I reckon if I'm shooting brass solids in 45-70 relaods, do you trust your body armor?
In light of recent events should Body Armor be strictly regulated?
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!
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!
1 - 2 of 89 Posts
I think I made my point.
Just wondering who thinks the body armor should be regulated?
Just wondering who thinks the body armor should be regulated?
1 - 2 of 89 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Glock Forum
A forum community dedicated to glock owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
