Glock Forum banner

Should Body Armor Be Strictly Reculated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 40 93.0%
1 - 20 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Please Answer the Poll and Share Your Thoughts.

First of all, I am praying for all the grieving families in TX and NY, as are most of you. Our pathetic president might even be praying for them because in his shameful speech after the TX tragedy he mentioned God several times. Although most of them seemed to me to be instances of taking God’s name in vain.

Unlike the walking national embarrassment who likes to say that deer don’t wear Kevlar, I strongly support the 2A and I understand that the Founders’ intent for the 2A was to empower average citizens to do what the Founders themselves had recently done—stand up against tyrannical government. That means the intent of the Founders was that average citizens have access to anything the military has. The walking national embarrassment mentioned a while back that to stand up to the government, people would need F-16s. One could make a strong argument that the Founders intended exactly that. In the early days of our nation, civilians could have ships with cannons, which at that time were the functional equivalent of F-16s.

As we know, body armor is not explicitly mentioned in the 2A. Yet, based on the above paragraph, I do think it is within the intent of the 2A, within the penumbra, as legal scholars would say. However, if media reporting is accurate on this detail (a big if), then both the recent sicko in NY and the recent sicko in TX were wearing body armor. Were it not for body armor, the perps would have gone down sooner and taken fewer precious lives in the process.

I am not one to trade freedom for safety because history shows that people who have made that trade usually end up having neither! However, recent tragic events are causing me to wonder whether body armor should be strictly regulated.

Here’s a question for the community:
Should body armor be strictly regulated? Why or why not?


By the way, this nation could dramatically reduce school shootings by hardening schools and by allowing school personnel to carry! Gun-free zones and guns laws—both of which are violated in every school shooting—obviously do not work!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Nothing will slow down criminals. The kid was 18, and not legally allowed to buy a pistol, so there is that.
Laws don't stop those who don't choose to follow them.
Politicians want to regulate. It isn't about saving lives as they say, it is about control, as in your life. End of story. If any Lib want to help this country, they have has plenty of opportunity, they chose to make things worse at every step.
Stop playing into their agenda, you are better than that.
We have these on the front of or schools. A comfort to those who have children there, or should be.
Purple Font Rectangle Magenta Signage

We are in rural America, and so was Uvaldy. Plan on politicians making the most of it. Beto was removed from a meeting when disrupting an address by Abbott. What a loser. He already thinks people care what he has to say. Just a political move on his run for governator. God help us if he even makes a showing.
Beto being an A$$
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
No because body armor is for people wearing it long term for personal protection and we shouldn’t ban or regulate any personal protection devices which includes firearms.

If someone wants to create a heinous act they can throw together some 1/4” plates or AR500 plates for protection to carry out their act but no one would wear that daily for protection. So then again, the only ones negatively affected is us, the good guys.
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
46,265 Posts
There’s plenty of videos on YouTube showing how to make your own body armor.
Laws only impact people that follow the law. We’ll still have no shortage of criminals and terrorists committing murderous acts.
If we banned armor and guns tomorrow, they’ll be out there for ages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Thanks for all the replies. 100% no. The people have spoken. :)

Just today someone walked into my office and started talking about how we need to ban "assault rifles." I said, "I am not a big fan of the AR-15 platform. I prefer to protect my family with a 12 guage and handguns, but misuse of any gun by bad people should not penalize good people." The person probably did not expect a comment like that from a Pastor (but the number of armed Pastors is growing!). He realized he did not want to talk to me and walked out of my office.

There is not a comment above that I would argue against. Gun Control IS about control, not about guns and certainly not about saving lives. As we all know, Chicago, DC, LA, NYC, and other places ruined by liberals show that gun control does not save lives. Period. End of story. Anyone who says otherwise is severely mentally deficient or simply lying!

I am generally against goverment regulating most things because goverment does about everything with far less efficiency and success than private enterprise does, and the "FOR THE PEOPLE" part of the Preamble seems have been forgotten by many politicians.

I don't own any body armor and am not looking to get any, but if that's how law-abiding citizens want to spend their money, I support their right to do so. Every infringement on personal freedom is a slippery slope.

The libs know how to protect people. It just does not fit their agenda. What I don't understand is why conservatives are not pushing for smarter school structures and for freeing school staff to double as security, if they so desire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I am not one to trade freedom for safety because history shows that people who have made that trade usually end up having neither! However, recent tragic events are causing me to wonder whether body armor should be strictly regulated.
I have a question on sentence structure as regards using higher English; I know that in every sentence that uses the word "but", it is clearly understood to mean that everything preceding the word "but" is bull****. Does that same rule apply to the word "however"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Thanks for all the replies. 100% no. The people have spoken. :)

I don't own any body armor and am not looking to get any, but if that's how law-abiding citizens want to spend their money, I support their right to do so. Every infringement on personal freedom is a slippery slope.

The libs know how to protect people. It just does not fit their agenda. What I don't understand is why conservatives are not pushing for smarter school structures and for freeing school staff to double as security, if they so desire.
Well a few things. You either support .gov regulations or you don't. Some things are nesiscary, most aren't.
If gun control works, why has it never worked,,,,,,,,,,ever.
Body armor? I have read where the plate carrier was empty, but read a lot of things that turned out false. No matter a Dallas Yellow Pages book will stop any handgun and most rifles. There is your answer.
I use body armor. I have a level 4 ceramic I wear at the range. I have one lung working, so taking a hit isn't a very good option, and it makes LostWife more comfortable. Lots of reasons to have it.
Tell your "someone" to check out the book of Luke, Chapter 22 IIRC. You'll know it when you see it.
Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Thanks for all the replies. 100% no. The people have spoken. :)

Just today someone walked into my office and started talking about how we need to ban "assault rifles." I said, "I am not a big fan of the AR-15 platform. I prefer to protect my family with a 12 guage and handguns, but misuse of any gun by bad people should not penalize good people." The person probably did not expect a comment like that from a Pastor (but the number of armed Pastors is growing!). He realized he did not want to talk to me and walked out of my office.

