Glock Forum banner

Should Body Armor Be Strictly Reculated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 40 93.0%
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 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
·
999 Posts
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.
I believe in no gods nor have any religious beliefs so let's put those aside and concentrate on the guidance part.
Even in church going families with fathers, mothers, and reliable incomes the work of raising children and instilling values in them has been largely shunted off on to teachers, schools, and social programs.
Parents are either totally consumed with trying to make a living, their own social circles, or a combination of these and have little time for and little or no understanding of their own children. In one parent low income households this is even more evident.
This situation has been developing since the end of WWII and the growth of suburban society and the continuing development of technical distractions like television, cell phones, social platforms, etc., etc., has only added to the situation. The result is that people, even within complete family groups, have become increasingly more disconnected and out of touch with one another.
Add to this the manipulation by political parties and special interest groups, the never ending wars that have stripped funds and support from our education, health, and other programs, the ripple effect of the War On Drugs and other misguided government programs and what we have now are disparate herds of semi educated or completely ignorant sheeple busy doing what they've been programmed to do; pointing fingers and screaming abuse and blame at one another for the condition of our society rather than applying critical thinking to these problems and working together in an effort to correct or eliminate them.
We've become a society focused on real or perceived Rights but with no regard to the Responsibilities that come with them. We've forgotten, chosen to ignore, or have never been made aware of a simple fact; if you demand Rights then you must be willing to accept the Responsibilities that comes with them.
In the case of firearm owners I firmly believe that any legal citizen has the Right to purchase, own, and use any legal firearm that they can afford but they must be willing to accept the Responsibility of using, maintaining, and storing them effectively and safely.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp..............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
We all probably think training is important and that untrained firearm owners can be dangerous to themselves and to others. Free (paid for by taxes) training sounds like a great idea. Like you, I would be leary about making it a law.
Well then it's time for concerned and responsible firearm owners to take control of the firearms debate away from the radicals on our side of the argument/debate and start participating in the process of formulating and passing firearm related legislation because more is undoubtedly coming.
The "From My Cold Dead Hands" rhetoric no longer, if it ever did, works. We have to come up with real "common sense" ideas of our own that can have a positive effect on the all to real firearms related problems going on in the US.
I don't see requiring a person to pass a firearms safety and shooting course in order to buy a firearm as an infringement or curtailment of the 2nd Amendment. I see it as a return to the way things once were where a person's skill with firearms, or lack thereof, determined how their firearm owning peers regarded them.
We damn sure can't rely on those politicians that appear to support the Rights of firearm owners because if it come down to throwing us under the bus or protecting their spots at the tax payer funded feed trough you know what their choice is going to be. Xin Loi folks, got to take care of me first.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp...................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
The well regulated, at one time we had a active militia and every abled bodied participated in militia drills, that provided the training needed. Most folks that are dedicated to shooting beyond procuring arms get involved in some form of the shooting sports and the safety instructed in those disciplines qualify the person as to training and most seek out further training but as to require them no.
As I think I've said before; I'm in favor of mandatory military service for everybody; rich, poor, male, female, in between, everybody and anybody that isn't a complete physical or mental write off takes a turn. Bone spurs included.
I looked into the context of the phrase "well regulated" as it was used in the 2nd Amendment. In that context is means "organized - trained".
Those of us that are dedicated and responsible firearm owners need to take the initiative to share our knowledge and expertise to guide and train the mass of new firearm owners that have little or no real firearms knowledge or skills.
First shooter video games and binge watching John Wick movies don't count. :)
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
The only place where the word but sets me off, is when it is used in the context of the second amendment.
Example" I believe in the second amendment but"
To me it says that person does not believe in the second,so I guess one could read that as Bravo Sierra
How about this; I believe that the 2nd Amendment give all legal US citizens the right to purchase, own, and use any legal firearm that they can afford "but" I also believe that all Rights come with Responsibilities and if you want the one than you must be willing to accept the other.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
That works although when it is said the way I phrased it it strikes a nerve in me as I'm a second amendment absolutist,as in the way it was originally written and context at the time of it's writing. So that precludes We The People from all arms the founders intended us to keep and bear at it's writing and that meant to be armed on par with any other nations military.
Interesting. Then perhaps you'll appreciate the humorous irony that there are folks that also consider themselves 2nd Amendment absolutists but interpret it to mean that the 2nd Amendment strictly and only applies to those "arms" that were available to citizens when the Amendment was written and adopted. :)
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp..............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Replace "but" with "and". Yes, the "muh rights" crowd can get rather stale since they never turn that coin over and see it comes with "responsibility, morality, and ownership of such". You don't get one without the other, so the responsibility is inherent.
Conditions on responsibility get sketchy in a hurry. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
Exactly. As I said, all Rights come with Responsibilities and if someone wants to exercise the one then they must be willing to accept the other.
This not only applies to the 2nd Amendment but to all the Rights contained within the Constitution and the Amendments to it.
