George Zimmerman Trial

[crsublette]

I am not but you do not have to be legally blind to be denied driving privileges! Many people with low vision have better driving records then their counterparts because they understand their limitations and the danger involved in driving much better then their 20/20 counterparts.

I just wish you would not use vision as an example in this context.

Now you are talking about comparing folk who choose to drive wrecklessly and who choose to drive safely.

There's a major difference between talking about folk with low vision and talking about folk that are legally blind.

Obviously, vision impairment has to determine whether you are allowed to drive since driving requirsd the sensory of sight, that is until driving is created so all we need is the sensory of sound.

Now, the discussion can be where it would be reasonable to draw the line for proper vision impairment allowed to drive, that is as Capewind is describing. Apparently, you do not want folk that are considered to be legally blind to drive a car.

 

[crsublette]

I agree with pecan to an extent. As I've said before, Taking guns out of the hands of people who uphold the law, just for the sake of trying to keep them out of criminals hands is ludicrous. As far as paranoia goes, I prefer to call this distrust. Now.. Don't get me wrong, I Love My Country. And...Call me paranoid if you want, but I don't TRUST our current government. As you said Charles, we are living in a man made world, let's call it society. The laws and bi-laws passed in the last 4-5 years, where the control that our government has and wants over its people; disguised as concern for the safety for its people, borders on socialism. And not just about guns.
The Technology that has been kept from us, just for the sake of keeping Money in the pockets of big oil, this is criminal in my mind. And let's face it, we all know it doesn't stop there. Maybe I'm the only one on here that see's a fall of government coming, and that's ok, everyone has their opinions.

Fishy, I don't trust our government either.

I also am not paranoid enough to believe citizens need to own tanks and bazookas since one day the military might turn against us. I have faith and trust in the individuals within government, that form our government, and military that create the authority to show common sense to disobey orders from their superiors to go at war with the country's citizens.

 

[crsublette]

When our founders wrote the Constitution, they did so for the purpose of listing our rights as humans that the government cannot take from us. Rights we are born with, just for being born, if you are of Christain faith as our founders were you beleive God creates everything, including us, therefore all things come from God including our fundamental rights. And if you believe in God and that God has given us these rights then only God can take them away.

And this is one reason why I believe the Constitution is viewed as a theological text even though the government does act as a Republic rather than a Theocracy.

So tell me...

Since it is our God given right to Right to Bear arms, why does this not include tanks to be owned and operated by free non-military civilians since public safety should not be a concern ??

 

[crsublette]

How far back in time do you want to go? The Bill of Rights as adopted in 1791? The Constitution as adopted in 1787? The English Bill of Rights of 1689?

It was intended as a "natural right" (or as some would call God given rights, which differs from "legal right") to self defense and resistence to oppression.

Irregardless the faith of all the founders, "God" and "Creator" was agreed upon to be used as an all encompassing description of a higher meaning, describing the natural law within each human and greater power directing us and rights that each human are deserved, that goes beyond any particular religion except I do believe the tenants of judeo-christian theology is the primary persuasion.

I don't know why folk, other than obvious personal or political agendas, get so bent out of shape with the usage of those terms.

 

[crsublette]

Grr.. very bad typos I had in post#483, that is correct intention is in bold. lol. It gets scary whenever folk want to go down this path in a public forum.

 

[pecan]

And this is one reason why I believe the Constitution is viewed as a theological text even though the government does act as a Republic rather than a Theocracy.

So tell me...

Since it is our God given right to Right to Bear arms, why does this not include tanks to be owned and operated by free non-military civilians since public safety should not be a concern ??

I believe it should be legal and I believe it is unconstitutional to deny Americans the right to arm themselves the same as any military.

Now to argue the "athiest side" of the Constitution, even if you do not believe in God, I think athiests beleive they have the fundemtal right to protect themselves and to be free from opression. Maybe we disagree on who gives us that right, but I think athiests believe it is a right they are born with. So lets say it is a right offered us by our instinct, or nature, it is a still a right that cannot be infringed by man.

 

[pecan]

Fishy, I don't trust our government either.

I also am not paranoid enough to believe citizens need to own tanks and bazookas since one day the military might turn against us. I have faith and trust in the individuals within government, that form our government, and military that create the authority to show common sense to disobey orders from their superiors to go at war with the country's citizens.

BTW, am not afraid of our military turning on us, I doubt most are. I think the military and local law enforcement will become our strongest allies in the event something is finally done about the tyrannical government. You see they are Americans too.

 

[crsublette]

I believe it should be legal and I believe it is unconstitutional to deny Americans the right to arm themselves the same as any military.

Now to argue the "athiest side" of the Constitution, even if you do not believe in God, I think athiests beleive they have the fundemtal right to protect themselves and to be free from opression. Maybe we disagree on who gives us that right, but I think athiests believe it is a right they are born with. So lets say it is a right offered us by our instinct, or nature, it is a still a right that cannot be infringed by man.

Ok. Fair enough. This is why I believe clarity is more important than agreement and it shows why there is this tough battle to have the properly created authority to enforce the present laws and regulations.


Also, I never indicated any athiest notations in it. This was entirely an inference created from what I wrote. Although, I do understand what you mean.

 

[capewind]

Irregardless the faith of all the founders, "God" and "Creator" was agreed upon to be used as an all encompassing description of a higher meaning, describing the natural law within each human and greater power directing us and rights that each human are deserved, that goes beyond any particular religion except I do believe the tenants of judeo-christian theology is the primary persuasion.

