Glock Forum banner

Should Body Armor Be Strictly Reculated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 40 93.0%
21 - 40 of 89 Posts

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
50,170 Posts
Ban body armor!
Sounds like Obamacare. If somebody has crappy healthcare then everyone has to have crappy healthcare!
Body armor is to defend against bodily harm. It can’t be used to hurt someone. These proposed bans prove the politicians want the public defenseless!
 

·
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
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Tell your "someone" to check out the book of Luke, Chapter 22 IIRC. You'll know it when you see it.
Cheers.
Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." (ESV)

Gotta love that verse!

It seems that immediately after Jesus said that, 2 of the disciples produced short swords from concealment!

Given Ex. 22.26-27; Dt. 24.12-13, the selling of one's cloak is especially significant!

Nehemiah 4 does not pertain to CC, but it certainly gives Biblical support for self-defense.
(There is a good example of the words before the "but" not being bull.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
I agree but I do think that passing a firearms safety and shooting course should be a prerequisite to buying a firearm...
... 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.............
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.
 

·
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...................
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,853 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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
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"?
You asked, so here is my answer.

Words before a “but” are not always bull.

In graduate school I made good money proof-reading people's papers and fixing their grammar. (Fixing their ideas would have violated the honor code.) I once considered myself an excellent grammarian, but I no longer do. In addition to the gradual changes that happen over time in any language, the rules of English grammar have been largely ignored in recent decades with the result that grammatical slop is the new normal.

I would say that the idea that words preceding a “but” are bull applies primarily when people are attempting to be deceptive.

The word “but” can function as an adverb and as a preposition.
I have but one box of 9mm. (adverb)
I have no guns but for the ones in this safe. (preposition)

In modern usage, “but” is used most frequently as a conjunction. When used as a conjunction, “but” is sometimes adversative, but often it is not. Consequently, to say that any words preceding a “but” are bull is overly cynical and incorrect.

Similarly, the word “however” is often adversative, but not always. Words before “however” are not always bull either.

Please consider these examples.

I would be happy to eat fish tonight; however, I’d prefer a burger.

You love your significant other, but you wish s/he were more supportive of your gun collecting.

Mary likes her 1911s, but she likes her Glocks better.

Bill is in a genuine dilemma. He does not like the idea of killing the unborn, but he does not like the government telling people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

Steve has one box of .357, but he plans to load some this weekend.

I am extremely upset about recent events, but I know Gun Control is not the answer!


In all those statements, the words before the “but” are clearly not bull.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
67 Posts
You asked, so here is my answer.

Words before a “but” are not always bull.

In graduate school I made good money proof-reading people's papers and fixing their grammar. (Fixing their ideas would have violated the honor code.) I once considered myself an excellent grammarian, but I no longer do. In addition to the gradual changes that happen over time in any language, the rules of English grammar have been largely ignored in recent decades with the result that grammatical slop is the new normal.

I would say that the idea that words preceding a “but” are bull applies primarily when people are attempting to be deceptive.

The word “but” can function as an adverb and as a preposition.
I have but one box of 9mm. (adverb)
I have no guns but for the ones in this safe. (preposition)

In modern usage, “but” is used most frequently as a conjunction. When used as a conjunction, “but” is sometimes adversative, but often it is not. Consequently, to say that any words preceding a “but” are bull is overly cynical and incorrect.

Similarly, the word “however” is often adversative, but not always. Words before “however” are not always bull either.

Please consider these examples.

I would be happy to eat fish tonight; however, I’d prefer a burger.

You love your significant other, but you wish s/he were more supportive of your gun collecting.

Mary likes her 1911s, but she likes her Glocks better.

Bill is in a genuine dilemma. He does not like the idea of killing the unborn, but he does not like the government telling people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

Steve has one box of .357, but he plans to load some this weekend.

I am extremely upset about recent events, but I know Gun Control is not the answer!


In all those statements, the words before the “but” are clearly not bull.
Ha! What a trip...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,853 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
 

·
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............
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,853 Posts
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............
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
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............
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.
 

·
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..............
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,181 Posts
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..............
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,853 Posts
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..............
Those folks who believe that are civilian disarmament proponents.
 

·
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............
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
50,170 Posts
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............
Looks like we’re going to be dealing with fanatics demanding what they want regardless of our input.
 
21 - 40 of 89 Posts
Top