I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.

Well's not going to be named North East Dakota

 

Oz

 

More innocent people would be accidentally killed if blind people were regularly carrying

 

That explains a lot about you.

Dude! What are you smoking?

 

"Carrying" does not kill anyone. Just want to make that clear for you.

 

Exactly why everyone needs a gun.

 

You are operating on a false premise. The Constitution, Federal laws, State Constitution and laws, County statutes are not your's to ignore no matter how you devise your imagined community. Private property does not create a sanctuary from the law. Everything you describe will have to abide by laws and regulations. Also, you cannot prevent pro-gun people from moving there. You cannot prevent a current resident from changing their view and deciding to own a gun. You cannot pretend that you are not living in the USA and subject to the fundamental laws upon which it was founded, or the laws since enacted.

One more thing you cannot do, you cannot convince criminals or crazies to respect your safe place.

You can encourage them to laugh and sneer and plan to abuse you in your safe place. Not intentionally of course, but it will work out that way.

 

Thus demonstrating the point that was being made previously about eugenics being supported on the part of yourself.

 

This is why we can't get common sense gun control in the US because the pro gun side wants to put guns in the hands of babies and call it freedom, cause those babies need self defense!

 

Resulting to hyperbole generally indicates that one recognizes their position cannot actually be defended and justified, and instead tries to change the argument to a different topic in hopes of derailing the discussion.

Perhaps one might consider it ironic, how so-called "common sense" in this case is being called for by an individual who supports eugenics, and just previously claimed that those who are visually-challenged need to be sacrificed and killed off in the name of the best interests of the state.

 

Blind people and Babies have the same skills when it comes to fire arms, none.

You can not support having blindness not be a disqualifier and also not want someone who can see to have to take legal responsibility for a miss fire. Because you are saying that you actually do not have faith that they can shoot accurately and thus do not want to risk your freedom to sponsor them.

 

Is such sufficient grounds for the state essentially killing visually-impaired individuals, in the name of the best interest of the state?

Is blindness codified into united states law as grounds for denying an individual the legal exercising of their constitutional rights? Should it also be used as a basis for denying individuals the right to vote, or serve in public office?

And yet it is yourself who was essentially calling for the murder of visually-impaired individuals on the premise that they might hurt someone who is actually physically fit. Thus again demonstrating support for the position of eugenics. Such is not dissimilar from the attitude of Kim Jong Un and others of similar political affiliation and outlook.

 

I'm visually impaired, I have to wear glasses to see, almost legally blind without glasses, I don't want or need a gun so its not "killing" anyone.

Actually yes, you can, deny someone if their disability makes them performing such tasks. I do not think they should be barred from voting for from being in the legislature as they are not hindered though blindness

Go open a blind persons shooting range, then get back to me. It is you that thinks the lives of the public should be at risk because you want (for no other reason then because gunz) blind persons to be allowed to shoot at where they think the noise is coming from.
If you looked at polls most gun owners do NOT support blind people having guns. Such a court case if ruled in favor of blind people being able to own a gun would result in enough support to overturn the 2A.

Keep pushing the envelope pretty soon its gonna fall off the table,

 

And yet it is apparently possible for yourself to actually read text on a computer screen, as well as the letters on a keyboard, and formulate statements and responses in turn. Thus indicating that the ability to read non-braile sources is indeed possessed on the part of yourself.

Cite the legally-recognized basis for such, that has been found by the courts to not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Did not the article presented on the part of yourself actually confirm the state of Iowa is not experiencing any problems with visually-challenged firearm owners?

Mere hysterical speculation. The second amendment cannot be overturned simply because of perceived outrage on the public.

Pray tell, exactly what envelope is being pushed? Citizens of the united states being able to legally exercise their constitutionally recognized and protected rights, because government is losing the legal ability to dictate and discriminate against who can and cannot do such based on their whims?

 

Legally blind means you can not see clearly more then 20 ft in front of you with out aid. I can see clearly an arms length away with out glasses, and as such it would make sense if I was barred from owning a gun. I am not allowed to drive with out my glasses, I don't see why having a vision test for gun ownership is any different.

I have not found anything about prohibiting the selling of items such as guns for people who are blind. It simply requires people be able to access the building.

Yeah that might be due to the low population density. Empty states do not have the same issues. The following places should not allow for blind gun ownership, anyplace that is not an open field. Its okay to tell someone that due to having X condition it is unsafe for you to do Y.

Tell that to the 18th amendment.

The envelope of infallibility of the 2A, even as mass shootings and school shootings are on the rise, and police shootings are on the rise, people are pushing this sense of the gun is all mighty. Supporters of guns (the 1/3rd maybe) who own guns are trying to tell Americans that we should be willing to die for their right to own a gun. Sorry but that does not fly with me!

 

So then what is ultimately being said on the part of yourself, is that anyone who is in need of either glasses or contact lenses to correct vision deficiencies should be legally prohibited from firearms ownership?

Then there should be no difficulty on the part of yourself in presenting a citation showing that the legal exercising of constitutional rights can be denied to those who are physically disabled.

More baseless speculation and presumption about a subject that is not properly understood on the part of yourself.

What of the eighteenth amendment, that actually makes it relevant to the discussion at hand?

What do mass shootings have to do with legal firearms ownership and use? What do law enforcement officers who demonstrate negligence and possess poor training, have to do with anything relating to the second amendment? What does any of the above have to do with the supposed envelope that is supposedly being pushed? What pushing can actually be demonstrated on the part of yourself? For that matter, why should any individual in the united states, who has done nothing wrong, be denied the ability to legally exercise their constitutional rights in whatever manner as they should see fit?

Before attempting to respond to the above, do notice the phrase "legally exercise" was used, and would preclude any exercise or engagement that amounts to violent crimes against others. Do not attempt to go off on some tangent about mass shootings and other forms of homicide as being a use of firearms, as such are illegal uses, rather than legal exercisings.

 

Could you please define "common sense gun control" for me. I don't believe I understand what that is.

 

Absolutely nothing you propose has any relation whatsoever to "common sense." What you propose would get innocent people killed.

 

So, an elderly man trying to keep from being beaten to death by a pair of 20 something methheads "need not use a gun"? Women facing a rapist "can defend themselves with their hands"?

Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

 

Here we see the heart of what you are. You care nothing for saving lives. You just have a complete and utter phobia of an inanimate object. The very definition of a hoplophobe.

 

Wrong, and demonstrably so.

I've known a number of elderly people, some disabled, who are still tough as nails and deadly gunfighters.

Your bias and bigotry is showing.

 

Oh, there is a huge segment of the population - I'm pretty sure a vast majority - that aren't on your side.

 

Hating an inanimate object is a clear indication of an unbalanced mind.

 

I can define it, common sense is when all firearms are removed from law abiding private ownership.

 

You need to work on your trolling.
Talk to Vegas or Ron - they can give you pointers.