There is not a comment above that I would argue against. Gun Control IS about control, not about guns and certainly not about saving lives. As we all know, Chicago, DC, LA, NYC, and other places ruined by liberals show that gun control does not save lives. Period. End of story. Anyone who says otherwise is severely mentally deficient or simply lying!

I am generally against goverment regulating most things because goverment does about everything with far less efficiency and success than private enterprise does, and the "FOR THE PEOPLE" part of the Preamble seems have been forgotten by many politicians.

I don't own any body armor and am not looking to get any, but if that's how law-abiding citizens want to spend their money, I support their right to do so. Every infringement on personal freedom is a slippery slope.

The libs know how to protect people. It just does not fit their agenda. What I don't understand is why conservatives are not pushing for smarter school structures and for freeing school staff to double as security, if they so desire.
I agree but I do think that passing a firearms safety and shooting course should be a prerequisite to buying a firearm.
My reasoning is that there are actually two types of firearms problems in the US; the actions of criminals and crazies and the actions of legal but untrained or poorly trained firearm owners.
The actions of the first group haven't been noticeably affected by the plethora of already existing firearms laws and regulations and I doubt that they'll be by addition laws or regulations but the actions of the second group, leaving firearms unattended, poor handling procedures, etc., that result in accidents and deaths can be lessened and improved by proper training.
I and my brothers began shooting when we were around 5 but before we ever touched a firearm my father, a life long hunter and shooter, one time NRA firearms safety and shooting instructor, and Olympic level competition small caliber rifle coach, made sure that we understood and followed the rules of firearms safety and handling. To forget resulted in a quick and usually painful reminder.
When I enlisted in the Corps in 68 they were quite happy to have someone already knowledgeable about firearms and shooting and extended my training even further.
On the other hand the majority of new firearm owners don't grow up with firearms and have little or no training or knowledge of them and are contributing greatly to the already existing problems that are due to this lack.
Do I think this should be a law? Not necessarily but it should be something responsible firearm owners, firearm dealers, shooting ranges and clubs should be addressing.
Personally I think that schools and businesses should offer free and voluntary firearms safety and shooting courses for students, parents, and employees.
How to pay for this? Tax dollars. Why not? Our money already gets spent on far worse things doesn't it?
Would this keep some people, though they're legal citizens, from buying a firearm? Yes but if you can't pass a course I took and passed when I was 10-11 years old then I don't want you around me with a firearm because untrained and poorly trained people with firearms scare me more than criminals and crazies with firearms.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp.............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
The one factor that is being forgotten are laws are able to be bypassed or written without a complete thought as to how effective they really are. LostinTexas...you are correct...to a point, about he was not legally able to buy a handgun. However in Texas an 18 year old CAN buy a handgun..... legally, from a private party ..not thru a LGS that requires a background check. And they can also legally own a handgun if it is transferred to him from a family member.
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
46,265 Posts
I agree but I do think that passing a firearms safety and shooting course should be a prerequisite to buying a firearm.
My reasoning is that there are actually two types of firearms problems in the US; the actions of criminals and crazies and the actions of legal but untrained or poorly trained firearm owners.
The actions of the first group haven't been noticeably affected by the plethora of already existing firearms laws and regulations and I doubt that they'll be by addition laws or regulations but the actions of the second group, leaving firearms unattended, poor handling procedures, etc., that result in accidents and deaths can be lessened and improved by proper training.
I and my brothers began shooting when we were around 5 but before we ever touched a firearm my father, a life long hunter and shooter, one time NRA firearms safety and shooting instructor, and Olympic level competition small caliber rifle coach, made sure that we understood and followed the rules of firearms safety and handling. To forget resulted in a quick and usually painful reminder.
When I enlisted in the Corps in 68 they were quite happy to have someone already knowledgeable about firearms and shooting and extended my training even further.
On the other hand the majority of new firearm owners don't grow up with firearms and have little or no training or knowledge of them and are contributing greatly to the already existing problems that are due to this lack.
Do I think this should be a law? Not necessarily but it should be something responsible firearm owners, firearm dealers, shooting ranges and clubs should be addressing.
Personally I think that schools and businesses should offer free and voluntary firearms safety and shooting courses for students, parents, and employees.
How to pay for this? Tax dollars. Why not? Our money already gets spent on far worse things doesn't it?
Would this keep some people, though they're legal citizens, from buying a firearm? Yes but if you can't pass a course I took and passed when I was 10-11 years old then I don't want you around me with a firearm because untrained and poorly trained people with firearms scare me more than criminals and crazies with firearms.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp.............
I’m not particularly religious but I believe the seemingly compounding amount of untrained, criminals and crazies are a partial result of not having traditional guidance. Not having a father doing his part in raising children is an irretrievable loss to a child. Disregarding religion leaves corrupters to mislead your moral compass. Educators focusing on CRT, gender and protesting instead of civics and virtue are generating hate and division. Add the isolation a lot of people went through during Covid, media pushing outrages of the week, it’s a recipe for disaster.
 
1 - 20 of 89 Posts
Top