Access to Body Armor

[THEZACHARIAS]

-"Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea."

True, but its relevant only to felons. Joe Schmoe gun owner is, in a legal sense, unaffected.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

my right eyebrow raises over the thought of an ordinary Joe buying body armour

Ah, the anti-armor sentiment. "You don't need no armor, but we will sell you a gun."

 

[Wildalaska]

Scalia agrees with me, who agrees with you?

Me

Ah, the anti-armor sentiment. "You don't need no armor, but we will sell you a gun."

1. Misconstrues my comment. 2. Guns have purposes other than "defense"

WildiseewehavethebodyarmourwoobienowAlaska ™

 

[Wildalaska]

Most folks do not need to carry a concealed firearm any more than, and likely less than, the average person needs body armor.

Where do you get that conclusion from

So WA, you would cock an eyebrow to anyone who applies for a CCP unless they need one due to certain special circumstances...

Many folks get CCPs to avoid the NICs check. And quite frankly, I do cock my eyebrow over some folks getting CCPs...DLs too

WildtheleftoneAlaska ™

 

[Housezealot]

I am quite suprised how much opinions differ in this forum as to how much freedom a person should have. every body has there right to an opinion, I would think that most of us would not want any of our rights limited.
I also worry that some people think something that is right to them is a "privilege" to everyone else

 

[Wildalaska]

I am quite suprised how much opinions differ in this forum as to how much freedom a person should have.

isnt America great?

every body has there right to an opinion, I would think that most of us would not want any of our rights limited.

Bet ya 90% of the folks here agree it's OK to limit "rights"...the question is not whether, but how much...

WildfreedomisnotlicensewotwotAlaska ™

 

[Evan Thomas]

Just for the record...

No one in this thread has said body armor should be regulated, or that any law-abiding citizen should be legally barred from owning it. Some of us think it's a bit silly to want it, absent a good reason, but I haven't noticed anyone arguing for legal restrictions. Whether or not it could be, or whether armor is protected by the Second Amendment, are completely different questions from that of whether it ought to be, which, unless I've missed something, we've all answered with a resounding "No."

anddontconfusemyraisedeyebrowwithsupportforalaw

Exactly. Well tmesified, WA. I envy you the eel, by the way.

 

[TheFacts]

As fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009) we are weighed down with personal and political ideologies. Most agree that body armor is a right protected by some vague aspect of the BOR. Others feel that that is a no no. If I see someone walking around in chain mail (other than at Medievel Times) with a sword strapped to his belt at the local shopping mall, I will raise an eyebrow. If I see someone walking out of a gun show with 5 SKSs, 4 Remington 870s, and 10 Glock 17s (that`s a lot to carry) I will raise an eyebrow. If I see someone at the supermarket check out with groceries and he is sporting a flak jacket with 2 1911s and a Kabar strapped to him, I will raise an eyebrow.

Now just because I raise my eyebrow does not mean that I have the right to deny that individual the right to be unusual. We raise our eyebrows because we experience events that go against everyday norm. Things that shock us may also plauge our logic circuits which can cause us to say silly things like:

1) "What do you need that for."
2) "There oughta be a law against that."
and my personal favorite...
3) "Why doesn`t the govt get involved."

I have personal convictions but I try to keep them to myself (even though I have a right to voice them). However, I do not have the right whatsoever to use my convictions to physically deny the convictions held by other fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009). Please let the fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009) have their body armor...if you scratch their backs, maybe they will scratch yours



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.