Compulsory gun ownership negates no public protest

[God Fearing Devoted]

Why would compulsory gun ownership give people the right to public dissent?

[The United Artherian Federation]

Would you want to piss off a bunch of armed citizens?
I wouldn't think so.
Really, you make owning a gun compulsory, so now every Tom, Dick and Nancy owns a SPAS 12 or Browning .50 cal or something, which gives them to power to kick off a civil war if they don't like your policies (e.g. No Public Protest), so most likely behind the scenes a minister (The game) would change that to keep them content.

[Australian rePublic]

This raises an interesting questioning. Do disabled people fall under the compulsory gun ownership law? Could that be its own issue?

[Trotterdam]

This raises an interesting questioning. Do disabled people fall under the compulsory gun ownership law? Could that be its own issue?

The right of blind people to use guns is an actual debate in at least two US states, so I suppose so.

[USS Monitor]

This raises an interesting questioning. Do disabled people fall under the compulsory gun ownership law? Could that be its own issue?

The right of blind people to use guns is an actual debate in at least two US states, so I suppose so.

That's disturbing. I mean... The 2nd amendment exists for a reason, but that's well beyond what it was meant for.

[Victorious Decepticons]

Would you want to piss off a bunch of armed citizens?
I wouldn't think so.
Really, you make owning a gun compulsory, so now every Tom, Dick and Nancy owns a SPAS 12 or Browning .50 cal or something, which gives them to power to kick off a civil war if they don't like your policies (e.g. No Public Protest), so most likely behind the scenes a minister (The game) would change that to keep them content.

That may be how Theoretical Nation handles it, but in Victorious Decepticons canon, attempts at public protest are simply met by superior force and are brutally crushed with a short battle. There certainly is no right to protest here, whether the game thinks so or not!

IRL, if I remember right, Iraq under Hussein had plenty of gun ownership and no right to protest, and no civil war resulted outside of the Kurd areas. I don't remember if it was compulsory gun ownership, but they did have a lot of private firearms.

The game issue and policy need to take braver and/or less rebellious nations into account, and not cancel one in the presence of the other.

[Prusenreich]

Really you think some citizens with a gun will shoot down a drone or a tank

[Aclion]

Well? Are you going to disperse them?

The right of blind people to use guns is an actual debate in at least two US states, so I suppose so.

That's disturbing. I mean... The 2nd amendment exists for a reason, but that's well beyond what it was meant for.

Remember that not all blind people are totally blind. You can be blind and still be a perfectly good shot. (besides with iron sights target shooting the target will be out of focus anyway, while with scopes you can correct for even the worst nearsightedness).

[Luna Amore]

Is this in response to an issue you answered? If so, it should be in the megathread with nation, issue number and choice selected.

[Australian rePublic]

Would you want to piss off a bunch of armed citizens?
I wouldn't think so.
Really, you make owning a gun compulsory, so now every Tom, Dick and Nancy owns a SPAS 12 or Browning .50 cal or something, which gives them to power to kick off a civil war if they don't like your policies (e.g. No Public Protest), so most likely behind the scenes a minister (The game) would change that to keep them content.

I don't think guns would've been much of a help at Tiananmen Square...

[Australian rePublic]

This raises an interesting questioning. Do disabled people fall under the compulsory gun ownership law? Could that be its own issue?

The right of blind people to use guns is an actual debate in at least two US states, so I suppose so.

Hiw credible are those sources?

[Australian rePublic]

Well? Are you going to disperse them?

That's disturbing. I mean... The 2nd amendment exists for a reason, but that's well beyond what it was meant for.

Remember that not all blind people are totally blind. You can be blind and still be a perfectly good shot. (besides with iron sights target shooting the target will be out of focus anyway, while with scopes you can correct for even the worst nearsightedness).

Some of my family members have myopia, so trust me when I tell you this. Nearsightedness =/= blindness

[Trotterdam]

How credible are those sources?

Well, here's a link from an actual newspaper rather than a humor blogger.

It specifically mentions "allowing the legally or completely blind to acquire permits to carry guns in public", too. It goes on to clarify that the only grounds on which a gun permit may be denied are "criminal background or history of mental illness", which blindness clearly does not fall under.

