The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on May 14, 2009, 01:06:34 PM
-
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/why-criminals-are-buying-body-armor.html
-
The only things that SHOULD be regulated are the REGULATORS!!!!!!!
-
The only things that SHOULD be regulated are the REGULATORS!!!!!!!
Comment of the day award!
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/604777/2/istockphoto_604777_miniature_trophy_blank.jpg)
-
"Why do you need it if you're not going to commit a crime?"
So you can throw it on when someone breaks into your house. I've worn kevlar on a few occasions, most notable was when I was six, dad and the uncle were going to go shooting at a ranch or old quarry the only way the mom would let me go was if wore that vest. So went out there with a vest on that went below my knees. ;D And a police issue vest doesn't fit a six year old without duct tape.
-
"Why do you need it if you're not going to commit a crime?"
So you can throw it on when someone breaks into your house. I've worn kevlar on a few occasions, most notable was when I was six, dad and the uncle were going to go shooting at a ranch or old quarry the only way the mom would let me go was if wore that vest. So went out there with a vest on that went below my knees. ;D And a police issue vest doesn't fit a six year old without duct tape.
Turtle ;D
-
They should decriminalize shooting politicians, it would be an incentive for them to keep their dumb ideas to themselves.
Go ahead, regulate body armor, it should just as blazingly effective as the laws against murder, drug dealing,and felons possessing guns.
What idiots.
-
Head Shots.....for criminals.
-
Head Shots.....for criminals.
ON TARGET 8) 8) 8)
-
Head Shots.....for criminals.
Don't tell that to the LAPD.
-
Another tool that the bad guys are using, so the general public should no longer be able to take advantage of.
Doesn't make sense, but that is gubment for your ???
-
Put a vest on last night at the SWAT night class. Had a Level IV ballistic plate too. Damned heavy, only 1 plate (front), and no other gear other than a comm headset - with no label or brand name. Wonder why they do that? ? ? ?
-
I have seen body armor at gun shows for sale,,....
Questions: Why would I, as a law abiding citizen want it? Why would someone not in Law Enforcement want it?
If criminals are going to purchase it, to commit crimes, than wouldn't a rational defense be to have more firepower/better aim?
Maybe my .357, by the bed isn't enough,...maybe a 12g Rifled Slug, or multiple rounds from 5.56 frangible? Or just my .45LC with Silvertip JHP's. If it won't pass through body armor, it should at least hit them like a dump truck..... At least than I can beat them with a good ol' Louisville Slugger,...
Still thinking head shots....
-
I have seen body armor at gun shows for sale,,....
Questions: Why would I, as a law abiding citizen want it? Why would someone not in Law Enforcement want it?
Answer: You, as a law abiding citizen aren't going to abuse the added protection afforded by a vest and police aren't the only people criminals shoot.
-
This truly is gun cotnrol exposed for what it really is. You can make an argument for banning handguns in the interest of stopping crime. But thats not the real reason and we all know it. When it comes to body armor, a purely passive defensive device, the rationale becomes clear,to make us vulnerable to agents of the state. Bad enough we can't go on the offense, but merely to have defensive capacity makes us suspect. Granted, I want a bullet proof vest about as badly as I want a pet iguana, but why would you deny me the right to own one? One reason, and one reason only, to leave me defenseless. The 2A is there for one reason. Its to provide insurance against tyranny if the 1A fails.
FQ13
-
They should decriminalize shooting put a bounty on politicians, it would be an incentive for them to keep their dumb ideas to themselves.
Go ahead, regulate body armor, it should just as blazingly effective as the laws against murder, drug dealing,and felons possessing guns.
What idiots.
There, I fixed it for you. ;D
-
I like your version better,I need a job ;D
-
This discussion/debate is a better one than why do you carry. I get into the debate of why would a person carry, and I need to bite my tongue a lot because I don't want to let just anyone know that I carry. With body armor, I don't have, but wouldn't mind it for the same reason I carry.
I won't go to the Twin Cities without a gun. As I have followed this thread I have thought to myself about safety and preparedness. If I believe that a gun is a good idea why don't I think protecting myself from a bullet would be just as good an idea? To me wearing body armor is no different than buying car insurance - You hope you never need it, you don't plan on needing it, but the stats are out there that prove it is in you best interest to have it.
