Man Allowed To Mod Wheelchair With Gun

[ekierce]

Animals are not people. To equate a deer to a child is offensive to me.

That was kind of my point.

 

[Renegade_Azzy]

I thought the ADA prohibited the discrimination of a person because of a handicap. Man has a right, I dont see why he needed to beg a judge to allow him to legally pursue a legal activity revolving around it.

Then again, if you live in NJ, your state constitution has no declaration that you have a basic right to have a firearm.


As for wheel-chaired hunting, lots of people do it, and I can see how this would be OK, as long as he hunted in an area that is setup to do so, and he has a person with him that can assist.

 

[Gorankar]

That was kind of my point.

Mine as well.

 

[Keiichi]

So what if he is a quad? Hey I am sure he know plenty about firearms safety seing as he was a hunter.

Firearms safety for an able bodied person. What happens if he forgets his sip-n-puff tube is connected to his gun when it was supposed to be connected to his wheelchair, or what if he's unable to do the correct sequence to turn the safety back on?

I'm not questioning any of his rights. I am questioning the person's ability to safely handle a firearm.

 

[Dan_D]

EDIT: Sorry that should read 90-180 days. My FID took 3 months to get, and the first pistol permit took an additional 6 months.

That's just bullshit.

In Texas:

1.) Select your firearm.
2.) Fill out the 4473 form.
3.) Present Identification. If you have a valid Texas CHL proceed to step 5.
4.) The store clerk calls in the instant background check. If you are approved proceed to step 5. If your background check does not clear, proceed to step 7.
5.) Pay for your firearm.
6.) Collect your firearm and your change, as well as all applicable receipts.
7.) Depart from the gun store.

This whole process shouldn't take more than 15 to 20 minutes.

 

[Blackjack]

That's just bullshit.

You get used to it after living here for 20 odd years.

 

[ekierce]

Firearms safety for an able bodied person. What happens if he forgets his sip-n-puff tube is connected to his gun when it was supposed to be connected to his wheelchair, or what if he's unable to do the correct sequence to turn the safety back on?

I'm not questioning any of his rights. I am questioning the person's ability to safely handle a firearm.

What if he has the tube for shooting near his mouth and he coughs or sneezes and sets it off?

He's got all the right in the world to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.

 

[Chombo]

Honestly I find it funny that people think that there is much room for interpretation left in the second amendment, especially after the fairly recent SCOTUS ruling made it very clear as to the intent of the amendment.

Two words: Open Carry.

I love living in Montana.

That's just bullshit.

In Texas:

1.) Select your firearm.
2.) Fill out the 4473 form.
3.) Present Identification. If you have a valid Texas CHL proceed to step 5.
4.) The store clerk calls in the instant background check. If you are approved proceed to step 5. If your background check does not clear, proceed to step 7.
5.) Pay for your firearm.
6.) Collect your firearm and your change, as well as all applicable receipts.
7.) Depart from the gun store.

This whole process shouldn't take more than 15 to 20 minutes.

Thats how it is in Arizona

 

[beowulf7]

Wow, and in NJ of all states.

Dick Cheney found himself a new hunting partner!

 

[kirbyrj]

Actually, nothing really changed. The only handguns you're allowed to have in DC are revolvers. If you have a pistol, it's classified as a "machine gun" by the city. So they went back to court to figure out what to do now.

Honestly I find it funny that people think that there is much room for interpretation left in the second amendment, especially after the fairly recent SCOTUS ruling made it very clear as to the intent of the amendment.





Thats how it is in Arizona

 

[Youn]

Where do you think your food came from?

I tend not to eat any animal product, mostly due to the poor quality of it and I don't want to support what I feel does more harm then good

They protect the inherent rights we possess

What's truly "inherent" though? I am not against the constitution at all. I just think people abuse it sometimes.

You must live in the city.

No I grew up on a farm and most of my family are farmers. I definitely agree we should protect ourselves from any animal who pose a threat, directly, or you pointed out, indirectly. That DOES make sense to me.

