Reply #23: Wrong on two counts [View All]

How about ... your memory? Anybody remember the tales of visually impaired people with firearms in this forum?

Please correct me if I am mistaken here: I believe you are referring to a series of discussions regarding the ability of SOME individuals who are LEGALLY BLIND (Hint: That's a definition for tax purposes, not a medical one) to obtain concealed-weapons permits in some states. A few specific examples were discussed. All of the individuals had been able to meet their states' objective criteria, which in at least one case involved a shooting test.

This triggered a rash of hysterical straw man arguments from MrBenchley and one or two others about people advocating "arming the blind".

My remark was a humorous reference to the insistence manifested by some here that seriously visually impaired people should be entitled to tote firearms around in public.

Take out the word "humorous" and you'd have a simple straw man. Additionally take out the word "serious" and you have almost an accurate sentence. Nah, let's just throw the whole nonsensical argument out.

I do not believe it is in the public interest for seriously visually impaired people (i.e. people whose impairments cannot be corrected by visual aids) to have firearms in public.

There you go again making up a definition and constructing a straw man. The previous discussion concerned legal blindness as defined under US tax law, not "serious visual impairment" as you have confabulated it here.