When I taught EMS and specialized rescue I learned that Hennepin County (the county Minneapolis is in) issued body armor to all paramedics and several levels of firefighters (dependent on their main duty and how it worked with other turn out gear). If I'm visiting or working in those same neighborhoods during the same hours shouldn't I be just as protected?
Also, there are many other uses for body armor. I have seen demonstrations and read of a vest being used to provide protection in a room ie. I gather my family in a back corner of a bathroom where they can use fixtures for cover, but we drape a vest to help protect vitals of mom and the litter. Body armor can become a vital part of a "portable" safe room.
Just more ramblings from a highly stressed pea brain.
-
I am for having body armor all the way! About a year ago we had some gangs move in from California. Aryan Nation was one of them, I forget the other one. White supremisists all of them though. They were selling cocaine and heroin out of 4 houses in the neighborhood. Everybody knew it. Arrests were happening every week, but the LEO's couldn't keep them in jail long enough to stem the tide.
We knew they were armed, and many had violent rap sheets, and everytime LE would launch a raid on one of these houses, these guys would scatter into the neighborhood. I BOUGHT BODY ARMOR FOR MYSELF AND MY WIFE! Everytime they raided these houses and these assholes would go running we were armored and armed. Fortunately we never had to confront one of these individuals, but I wasn't going to let them take me down.
We as a community finally ousted them. We formed a neigborhood watch, and every time we saw something that seemed even remotely out of place we were calling the cavalry. They finally gave up and moved out. But here is what I took away from the experience:
In the absence of government, or ineptness, lawlessness is going to be what we will end up fighting agaisnt. And we need to be better protected than those trying to harm us.
-
I'm half-joking, but has anyone in office ever watched the A-team or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly? B.A. could weld up some plate steel in a vest shape or that Clint guy just had a stove door of some sort. What's next? Regulating steel? No car doors allowed?
RETARDED
-
This may not be popular but I believe only the military, security details and police should own body armor. They are the ones who are paid and trained to deal with threats up to and including deadly force and the uniform makes them a target. Civilians have no reason to wear body armor unless they are a confirmed target by some psycho. Captured criminals do not deserve body armor either. Just my personal opinion.
-
This may not be popular but I believe only the military, security details and police should own body armor. They are the ones who are paid and trained to deal with threats up to and including deadly force and the uniform makes them a target. Civilians have no reason to wear body armor unless they are a confirmed target by some psycho. Captured criminals do not deserve body armor either. Just my personal opinion.
If you frequently posted "dumb" or contrary opinions I (and probably others) would jump all over you. (I know that's hard to believe)
I'll just point out that you are forgetting people like store owners who have to take their cash to the bank, just for one example.
I want to hear your reasoning before I go any further.
-
retail jobs are number 1 on being assulted... LEOs are nto even in the top 5.
Having worn body armor, trust me, you don't want too. unless you have too.
Body armor that is not worn= usless. better off taking the 1000-2500 and paying for a good SD class or securing your home.
-
This may not be popular but I believe only the military, security details and police should own body armor. They are the ones who are paid and trained to deal with threats up to and including deadly force and the uniform makes them a target. Civilians have no reason to wear body armor unless they are a confirmed target by some psycho. Captured criminals do not deserve body armor either. Just my personal opinion.
In a country that was founded on the idea that the government should fear its citizens and not the other way around, any equipment that LEOs can use should be available to law abiding citizens. Simple checks and balances. Authority will be abused regardless who has it.
When you get to the point that you say law abiding citizens can't own a particular item, how long before guns are on that list? Stay consistent in thought.
-
In a country that was founded on the idea that the government should fear its citizens and not the other way around, any equipment that LEOs can use should be available to law abiding citizens. Simple checks and balances. Authority will be abused regardless who has it.
When you get to the point that you say law abiding citizens can't own a particular item, how long before guns are on that list? Stay consistent in thought.
so I should be able to walk down tot he hardware store and buy a nuke?
-
so I should be able to walk down tot he hardware store and buy a nuke?
Yes, if you have the ability to transport and store it safely.
-
Yes, if you have the ability to transport and store it safely.
All that really takes is money.
as I've said before, every single college campus has all of the info needed to design and build a nuke. They are really not that hard. its jus tthe infrustructure needed to mine, refine and then machine the fissionable materal is $$$$$$$$$
-
so I should be able to walk down tot he hardware store and buy a nuke?
Fishin's easy!
