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.
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!
61 - 80 of 89 Posts
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.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.
It does seem to have been a contributing factor in several of the latest mass shootings.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp............
You funny Dr Tramp. Just like everything else, criminals don't follow rules or channels to get possession of what they want.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............
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.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.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp................
I will give you a lot more benefit of doubt and any politician.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................
To defend against and defeat enemies one must be both willing and able to understand them which isn't the same as agreeing with them. 
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp.............
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp.............
It’s the mindset. They aren’t thinking about how things can be used to protect innocents it’s always how it can be misused. Also how easy and available is it.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.
Assembling your own firearm was never an issue till 80% receivers became widely available. The antigunners kept screaming about the criminals access. At that time it wasn’t an issue but the criminal element said hey that’s a good idea. So now it has happened to some degree.
‘My first thought was’ Ithought it was!’ Y’know PDs, first responders, etc….if you or I can buy it, so can thieves, rioters, and bank robbers…then, how could you bring them down in emergency situations?…but that’s way above my pay grade,so, I’llleave it up to them.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!
"how could you bring them down in emergency situations?"
Precise shot placement with a rifle or handgun or the wide spread of a shotgun.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp............
Precise shot placement with a rifle or handgun or the wide spread of a shotgun.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp............
Always practice head shots.
Shots to the crotch area are also quite effective and it's a larger target area.Always practice head shots.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp...........
Absolutely not. Only law abiding citizens follow rules/regulations so why punish the rest of us by putting onerous roadblocks in the way.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!
Well, I prefer prevention over restrictions
Those who take in precious cargo (esp. by law) should be required by law to be experts in self/others defense hand & handgun skills + armed rifle guards at the ready with special covert ports to rooms.
Some mentioned sleeping gas? IDK about all that ....
So ONLY IF such a law is passed, THEN it should price such armor so that for every one is purchased for a private citizen, THREE are paid for & send to local law enforcement or public/school guards.
Those who take in precious cargo (esp. by law) should be required by law to be experts in self/others defense hand & handgun skills + armed rifle guards at the ready with special covert ports to rooms.
Some mentioned sleeping gas? IDK about all that ....
So ONLY IF such a law is passed, THEN it should price such armor so that for every one is purchased for a private citizen, THREE are paid for & send to local law enforcement or public/school guards.
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?
Yes, a psychological screening could be used in an unfair and illegal manner, and it is unconstitutional.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.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?
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...............
Antigunners are just wanting roadblocks to gun ownership. Make it so onerous that people just give up.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?
I reckon if I'm shooting brass solids in 45-70 relaods, do you trust your body armor?
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.I reckon if I'm shooting brass solids in 45-70 relaods, do you trust your body armor?
Believe in it or not, I would really rather not have to put it to the test.
61 - 80 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
