The head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says he fears that a drumbeat of mass shootings and other gun violence across the United States could make Americans numb to the bloodshed, fostering apathy to finding solutions rather than galvanizing communities to act.
Director Steve Dettelbach’s comments to The Associated Press came after he met this past week with family members of some of the 18 people killed in October at a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston, Maine by a U.S. Army reservist who later took his own life.
He said people must not accept that gun violence is a prevalent part of American life.
Cool. Now I am just going to point to the blind. Got some anecdote from history about a blind soldier?
Also if they aren’t frontline I am a bit confused about why they need a gun. I have done a bit of work on some Navy stuff as a civilian and a rifle wouldn’t have help me much in that task.
Can you name another right that vanishes based on physical fitness?
I’m sure there have been blind soldiers, but I don’t know any off the top of my head.
Like I said, any servicemember in a combat zone might be armed, because the fight could come to them. If the other guys try to overrun your defense, you don’t want all those people sitting around helpless, you want them to fight back.
It’s not specifically dependent on physical fitness, it’s about service in a militia, despite what SCOTUS said in Heller. Conscientious objectors, for example, would probably not be militiamen and therefore would be looked at with suspicion if they didn’t have another good reason to own firearms (e.g. sport shooting, gunsmithing, or hunting, though I’m not sure they’d want to participate in those either).