Glock Forum banner

Should Body Armor Be Strictly Reculated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • No

    Votes: 40 93.0%

In light of recent events should Body Armor be strictly regulated?

3890 Views 88 Replies 25 Participants Last post by  Stove Pipe
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!
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 5
81 - 89 of 89 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.
You are talking about people who regulated seat belts, alcohol, cigarettes, driving, and the list goes on. You know, for the children. If they get the chance, they will stick it to the people they are elected to represent-----------NOT rule.
Too many forgot this, if they ever knew it at all.
  • Like
Reactions: 4
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.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
The vest may stop the bullet but the impact will still come through.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp...............
I can't tell you how many officers I have chased into an ambulance after being hit. They just knew they were about to die. None did. Their vest stop the round, and all suffered nasty bruising. Some had fractured ribs, and one even had a little heart arrhythmia.
It didn't look pleasant at all, and normally getting a police officer into an ambulance is a lesson in futility.
Plates distribute the impact, but the psychology of taking a hit is still there.
  • Like
Reactions: 5
I reckon if I'm shooting brass solids in 45-70 relaods, do you trust your body armor?
Maybe level 4, lol! I’d expect all my ribs to be broken though.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I can't tell you how many officers I have chased into an ambulance after being hit. They just knew they were about to die. None did. Their vest stop the round, and all suffered nasty bruising. Some had fractured ribs, and one even had a little heart arrhythmia.
It didn't look pleasant at all, and normally getting a police officer into an ambulance is a lesson in futility.
Plates distribute the impact, but the psychology of taking a hit is still there.
What were the officers hit with? Handgun, rifle, or shotgun rounds?
I imagine that most were hit with handgun rounds and of those most were 9mm.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp..............
What were the officers hit with? Handgun, rifle, or shotgun rounds?
I imagine that most were hit with handgun rounds and of those most were 9mm.
Ride Safe. Dr.Tramp..............
Pistol. I don't recall the calibers. Most soft armor will stop pistol and most shotgun, as long as it hits the vest, as velocity is comparable. Speed, in general, defeats armor, not caliber.
Despite the internet wisdom, BG's don't wear plated, or any other armor, very often, and aren't always well heeled. It happens, but fortunately, not a mainstream problem. We read about those folks in the papers, usually because they cause dead police.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I think I made my point.

Just wondering who thinks the body armor should be regulated?
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I am for civilians having body armor, and I can see events unfolding where it would be needed. Such as, in riots and swarming crowds that go from downtown riots, into neighborhoods.

A person may need to defend their home in the days to come, and body armor would give protection against bullet and knife wounds.
  • Like
Reactions: 3
81 - 89 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.
Top