which began 15 or so years ago. The 34th state to send in a petition was Michigan. That was a few months back. If I recall, the 1st meeting is next year.

            Here’s the kicker. Regardless of the initial petition, once convened, state delegates can propose any amendments they like as well as a total rewrite to the Constitution itself. Everything from allowing succession, to repeal of the 17th, to cutting the federal Govt’s role in half. I cant say im in favor of all the ideas i’ve heard (Liberty amendments as example), but clearly things are not working now. Any ConCon will highly favor red and moderate states.

          • Regina Wanassa

            Article IV ConCon – Ah yes. Thank you for confirming your usage of the slang. Wasn’t sure that it didn’t refer to some kind of Right Wing Conspiracy theory of some kind – one never knows these days.

            Well, Amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult, but not impossible. Difficult so fanatical factionallism doesn’t completely undo what the Framers tried so hard to accomplish. By the looks of some your examples, the Framers were spot on in ensuring that amending the Constitution would be a difficult endeavor. Thank you again for your perspective, Rimfire. I’ve enjoyed our conversation.

          • RimfireShooter

            Happy to provide you the much needed therapy

    • Bosma

      That is the most idiotic fucking thing I’ve ever read. If you are an airline pilot, should you be able to fly passengers if “you can see shapes”? Would you want a school bus driver to drive your kids around if they “can see shapes”? There are obvious bare regulations for responsible handling of most things for the benefit on a functional society for a reason, in case that idea slipped your attention. My god……

      • RimfireShooter

        You might just have won the lame post of the day. I agree, being legally blind might prevent one from flying or driving. But possibly not much of anything else depending on range of disability

        • Bosma

          I’m amazed you can even type those words- oh wait, they are only shapes.

    • Aaron M. Litz

      I was taught some basic rules about guns growing up.

      Rule #1 Always treat the gun as if it were loaded and never ever point it at a person.

      Rule #2 Make sure you are aiming at the right target before you pull the trigger.

      If you can see “shapes” but no other details, you have NO FUCKING IDEA if you are shooting at what you think you’re shooting at. You could be shooting at your intended target. You could be shooting at a cutout of Ronald McDonald. You could be shooting at a mirror. You could be shooting at your sister.

      • RimfireShooter

        In the middle of the night, a good portion of the elderly can’t see more than shapes to shoot at as well

        If you’ve got to fathom what a shape’s intention might be while its beating the crap out of you, I can’t help out. After all it doesn’t take much aiming to shoot someone in the gut if they’re grabbing your shirt

  • D_C_Wilson

    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.

    But on Planet Wingnuttia, knowledge is more dangerous than guns because ignorant people can be more easily manipulated into believing stupid sh*t, like giving guns to blind people is a good idea.

  • formerlywhatithink

    As I’ve said before, to every member of the NRA, FUCK YOU, you’re the assholes enabling this kind of crap.

    • NukeDoc

      Yeah. Blind people having rights and deciding things on their own. Effing jerks.

      • micolinolopez

        This is the issue right? How can we deny blind (or any OTHER) americans their RIGHT to bear arms? Like all other americans, they should have to prove their ability…like getting a drivers license: take training classes, take a written test, demonstrate using a firearm on the range AND under pressure.

  • CL Nicholson

    Unless every blind person in America is a mutant ninja in red pajamas and hangs out with Spiderman, this is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard of.with that said this is the NRA, I’m used to ridiculous things being said.

    • Aaron M. Litz

      Plus, if DD started using guns, then the Hand would start using guns, Stilt-Man would start using guns, Hell, even Paste Pot Pete would start using guns, and it would start a firearms escalation that would just make everything a big mess.

      Keep in mind: Dr. Doom carries a gun.

      • feloniousgrammar

        In all fairness, Slow Poke Rodriguez shouldn’t be left out of the gun crusade. I don’t why, but I’m confident of this.

        • Aaron M. Litz

          I just imagined an AWESOME running gun battle between Speedy and Slow Poke.

          “Running” being a relative term for Slow Poke, of course. :)

          (And, believe it or not, Stilt-Man and Paste Pot Pete are real Marvel villains; Spider-Man had a field day making fun of that guy, even after he started calling himself the Constrictor Spidey still made fun of him and his old name. Man, I need some sleep, I’m seriously getting loopy.)

          • D_C_Wilson

            It would make a great training montage as Slow Poke learns to aim where Speedy is going to be rather than where he is.

          • feloniousgrammar

            “O.K., Slow Poke, you gotta get a bead on him.”

          • CL Nicholson

            Paste Pot Pete is actually one of the smartest super villain in Marvel despite his idiotic name. He’s clever enough to bother the Fantastic Four.

          • Aaron M. Litz

            I know, I just love how Spidey would always rip on his name. :)

          • feloniousgrammar

            Me too, but I have some jobs I need to finish TODAY. Company is coming and my house is looking wonderful, just taking a break before I re-enter the battle I’m winning.

      • CL Nicholson

        To be fair paste Pot Pete (aka the Trapster) does use a gun. A giant glue gun, but still a gun.

        Also I’m waiting for the Owl to get a rifle. Otherwise, he’s just a floating dude with a Wolverine haircut and a Victorian cape.

        • Aaron M. Litz


          All the cool kids are getting Wolverine haircuts.

          Personally I’ve always liked Magneto’s and Quicksilver’s hair. Almost like Wolvie’s, but with those two whisps over the forehead (and silver!) If I could pull that off I’d never change my hairstyle again.

  • Aaron M. Litz


  • feloniousgrammar

    I’m at a total loss for words.

  • OsborneInk

    Just in case the NRA does regret making this video, I am downloading a copy.

    • Peter James

      Hopefully you don’t delete it…

      ……for when one day in the future you need to look back to a time when they were more “rational minded”.

  • David L.

    You ableist pinko gunophobe, haven’t you ever heard about Daredevil???? You totally can enhance your other senses and develop a biological “sonar” that allows you to move more deftly than your average vident. Provided you get a load of radioactive waste dumped on your head first, that is.

    • Aaron M. Litz

      I was originally planning to make a DD reference, but after I watched that video my brain was no longer able to function enough to complete the action.

      • feloniousgrammar

        Why did you DO that?! You know Bob is reliable. I hope you have some brain bleach on hand.

    • Norbrook

      Provided you get a load of radioactive waste dumped on your head first, that is.

      That’s the video from the nuclear waste transportation groups, who want you to believe that random spills are a good thing.

      • Aaron M. Litz

        Stan Lee must have gotten a TON of money in payoffs from the nuclear energy industry back in the early ’60s for promoting the whole “radioactive waste gives you superpowers” schtick.

        • Matthew J

          Ha. yeah — the 50s had radiation create mutant monsters and in the 60s it gave superpowers.

          I really wanted to get bitten by that spider.

          • feloniousgrammar

            Japan had Godzilla.

    • Temmere

      You actually don’t need radioactive waste:

  • Draxiar

    But guns were given to us by God in the 2nd Commandment. That means God will guide the hand of the blind just like he did with Eli in the movie “The Book of Eli”!

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Didn’t Eli throw 27 interceptions last year? So much for “God guiding the hand of the blind”…. :)

      • Draxiar

        HA! Well played Graf!

  • ranger11

    Brick shithouse!


Subscribe to the Banter Newsletter!