Compared to the eternity of nonexistance

Some peple could make that argument for killing other people too, right? So, do you think other animals don't mourn in some way, much like we do when our family and friends die? Or, because they can't speak to you, you figure it must not matter?

At the end of the day I don't really care a whole lot what you do, I just wanted to point out how it's easy for us to sometimes forget the consequences of our actions.

 

[The-UselessNoob]

I'ts irrational anyway. There are two ways to operate a gun. Safely, and endangering others. If you assume another person is stupid enough or irresponsible enough to operate a gun in a way that endangers others, then that person is just as much of a threat when they drive a card, pickup a steak knife, operate machinery, etc... If you want to go somewhere that you sacrifice your freedom to be safe from potential idiots having dangerous things, move to Britain and stay indoors.

I notice that you are scaling things down (in my view), to things like a knife, which is admittedly deadly. To me the knife is less deadly then a gun, in that it takes rather more effort to kill someone with a knife then a gun. My main point though, is can we scale this up? if people should be allowed to carry guns, why not grenades? or rockets? or why not a bomb?
The main problem I think most would have with this, is that it endangers more people, and you can do a shitload more damage with those then with a pistol. I mean sure, you could kill just as many people with a pistol, but with rather more effort involved on your part. I think the same could be applied to the pistol/knife argument, it takes more effort to kill a lot of people with a knife then with a gun.
My question here for the pro gun-rights people is whether they would like to allow larger and more dangerous weapons to people? If not why? Is there a particular reason for guns being the correct cut-off point for things people can carry around?
Personally for the above questions, I feel that below guns is a good cut-off point, in that knives are so serviceable and easy to make/acquire that banning them is verging on the extreme and impossible to properly control. I also like the fact that cops carry something that is significantly more effective then what is hopefully being carried by possible criminals (I say hopefully cause nothing is perfect, especially with people smuggling guns over the border from the states). Whether I trust cops is an entirely different discussion (I am totally for attaching cameras to all their guns, the ones that start up when they pull their guns out). I don't think that moving up another, what I will call bracket, is entirely a good idea though, if people had guns and cops had heavier guns. People can cause significantly more damage with, likely, few benefits and cops can cause heavier damage and I don't particularly trust them as is.

 

[kirbyrj]

^^^ Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment, Heller vs. District of Columbia...end of discussion.

 

[Benzino]

That's just bullshit.

In Texas:

1.) Select your firearm.
2.) Fill out the 4473 form.
3.) Present Identification. If you have a valid Texas CHL proceed to step 5.
4.) The store clerk calls in the instant background check. If you are approved proceed to step 5. If your background check does not clear, proceed to step 7.
5.) Pay for your firearm.
6.) Collect your firearm and your change, as well as all applicable receipts.
7.) Depart from the gun store.

This whole process shouldn't take more than 15 to 20 minutes.

Similar to Montana.

 

[Lebowski]

I notice that you are scaling things down (in my view), to things like a knife, which is admittedly deadly. To me the knife is less deadly then a gun, in that it takes rather more effort to kill someone with a knife then a gun. My main point though, is can we scale this up? if people should be allowed to carry guns, why not grenades? or rockets? or why not a bomb?
The main problem I think most would have with this, is that it endangers more people, and you can do a shitload more damage with those then with a pistol. I mean sure, you could kill just as many people with a pistol, but with rather more effort involved on your part. I think the same could be applied to the pistol/knife argument, it takes more effort to kill a lot of people with a knife then with a gun.
My question here for the pro gun-rights people is whether they would like to allow larger and more dangerous weapons to people? If not why? Is there a particular reason for guns being the correct cut-off point for things people can carry around?
Personally for the above questions, I feel that below guns is a good cut-off point, in that knives are so serviceable and easy to make/acquire that banning them is verging on the extreme and impossible to properly control. I also like the fact that cops carry something that is significantly more effective then what is hopefully being carried by possible criminals (I say hopefully cause nothing is perfect, especially with people smuggling guns over the border from the states). Whether I trust cops is an entirely different discussion (I am totally for attaching cameras to all their guns, the ones that start up when they pull their guns out). I don't think that moving up another, what I will call bracket, is entirely a good idea though, if people had guns and cops had heavier guns. People can cause significantly more damage with, likely, few benefits and cops can cause heavier damage and I don't particularly trust them as is.