Some interesting quotes:

"I have some reservations about full access for people who are blind," said Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School in Vinton, Iowa. "That's just because shooting requires a lot of vision to be accurate outside of controlled settings with safety courses."

"We don't believe there should be a blanket prohibition on blind people owning or carrying guns," said Chris Danielsen, spokesman for the National Federation of the Blind. "It's certainly true that the blind person or visually impaired person needs to be cautious about using a firearm, but so does everybody else."

Another article clarifies that:

Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.

Also:

Polk County officials say they've issued weapons permits to at least three people who can't legally drive

According both articles (though the former quotes the latter on this), gun ownership by blind people is legal in Iowa (the topic of the articles) and Wisconsin, and illegal in Nebraska and South Carolina. Missouri and Minnesota, don't technically impose a vision requirement, but do require you to demonstrate you can shoot and hit a target (that presumably isn't making any sound), which would be difficult for blind people to accomplish.

Mind you, these articles are from 2013, so some of the information may be outdated.

[Australian rePublic]

How credible are those sources?

Well, here's a link from an actual newspaper rather than a humor blogger.

It specifically mentions "allowing the legally or completely blind to acquire permits to carry guns in public", too. It goes on to clarify that the only grounds on which a gun permit may be denied are "criminal background or history of mental illness", which blindness clearly does not fall under.

Some interesting quotes:

"I have some reservations about full access for people who are blind," said Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School in Vinton, Iowa. "That's just because shooting requires a lot of vision to be accurate outside of controlled settings with safety courses."

"We don't believe there should be a blanket prohibition on blind people owning or carrying guns," said Chris Danielsen, spokesman for the National Federation of the Blind. "It's certainly true that the blind person or visually impaired person needs to be cautious about using a firearm, but so does everybody else."

Another article clarifies that:

Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.

Also:

Polk County officials say they've issued weapons permits to at least three people who can't legally drive

According both articles (though the former quotes the latter on this), gun ownership by blind people is legal in Iowa (the topic of the articles) and Wisconsin, and illegal in Nebraska and South Carolina. Missouri and Minnesota, don't technically impose a vision requirement, but do require you to demonstrate you can shoot and hit a target (that presumably isn't making any sound), which would be difficult for blind people to accomplish.

Mind you, these articles are from 2013, so some of the information may be outdated.

Stupidity at its finest...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Why is noone drafting an Issue on guns for blind people? Seems tailor-made for NS to me.

[Australian rePublic]

Why is noone drafting an Issue on guns for blind people? Seems tailor-made for NS to me.

I was thinking of taking it further than blind. Armless, schizophrenia patients, etc. Or is blind taking it far enough?

[Trotterdam]

An armless person owning a gun would scare me a lot less than a blind person owning a gun.

Being blind doesn't make it any harder for you to shoot a gun, it just makes it harder for you to know what you're shooting at.

[Bears Armed]

If you ban blind people from even owning guns, then what happens to guns that are family heirlooms? Banning them from owning ammunition for those weapons would suffice.

[Trotterdam]

I think the ban (or controversy over lack thereof) is actually on carrying and/or using guns, not owning them. Keeping them in a display case is fine.

#989 already covers the nuance of family heirlooms and other not-intended-for-use guns, so I don't think we need another issue on that subject specific to blind people.

[Australian rePublic]

If you ban blind people from even owning guns, then what happens to guns that are family heirlooms? Banning them from owning ammunition for those weapons would suffice.

I don't actually know what happens with heirlooms in places where guns are banned, after the legal owner dies. What if the ammo is also an heirloom?

[The Sherpa Empire]

If you ban blind people from even owning guns, then what happens to guns that are family heirlooms? Banning them from owning ammunition for those weapons would suffice.

I don't actually know what happens with heirlooms in places where guns are banned, after the legal owner dies. What if the ammo is also an heirloom?

I think the exact laws vary depending where you are, but it's pretty common for gun laws to treat antiques or "collectibles" differently than modern weapons that people carry around and actually use.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't actually know what happens with heirlooms in places where guns are banned, after the legal owner dies. What if the ammo is also an heirloom?

I think the exact laws vary depending where you are, but it's pretty common for gun laws to treat antiques or "collectibles" differently than modern weapons that people carry around and actually use.

You need a licence to collect guns