First, I said LEO, and if you have ever purchased a smoke detector from the hardware store, you have.
If there comes a time when the military is forced to regulate domestically, there are far worse problems than whether or not my AR has two clicks or three.
-
Body armor is freely availablenow. When was the last time you remember it being an issue? Probably that bank heist in LA a few years back. Not an everyday problem. TAB is right on one point. The stuff is both expensive an uncomfortable. Crooks will pay a few hundred for a gun. Most aren't going to drop $1500 for a vest, and fewer still will wear it. If they were going to, wouldn't it be making the news? This just seems like a non-issue.Very few civvies want body armor. Fewer need it. Fewer still would wear it.But who am I to tell them no? Its not not a problem and not my business.
FQ13
-
In a country that was founded on the idea that the government should fear its citizens and not the other way around, any equipment that LEOs can use should be available to law abiding citizens. Simple checks and balances. Authority will be abused regardless who has it.
When you get to the point that you say law abiding citizens can't own a particular item, how long before guns are on that list? Stay consistent in thought.
And, that right there is everything in a neat little package. Pretty much sums it up in my book.
-
This may not be popular but I believe only the military, security details and police should own body armor. They are the ones who are paid and trained to deal with threats up to and including deadly force and the uniform makes them a target. Civilians have no reason to wear body armor unless they are a confirmed target by some psycho. Captured criminals do not deserve body armor either. Just my personal opinion.
So, when TT11... (damn handle is as big as he is) received the death threat a couple months ago, what process should he have to go through to protect himself and his wife ???
-
Mike, you make a good point. Here's my two-cent's worth: the statement "why would anybody need" is the same argument that the anti's are using to push an AWB. I may NEVER need a vest. I pray to God that I never need the handgun that I carry on my person on a daily basis, or the other "arrangements" that I've made to protect those important to me. But who the HELL is anybody to tell me that I don't "need" them?!? What I need and what I choose to use to defend myself and my family are nobody else's business......nor will they KNOW what I have available unless they try to harm me and mine, and if they do that they won't be sharing the information. The Constitution is very clear......what part of "shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard to understand?!?
Do I need it? Hopefully not. But I pay for car insurance hoping I'll never be involved in an accident, too.
Here endeth the rant.
-
Mike, you make a good point. Here's my two-cent's worth: the statement "why would anybody need" is the same argument that the anti's are using to push an AWB. I may NEVER need a vest. I pray to God that I never need the handgun that I carry on my person on a daily basis, or the other "arrangements" that I've made to protect those important to me. But who the HELL is anybody to tell me that I don't "need" them?!? What I need and what I choose to use to defend myself and my family are nobody else's business......nor will they KNOW what I have available unless they try to harm me and mine, and if they do that they won't be sharing the information. The Constitution is very clear......what part of "shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard to understand?!?
Do I need it? Hopefully not. But I pay for car insurance hoping I'll never be involved in an accident, too.
Here endeth the rant.
If someones uses the 'why do you need' argument, then I ask them about alcohol. Turns out most hippies are drunks, and why do you need booze, can't you have fun with out booze? Booze kills people, we should just ban it, I know you don't drive drunk but can't you have a good time with out drink? What purpose does drink serve? What do you mean we shouldn't punish you cause others aren't responsible? But your booze kills little kids all the time.
Same thing if they drive a sports car. People go racing around kill people during their illegal street races we should just outlaw sports cars, you don't need a muscle car.
The fact is if you can't change a hippies mind on the topic you can make them realize how stupid their argument is. Put them on the defensive.
-
I apologize for my comments, but I still feel the same. I agree about it being no ones business about owning or wearing body armor. I did mention that my view about it may not be popular. I have made many posts on this forum and I try to shoot straight on what I am posting about. But one thing I do not agree with is body armor.
Yes, I have worn a vest. I wore a flak jacket in the military and a Threat Level 3 Vest when I worked for the Sheriff Dept. But seeing gangbangers having the opportunity to purchase body armor to commit their crimes and give them a fighting chance against law enforcement officers, then I have a serious issue with that.
My whole perspective is the safety of the law enforcement officer. Contrary to the paranoid belief that the cops and military are out to take your guns, I can honestly say that the officers I know or have known over the years side with people able to bear arms.