I believe that individual citizens that can lawfully own a firearm should able to lawfully own any other kind of weapon. We allow private organizations to purchase TNT and other high explosives. And as Timothy McVeigh proved, you don't need military grade equipment to cause massive damage.
The people that would use high explosives on humans would use something else if they can't get a hold of the "good stuff".
Bad people will do bad things regardless of any law in place stopping them.
I think if the higher end stuff was available to the masses, all that would really happen is people would be blowing up a lot more old cars and refrigerators. that's what I would do because it's fun.

 

[The-UselessNoob]

I believe that individual citizens that can lawfully own a firearm should able to lawfully own any other kind of weapon. We allow private organizations to purchase TNT and other high explosives. And as Timothy McVeigh proved, you don't need military grade equipment to cause massive damage.
The people that would use high explosives on humans would use something else if they can't get a hold of the "good stuff".
Bad people will do bad things regardless of any law in place stopping them.
I think if the higher end stuff was available to the masses, all that would really happen is people would be blowing up a lot more old cars and refrigerators. that's what I would do because it's fun.

I don't really hold with the view that bad people will do bad things regardless, in that while they may still do bad things, it becomes significantly more difficult for them to do such things and increases the chances of them being caught before they can do said things. like for instance (bear with me, this isn't going to always be the case, and I am not trying to strawman you, just throwing up a counterpoint), someone wants to go shoot up their school (sorry for this theoretical instance just can't think of anything else), if they can't easily walk into a store and buy a gun its harder to do, then they may try to illegally acquire one, it will be a bit of a bitch, very expensive and take time, which he/she will hopefully take to cool off. They might try to use a knife instead, but this is rather harder, takes longer so the cops would arrive before comparatively much damage, and someone might be able to stop him.

Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment, Heller vs. District of Columbia...end of discussion.

It may be the end of the discussion for you, but you haven't at all reflected upon the issue. All you have said is that because of this document you need not put any thought into it, the people who wrote it are right, the issue cannot be debated. Or you may think that I know the reasoning behind your countries founders/law-writers/whoever-wrote-its thoughts when the included this and that they reflect your views entirely and perfectly, making it entirely pointless for you to have to tell me. the second point is rather odd because I doubt if everyone who wrote the document had the same reasons for supporting this.

to clarify: I wanted to know peoples views on why they think this is good/bad and how far it should extend, not what piece of paper makes it so in your country.

 

[Draax]

Oh America .. lol

 

[kirbyrj]

It may be the end of the discussion for you, but you haven't at all reflected upon the issue. All you have said is that because of this document you need not put any thought into it, the people who wrote it are right, the issue cannot be debated. Or you may think that I know the reasoning behind your countries founders/law-writers/whoever-wrote-its thoughts when the included this and that they reflect your views entirely and perfectly, making it entirely pointless for you to have to tell me. the second point is rather odd because I doubt if everyone who wrote the document had the same reasons for supporting this.

to clarify: I wanted to know peoples views on why they think this is good/bad and how far it should extend, not what piece of paper makes it so in your country.

What I think of it is irrelevant. What you think of it is irrelevant. The people whose opinion matters, and they have already weighed in (specifically the Heller v. District of Columbia as noted earlier). Whether or not it is right/wrong isn't up for debate. As a citizen of the U.S. it is a matter of fact that people have the right to own and use guns as they see fit whether or not you or I object on any moral ground or not.

Another example: I think abortion is akin to genocide. That doesn't change the fact that in the U.S., thanks to Roe v. Wade, the people whose opinion matters disagree with my opinion. That's all I'm saying. Debating the issue is useless because the issue has already been decided.

