Dom Raso have never been one to shy away from a fight, and he comes out forcefully in defense of the Second Amendment rights of the blind in this video. Raso isn’t referring to the gray area of people with reduced vision, either: he’s discussing those who are 100% blind, without any vision at all.
Addressing the issue of an Iowa sheriff who says he will deny concealed carry permits to all blind applicants and “let a judge sort it out,” Raso argues:
When analyzing individual rights, we have to start on the side of freedom. If you jump to a conclusion that strips someone’s civil and constitutional rights away, without even standing behind your own opinion, you are not participating in what the American belief is, and why we have these rights in the first place.
Raso further states that until a blind individual shows that he or she is irresponsible with a firearm, then we must err on the side of that individual’s right to protect themselves against criminals. I agree.
While it may very well be that a completely blind individual is a constant rule 4 violation (“be sure of your target and what is behind it”), that does not invalidate the worth of their lives. Their lives have value… something that Shannon Watts dismisses with a snear:
Should we let blind people drive, too?
I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise to that Watts can’t tell the difference between a right and a privilege, or that she devalues the lives of the disabled. She is, after all, an anti-gun Democrat.
We, however, need to recognize that people with disabilities are often the target of crimes for their disabilities, and just because they are in a blind, or in a wheelchair, or are diabetic or obese, these challenges don’t invalidate or devalue their lives. It just means that they need to train around their limitations, and adjust rules of engagement to fit their particular situations.
If we start having a problem with the blind shooting innocent bystanders, then I’ll be willing to revisit the issue.
As it now stands, I’m not going to advocate stripping someone’s rights because of what might happen, somewhere, someday.