I don't know why folk, other than obvious personal or political agendas, get so bent out of shape with the usage of those terms.

Regardless of our founders belief in God, the INTENT was NATURAL RIGHTS. I realize I am splitting hairs here, but let's double check some history. While I believe our founders were some wise men, the IDEA of the "right to bear arms" was NOT THEIRS. The IDEA was adopted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 with the specific wording contained there in of "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence". This same law goes into a lot more, specificially defining the words of Natural Rights with defination.

 

[crsublette]

Yep, I do not think you are splitting hairs nor disagreeing with what I wrote. You are simply just adding to the clarification and historical relevance. :banana:

 

[capewind]

I think what is most important when debating court case disputes (agreeing or disagreeing with the juries decision), or even the 2nd Ammendment is sourcing out the INTENT.

 

[capewind]

BTW, while speaking of INTENT and ENGLISH law ... we also know we should all learn from past events .... The English "for the most part" have banned guns ... What was the result? More knife violence. Hmmm... Remove one "weapon" and it was replaced by another. Where do we stop? When all we have left to defend ourselves with are pillows???

 

[HTH]

If you want to understand low vision rather then just stomp on this segment of the society do some reading. This sums up typical public attitudes which I see here. link

The idea of low vision driving evokes emotional objections
from lay people and professionals alike. This response is understandable as almost as many Americans die in car accidents
every year (43 200 in 2005)5
as were killed in 7 years of the
Vietnam War (58 965).6
Many people believe that low-vision
driving will lead to an increase in these already frightening
accident statistics. This belief, however, is not founded on
scientific data, and indeed is frequently in direct contradiction
to such data. The visual requirements for driving are frequently
misunderstood due to reliance on driving regulations that
appear to have been arbitrarily established in the face of a dearth
of scientific evidence. As a result, the vision requirements for
driving regulations vary widely from state to state and also differ
significantly from regulations in other countries, most notably
with respect to the regulations regarding restricted driving with
low vision, with or without visual aids.

All I asked was that you keep vision and driving out of this debate.

 

[crsublette]

Ok guy. First of all, nothing of what I said indicates I am stomping on low vision drivers. Second of all, I am talking about the legally blind.

Does a legally blind person count as "low vision" ?? Is it safe for folk to drive 20~30mph below the speed limit on a freeway because they have "low vision" ?? Do you at least admit driving requires the sensory of sight ?? If a person can not distinguish a stop light from the pole it is hanging down on, should they have a driver's license ?? If a person has cateracts, with black spots in their vision that interferes them from seeing a pedestrian crossing at legal crossing and interferes with distiinguishing traffic signs, should they have a driver's license ?? If legally blind individuals were capable of recognizing audible ques while driving, does this suggest they should be able to legally drive ??

I understand the beef with the low bar and the changing bar on the state eye exams. I understand the emotion when revoking a person's driving privileges since it is like taking away a person's independence. So, address this issue rather than suggesting that the legally blind, who can not distinguish if there is even a pedestrian legally crossing the road nor the stop light on that pole or if that stop sign is actually there, should be allowed to drive.


Background checks specifically limit the criminally insane, the diagnosed crazy, mentally ill, other criminals, and other social miscreants from legally buying guns. Due to your emotion against the state eye exam for driving, Are you suggesting that this is not a reasonable gun regulation, created by the government, for public safety ?? Should the legally blind be allowed to own a gun ??

 

[capewind]

If you want to understand low vision rather then just stomp on this segment of the society do some reading. This sums up typical public attitudes which I see here. link

The idea of low vision driving evokes emotional objections
from lay people and professionals alike. This response is understandable as almost as many Americans die in car accidents
every year (43 200 in 2005)5
as were killed in 7 years of the
Vietnam War (58 965).6
Many people believe that low-vision
driving will lead to an increase in these already frightening
accident statistics. This belief, however, is not founded on
scientific data, and indeed is frequently in direct contradiction
to such data. The visual requirements for driving are frequently
misunderstood due to reliance on driving regulations that
appear to have been arbitrarily established in the face of a dearth
of scientific evidence. As a result, the vision requirements for
driving regulations vary widely from state to state and also differ
significantly from regulations in other countries, most notably
with respect to the regulations regarding restricted driving with
low vision, with or without visual aids.

All I asked was that you keep vision and driving out of this debate.

Howard, I dont think there was a debate about LOW vision. There is a huge difference between "legally blind" and the ranges to "20/20" ... Clearly you are sensitive to the subject of LOW vision for whatever reason. I can only quote the laws according to my state, and the FEDERAL requirements imposed on commercial drivers. For 4 out of the last 6 years, while I am LICENSED to drive a commercial vehicle, and have been for almost 20 yrs now, it was actually ILLEGAL for me to drive a commercial vehicle as I could not pass my DOT Medical Card exam due to temporary physical limitations relating to my shoulders. First one, then the other. I simply failed on the range of motion requirements, even though they actually would not affect my ability to operate a truck safely. My point was never to insult you or make you uncomfortable on a subject that you are sensitive on, only addressing what I considered to be "reasonable restrictions" on typical drivers of a standard automobile. I do not debate that a person is fully capable of taking extra precautions or compensating for their limitations. Hell, I was able to personally trim out over 6000 LF of custom oak trim with only one workable arm (was completely seized at the time, and was in PT 3x a week), and did a great job to boot Please take a deep breath and understand that folks without perfect vision are not being attacked, it was only an area where most could easily/objectively understand why sometimes, some restrictions are needed, and an easy anology to apply to commonsense gun laws.