 

[The-UselessNoob]

What I think of it is irrelevant. What you think of it is irrelevant. The people whose opinion matters, and they have already weighed in (specifically the Heller v. District of Columbia as noted earlier). Whether or not it is right/wrong isn't up for debate. As a citizen of the U.S. it is a matter of fact that people have the right to own and use guns as they see fit whether or not you or I object on any moral ground or not.

Another example: I think abortion is akin to genocide. That doesn't change the fact that in the U.S., thanks to Roe v. Wade, the people whose opinion matters disagree with my opinion. That's all I'm saying. Debating the issue is useless because the issue has already been decided.

The issue is not decided, point of view changes over time, cultures change, kingdoms come and kingdoms go, new circumstances call for new rules, with no information does it not become necessary to revisit our previous conclusions?

That is not to say that I think either of us have a chance in hell of changing anything, but I believe that someone will at some point. Are there not amendments to your constitution, for when circumstances or perceptions change? sure they may not change soon, but they will at some point.

Even though we do not hold hope for change, why not debate it? convert a few people to your point of view? and perhaps further our own moral systems through informed argument? the way things change is through strength of will and numbers, you need to inspire people to your point of view, and try to effect change.

I admire that you are willing to bow to a decision, and know that it is made, but I believe that we can still discuss it, and profit from the discussion. It is never too late to revisit an issue and reformulate your views.

 

[DonInKansas]

Two words: Open Carry.

I love living in Montana.

Same in Kansas. You have to have a license to carry a concealed firearm, but the "gunslinger law" is in effect otherwise.

 

[kirbyrj]

The issue is not decided, point of view changes over time, cultures change, kingdoms come and kingdoms go, new circumstances call for new rules, with no information does it not become necessary to revisit our previous conclusions?

That is not to say that I think either of us have a chance in hell of changing anything, but I believe that someone will at some point. Are there not amendments to your constitution, for when circumstances or perceptions change? sure they may not change soon, but they will at some point.

Even though we do not hold hope for change, why not debate it? convert a few people to your point of view? and perhaps further our own moral systems through informed argument? the way things change is through strength of will and numbers, you need to inspire people to your point of view, and try to effect change.

I admire that you are willing to bow to a decision, and know that it is made, but I believe that we can still discuss it, and profit from the discussion. It is never too late to revisit an issue and reformulate your views.

This particular issue is, for better or worse, so ingrained in the culture that I don't think it will ever change. This isn't a woman's right to vote, two terms for the president, or prohibition. This is one of the originals right up there with Freedom of Speech, Unlawful searches/seizures, right to trial by jury, etc. This one won't change until the Constitution gets thrown out as a whole.

If you're looking for justification...I guess John Locke says it best, "It is necessary in a civilized society to retain in the populace, the diversified and the deep capability to resist tyranny, by force of arms if necessary." It makes sense in the events surrounding the framing of the Constitution. And recent history shows us that a determined populace with access to small arms fighting off "tyranny" as they see it, has not been defeated by a modern army (Russians in Afghanistan, U.S. in Vietnam, etc.). So it makes sense that a country that values liberty as highly as it claims would allow for gun ownership as wide and varied as we have today (which is still far too restricted in some cases, IMO).

The self-defense argument may or may not hold sway with you, but at some level, I think we would agree that a person has a right to defend himself, and it's not always an option to call the cops and just wait for them to arrive and sort out the issues. And for every story of someone accidentally shooting a family member (as most critics point out), there are hundreds of stories of law-abiding citizens using guns to protect themselves or to prevent crime. The NRA has a whole section in their magazine, "The Armed Citizen."

This is not to say that abuses do not occur. It's just very short-sighted to think the availability of guns is the issue. Far more deaths occur from alcohol abuse and drunken driving than from firearms, yet there is not a big push to ban alcohol. Nor is there any historical precedent for the protection of alcohol (other than a failed attempt at prohibition). The root issue is that PEOPLE are to blame, not guns.

 

[kirbyrj]

Same in Kansas. You have to have a license to carry a concealed firearm, but the "gunslinger law" is in effect otherwise.