It is inherent on "We The People" to know and understand these Rights and the Responsibilities that come with them but in this we have largely failed and have allowed politicians and others to insert themselves as the interpreters of what our Rights and Responsibilities are. Anytime a people allows this to happen they come under the control of those interpreters.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
I have to laugh when people actually say that. When they say things like that to me, it tells me they have nothing left to argue with.
Me too but you have to realize and understand that these people actually believe that their interpretation is "the" only true or correct interpretation and can be downright fanatical about their interpretations.
Fanatics are dangerous because they not only demand that they be allowed to believe what they believe but many times they also demand that everybody else believe as they believe.
Ride Safe. Dr. Tramp............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Looks like we’re going to be dealing with fanatics demanding what they want regardless of our input.
All through human history this has always been a factor to consider. Not only with those that are in opposition to what you believe but at times even among those that on the surface agree with what you believe.
Fanatics don't allow any free or alternate thinking. If you don't absolutely adhere to their way then you are wrong!
This seriously limits critical thinking on any subject and applying it to solving problems.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
And that is exactly why WE need to set them straight, no matter how long it takes. You have to hit them hard with truth, and facts to back it up. These kinds of people are all loud mouth`s, until you corner them. They usually give up pretty easy and always will avoid you because you`re smarter than they are. They will only pick on those who are weaker. We are not weak, they are.
True but we cannot do this by being mirror images of those that oppose us. One group of fanatics opposing another group of fanatics always ends up with both groups attempting to destroy each other with the end result of neither group winning, but both groups losing.
That is not my goal. My goal is to get responsible firearm owners to address the firearms related problems that exist in the US and by using our knowledge and understanding of firearms to solve and eliminate or at least lessen them.
Unlike many here I have no political axe to grind and have no faith or trust in either major political party.
I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican; I'm a free citizen of the US attempting to use my Rights as a free citizen to protect them and myself against those that threaten them and myself.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp.............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Sad, but it looks as if the Uvalde PD did just sit on their hands while the shooting continued. I could understand that they were afraid (who wouldn’t be?), but they signed up to serve & protect and failed to do their job.
Well according to the USSC and other Federal Courts police have no Constitutional obligation to actually protect citizens.
Though they're paid with citizen's tax dollars their primary duty is to enforce the regulations and laws of the State.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp.......................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Even though I find the arguments brought forth by everyone interesting, this discussion has veered away from the original question. Here is my question/answer in regards to the original post: how do you restrict/regulate something that is completely passive and only good for defensive protection without the possibility of harming another? For all intents and purposes wearing too many articles of heavy clothing coiuld be considered body armor, since wearing a heavy winter coat over a jean jacket and sweatshirt, etc.. might stop a 22 or 38 spl. Would metal buttons on clothing be illegal too or would they only be illegal if they were of a certain gauge and covered a certain percentage of area? And would this ban extend to armored vehicles as well? I know that essentially this is talking things ad absurdum, but I find that to be the best way of thinking about questions posed to me.
The only real argument I can think of in support of restricting and regulating the sale of body armor is that it would increase a criminal's confidence in their ability to perform high risk types of crimes where there is a chance that they would be shot at and thus embolden them to perform more of those types of crimes.
It does seem to have been a contributing factor in several of the latest mass shootings.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
You funny Dr Tramp. Just like everything else, criminals don't follow rules or channels to get possession of what they want.
It will only affect law abiding folks. You know the ones the Left wants to disarm and place in absolute danger by depending on them. We just saw an example of how that will go.
I really have no idea what they think they will be getting in the end of the chaos, but maybe chaos is the goal, and not a means.
I didn't say that my example was logical or made sense I just said it was the only argument that I could think of that could be used to support restricting and regulating sales of body armor and if I can think of it you can bet that some anti firearm politician or lawyer can also.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Many of the anti-gunners have also called for “psychological screening” before being allowed to purchase a firearm. The problem I see with that is it’s far too subjective. I can see some liberally educated anti-firearm doctors just using their position to impose their views on society by not allowing people they don’t agree with to purchase a firearm. Besides, many sociopaths are also clever enough to beat a system like that. What do the rest of you think about this?
While in theory it's a feasible idea in actuality I don't think it would work for the first reason you stated; it's too subjective to the personal opinions of the psych person doing the evaluation.
Not only those that are against people having firearms but those in favor. Their personal opinions might let someone that shouldn't have a firearm slip through an evaluation.
Also, would these evaluations include people that use firearms as part of their job such as police and military?
As groups both have higher rates of problems with substance abuse, personal relationships, and other things largely due to the stresses of their jobs.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp...............
Eyebrow Television program News Blond Event
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
Yes. The argument has a lot of merit though. 55 grain 5.56 out of a 20+ inch barrel will defeat most Level III and less. I can't say about the 45-70, and although it is a formidable round for just about anything, armor has some quirky qualities.
Believe in it or not, I would really rather not have to put it to the test.
The vest may stop the bullet but the impact will still come through.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp...............
BTW: A 300gr bullet is considered a light bullet for use in a 45-70 rifle.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top