Access to Body Armor

Only for those with a need?

Also how many guns do you "need" and how much cash does the honest citizen "need" Lets see how much gold does a citizen "need" Know it that nthere are those who would say none to all.
It never stops the Ted Kennedies of the world will always want to decide what I "need" :barf:
 
I have no problem with law abiding folks with a NEED....
Click to expand...
Its a real slippery slope when you start requiring people to justify why they NEED something. These types of things tend to snowball. I am sure there is a lot of people who would say none of us NEED firearms at all.
 
Who or what even decides what body armor consists of?:confused: If I make a breastplate out of an old boiler, would that become regulated? Where would they draw the line?
 
Its a real slippery slope when you start requiring people to justify why they NEED something. These types of things tend to snowball. I am sure there is a lot of people who would say none of us NEED firearms at all.
Click to expand...

Of course there are. Hell, I'd say it. Well, maybe not "none," but I'll go out on a limb and say a vast majority have no real need of a firearm. Including myself.

I just don't think that's adequate justification to ban them. Nor do I dare to appoint myself the authority on what anybody else needs, at least on an "official" level.
 
Its a real slippery slope when you start requiring people to justify why they NEED something. These types of things tend to snowball. I am sure there is a lot of people who would say none of us NEED firearms at all.
Click to expand...

The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.

Dangerous and unusual wot wot. Civilians who need body armour due to their unique circumstances need body armour. Folks who don't but buy it anyway get the eyebrow. the LRH syndrome is probably the most psychologically innocuous in that crowd.

WildtheeelwasmagnificentAlaska ™
 
Since we know that the AWB had NO effect on any measurable crime indices, I'm willing to bet that a armor ban would be similar. It's just a feel good measure for those in that banning paradigm.

The NY Times has an hysterical rant editorial about an attempt to allow EBRs in DC. How dare folks allow battle rifles in the home? Right now, my EBR is tied down as it is struggling to get loose and cause mayhem. When I shoot a carbine match, those guns go home. How dare TX allow this!!

Just BS - the general principle of not having bans is separate from someone who is ninja-ing up and waiting for the Apocalypse. There is no need for such a ban.
 
firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not
Click to expand...

I think you may be wrong about that, eel-man.

I'll see if I can find it later, but I'm pretty sure there was a chunk of Heller that talked about armor as being a classification of "arms".

People have always tried to stop bullets with various protective stuff. That was true when the Bill o' Rights was written, well before it was written, and well after it was written right up to the present day. Armor has never been unusual, and I think any argument that it is dangerous is pretty flimsy also.
 
Found it:

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”


Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
Click to expand...

Take that, fishy!:p
 
The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.
Click to expand...

So absent 2A you'd be OK with gun bans?

There are no fundamental differences between the arguments raised in this thread against body armor, and the Bradyite arguments against classes of guns, and in fact against guns in general. The position of your eyebrows is immaterial and uninteresting.

And if someone decides to ninja up and wait for the Apocalypse, what business is it of yours?
 
The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...don`t forget about the 9th Amendment. One could make a strong arguement for our right to keep our skin and viscera intact. In fact, even the 4th amendment could be construed to protect body armor.

Dangerous and unusual wot wot. Civilians who need body armour due to their unique circumstances need body armour. Folks who don't but buy it anyway get the eyebrow. the LRH syndrome is probably the most psychologically innocuous in that crowd.
Click to expand...

If I can recall properly, many years ago, there was a clothing manufacturer marketing a line of Kevlar lined coats for children. At the time, it was selling quite well, but like all things... News reporters were interviewing parents who bought the coats. Guess what their reasons were for their purchases :rolleyes:

Try telling those parents that they do not have a right to coat their children in adamantium armor.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
I can see the possible usefulness....

Albeit limited, of enhanced penalties for wearing of body armor during commission of a crime of violence (bank robbery, etc.), but other than that, I see no purpose or good that can come of any restriction on lawful citizens owning and wearing (if they so choose) body armor.

After all, don't we, the people, have as much right to protection from gunfire as someone who makes their living going in harms way?


And I, for one anyway, am sick of hearing anyone talk about need. Particularly when they use their opinion of what I need as justification for what I should be allowed, under law to own.

You can live naked in a mud hut (or not naked in an igloo) and only ingest the bare minimum of calories for survival, if you choose. After all, thats all a human being needs. But don't even think of trying to make a law that says I must do the same. As the bard has been oft quoted, "Man does not live by bread alone".
 
So absent 2A you'd be OK with gun bans?
Click to expand...

Your implication that I am is Post hoc ergo propter hoc

By the way, I would argue that certain gun bans would be constitutional

There are no fundamental differences between the arguments raised in this thread against body armor, and the Bradyite arguments against classes of guns, and in fact against guns in general.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad bradium

The position of your eyebrows is immaterial and uninteresting.
Click to expand...

Not to normal folks:p

And if someone decides to ninja up and wait for the Apocalypse, what business is it of yours?
Click to expand...

I'm entitled to be bemused by the antics of my fellow fleshbots. And as they have the right, to date, to ninja up, so too do I have the right to condescendingly smirk and point out their vagaries to my fellow norms.

Guess what their reasons were for their purchases
Click to expand...

Tell, pray tell......


WildanddontconfusemyraisedeyebrowwithsupportforalawAlaska TM
 
Ironically, criminals who commit a crime using firearms and body armor are more likely than any other offender to be killed by police at the scene.

By armoring those areas, they prevent law enforcement from delivering an incapacitating (as opposed to fatal) shot, meaning the only way to take the guy down is to introduce mr. JHP to mr. brain matter.

On top of that, a crime with an armored bad guy is a pretty strong cop magnet, so there will be lots of extra firepower aiming at said brain matter.
 
Even if I had access to body armor I would not use it, no matter how vigorously Wildalaska furors his brow....


unibrow.jpg
 
While the 2A protects the right to own guns it doesn't include CCP's... Most folks do not need to carry a concealed firearm any more than, and likely less than, the average person needs body armor. So WA, you would cock an eyebrow to anyone who applies for a CCP unless they need one due to certain special circumstances...
Brent
 
Even in the north hollywood shoot out I have read a number of views of it that they did not get hit for some time. That they hid behind overwhelming firepower (that ran out) and did not start getting hit until they lost their firepower advantage. And correct me if I'm wrong but their vest had been stolen right?


I'd own one if I had the money. I would not wear it all the time or even that often, just keep it handy if things ever got more lawless. Crime rate here has been going up pretty fast, kids (18-25) are carjacking and chopping the cars for cash. I'm guessing that these are junkies needing a fix doing the carjackings, probably lost their crap job months ago when everything slowed down.
 
Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea

Not quite responsive to the OP, but somewhat on topic is my post in the thread "Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea."
 
dicta
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's still a nice historical argument for us originalist/founder's intent nutjobs. Armor is "arms", and always has been, so the 2nd applies.

Scalia agrees with me, who agrees with you?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top