Open carry is the norm in most states with some restrictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry

Ironically, Texas is not on that list (albeit as a carryover from the Civil War). Also, there are many legal cases where open carry has been upheld. In most cases, if the police seize the weapon, it is considered a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[The-UselessNoob]

This particular issue is, for better or worse, so ingrained in the culture that I don't think it will ever change. This isn't a woman's right to vote, two terms for the president, or prohibition. This is one of the originals right up there with Freedom of Speech, Unlawful searches/seizures, right to trial by jury, etc. This one won't change until the Constitution gets thrown out as a whole.

If you're looking for justification...I guess John Locke says it best, "It is necessary in a civilized society to retain in the populace, the diversified and the deep capability to resist tyranny, by force of arms if necessary." It makes sense in the events surrounding the framing of the Constitution. And recent history shows us that a determined populace with access to small arms fighting off "tyranny" as they see it, has not been defeated by a modern army (Russians in Afghanistan, U.S. in Vietnam, etc.). So it makes sense that a country that values liberty as highly as it claims would allow for gun ownership as wide and varied as we have today (which is still far too restricted in some cases, IMO).

The self-defense argument may or may not hold sway with you, but at some level, I think we would agree that a person has a right to defend himself, and it's not always an option to call the cops and just wait for them to arrive and sort out the issues. And for every story of someone accidentally shooting a family member (as most critics point out), there are hundreds of stories of law-abiding citizens using guns to protect themselves or to prevent crime. The NRA has a whole section in their magazine, "The Armed Citizen."

This is not to say that abuses do not occur. It's just very short-sighted to think the availability of guns is the issue. Far more deaths occur from alcohol abuse and drunken driving than from firearms, yet there is not a big push to ban alcohol. Nor is there any historical precedent for the protection of alcohol (other than a failed attempt at prohibition). The root issue is that PEOPLE are to blame, not guns.

The first point I agree to a large extent, with your country I can't see it going without massive upheaval. my point was more that nothing manmade is truly absolute, and that at many times, it never looked like voting for women would come to pass, but it did. In Canada it was completely politically motivated, the party knew that if they were the ones to give women the vote, they were guaranteed almost all of their votes for years to come. If an idea has enough mass appeal it can come to pass. still, not very likely in the states.

I will completely agree to the second, but find that it is only necessary in the event of a huge screw-up earlier on. Such things can be avoided if people stand up before it becomes necessary to use violence to oppose it. to "nip it in the buds" if you will. I am not entirely sure if this is possible, but if people try hard enough and watch their government it can work out.

I completely agree that people have a right to defend themselves but only when it is life threatening, to me it is just a matter of what they can have to defend themselves. I don't like the idea of easily accessible guns, because they raise the stakes rather high, without guns their are still tons of ways to kill someone, just rather harder to do. I have been mugged before, and I am perfectly happy to have walked off with the lose of 40 dollars, but no lose of life, if I had had a gun and used it, the guy would be dead, which some people may say is good and well, but does it really matter? the cops might get him later or might not, but that is their job. If you are in a life threatening situation I am totally for you defending yourself with whatever you have, I carry a knife for this purpose, but I am already dead if someone has a gun. would I be able to prevent it if I also had a gun? maybe, if I saw the killer coming, and knew he was going to shoot me, and pulled it out quickly enough. If the guy is carrying a knife, and I had a gun and knew he was going to kill me, then no contest if I see him far enough away. close up? hes got me. to me, giving killers easy access to guns just makes their lives easier.

and you are of course right to say that it is people that are the problem, but can't we try to take away the tools used to kill people if it will lower the number of deaths? as for the liquor, well people just love it too much, so instead we try to stop people from driving whilst drunk with drunk driving laws. which ties in nicely with gun registries and stuff, in that they allow people to have guns, but keeps track of them. their are also laws governing how it can be served (atleast in Canada) so there are strong moves toward controlling the problem.

 

[kirbyrj]

and you are of course right to say that it is people that are the problem, but can't we try to take away the tools used to kill people if it will lower the number of deaths? as for the liquor, well people just love it too much, so instead we try to stop people from driving whilst drunk with drunk driving laws. which ties in nicely with gun registries and stuff, in that they allow people to have guns, but keeps track of them. their are also laws governing how it can be served (atleast in Canada) so there are strong moves toward controlling the problem.

I would argue that for you to be consistent, you should argue that liquor should be banned also since it is a substance that is abused and results in innocent people losing their lives.

I disagree with the notion that you will lower the number of deaths if you take away the tools. People who are set on committing a crime will use whatever tools are available to them. Guns are a relatively modern invention, however, crime is not.

The gun laws in Canada just wouldn't work in the U.S. Just look at 1994 with Bill Clinton's Crime Bill banning assault style weapons. The result was the congress who passed it was voted clean out of office (including the Speaker of the House, if I remember correctly). And ultimately all those provisions expired without so much as a vote. I'm not against common sense measures (and I realize common sense to me is very different than what you perceive as common sense) such as prohibiting criminals or mentally challenged people from buying guns, but other than that, I don't see any reason to have more gun control. On the basis of Heller v. District of Columbia, there is now legal precident to challenge gun control measures anyway that infringe on the "right to bear arms."

Once again, it seems that we agree in principle on many things, but disagree on methods .

 

[Pulse.01]

LOL, now, I've heard of mods, and I've heard of mods, but this one has to take the cake!!!

 

[Pulse.01]

As far as the gun issue goes, and from looking at this thread it appears to be going quite far. On one hand, I believe that guns can contribute to more violence. On the other hand, if a criminal wants to find a gun on the black market or otherwise, most likely they will find it. This will be regardless of whether or not it is as easy as walking into a pawn shop to buy it, or buying it off the streets "hot".

The real issue to me is, if someone is desperate enough to break into my house, thus causing a threat to myself and my spouse and child, I am going to use whatever I can to protect our well being. Reasoning is likely out the window dealing with this type of desperation. In this case, a gun is likely the most effective way of attaining said protection of my family. So you'd better believe I will use the best tool in which to assure that we will be the safest we can be in such a situation as this.

 

[rabident]

I'ts irrational anyway. There are two ways to operate a gun. Safely, and endangering others. If you assume another person is stupid enough or irresponsible enough to operate a gun in a way that endangers others, then that person is just as much of a threat when they drive a card, pickup a steak knife, operate machinery, etc... If you want to go somewhere that you sacrifice your freedom to be safe from potential idiots having dangerous things, move to Britain and stay indoors.

So you would be a proponent of letting a 5 year old own a gun (irresponsible)? What about a mentality retarded adult with the intelligence & reasoning of a 5 year old (stupid)?

Don't you think there should be some restrictions? Is it that unreasonable to question the safety of mounting a gun on wheelchair so a quadriplegic can operate it with a breathing tube?

 

[rabident]

It's not a social service to hunt an animal. Hunting them keeps the population in check so there are less of them so they don't have a starvation problem.

You make it sound like it's a humanitarian effort for deer. That you're somehow doing the species a favor by shooting them. If it was truly a kind thing to do, then people wouldn't be so offended at the thought of doing the same to a human or child.

It also helps in areas to protect people, as people are killed every year in automobile accidents with deer.

Tragic, but on the bright side it is one less human competing with us for food. Plus it's possible the guy could have ended up dieing a slow painful death from cancer, in which case the deer actually did him a favor.

 

[kirbyrj]

You make it sound like it's a humanitarian effort for deer. That you're somehow doing the species a favor by shooting them. If it was truly a kind thing to do, then people wouldn't be so offended at the thought of doing the same to a human or child.

Tragic, but on the bright side it is one less human competing with us for food. Plus it's possible the guy could have ended up dieing a slow painful death from cancer, in which case the deer actually did him a favor.

Once again, people are fundamentally different than animals. And I'm not so sure it's meant as doing the animal a favor as in protecting other people from starved animals wandering about looking for food when there is none because of overpopulation.