I hope this explains a little more as to why I am biased about this subject. If it still continues to piss people off, then you are wasting your emotions on negative energy that will get you no where. But I will not be a pussy and back down just because a few did not care for my opinion. ;D
-
Just to be clear, if we outlaw body armor so gangbangers can't get it, then they won't.
Just like guns or drugs, right?
-
Never said anything about outlawing it. I am not a lawmaker. I just gave an opinion and explained why I feel the way I do about body armor. The 2nd Amendment supports our right to bear arms, not wear body armor. But if a person chooses to wear armor, good for them. What I stress is that I do not care for "gangbangers or criminals" to have access to purchase body armor!!!
-
Ping,
I don't believe you need to change an opinion to suit the majority, either here or any other arena. I also believe what people are saying here (me included) is consistancy in thought is needed when speaking of RTKBA. When you open a small crack, it will be exploited in ways you could never imgaine
With your background in LE, you have a unique perspective of the situation that others here do not, but that is a double edged sword as illustrated earlier in the thread with the neighborhood with the gang problem. I believe the "sticky wicket" so to speak is criminals and law abiding citizens just as with firearms. Because they are illegal does not mean that criminals will follow those laws. We all know this.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over the differences here. Heck, I'm a Hurricane fan in Gator country so I know I won't as I'm sure you won't either. It's just a simple difference of opinion.
-
Brosometal is right Ping. Here, its all in the family, as least as far as 2A issues go. If we couldn't argue here, then where? Besides, If Tom doesn't get to get bitchy once a day, then he and TAB will be scuffling over the last bottle of midol and thats never a pretty sight. Entertainng, but not pretty.;D ;D ;D
FQ13
-
I apologize for my comments, but I still feel the same. I agree about it being no ones business about owning or wearing body armor. I did mention that my view about it may not be popular. I have made many posts on this forum and I try to shoot straight on what I am posting about. But one thing I do not agree with is body armor.
Yes, I have worn a vest. I wore a flak jacket in the military and a Threat Level 3 Vest when I worked for the Sheriff Dept. But seeing gangbangers having the opportunity to purchase body armor to commit their crimes and give them a fighting chance against law enforcement officers, then I have a serious issue with that.
My whole perspective is the safety of the law enforcement officer. Contrary to the paranoid belief that the cops and military are out to take your guns, I can honestly say that the officers I know or have known over the years side with people able to bear arms.
I hope this explains a little more as to why I am biased about this subject. If it still continues to piss people off, then you are wasting your emotions on negative energy that will get you no where. But I will not be a pussy and back down just because a few did not care for my opinion. ;D
I don't agree with you but I figured you would have a reason for the way you think.
I WILL point out though that in NH and several other states, wearing body armor during the commission of a crime is in its self ALREADY a crime.
Broso, I've got to ask, How the hell can a Floridian be a FAN of Hurricanes ? ;D
NOTE FOR FQ, I'm only bitchy with those who are intellectually dishonest, mere difference of opinion gives me no problem.
-
Dad helped coach HS football when we lived in Miami. One of the guy s he coached went and played at the University of Miami. He happened to be a childhood hero of mine. So the rest, they say, is history. As for the actual weather pattern, it helps thin the herd.
-
Dad helped coach HS football when we lived in Miami. One of the guy s he coached went and played at the University of Miami. He happened to be a childhood hero of mine. So the rest, they say, is history. As for the actual weather pattern, it helps thin the herd.
I guess, some of them land all the way up here ;D
-
I apologize for my comments, but I still feel the same. I agree about it being no ones business about owning or wearing body armor. I did mention that my view about it may not be popular. I have made many posts on this forum and I try to shoot straight on what I am posting about. But one thing I do not agree with is body armor.
Yes, I have worn a vest. I wore a flak jacket in the military and a Threat Level 3 Vest when I worked for the Sheriff Dept. But seeing gangbangers having the opportunity to purchase body armor to commit their crimes and give them a fighting chance against law enforcement officers, then I have a serious issue with that.
My whole perspective is the safety of the law enforcement officer. Contrary to the paranoid belief that the cops and military are out to take your guns, I can honestly say that the officers I know or have known over the years side with people able to bear arms.
I hope this explains a little more as to why I am biased about this subject. If it still continues to piss people off, then you are wasting your emotions on negative energy that will get you no where. But I will not be a pussy and back down just because a few did not care for my opinion. ;D
Ping, no need to apologize for your comments. As a former LEO I agree with your position on bangers and body armor.....bangers and guns......and/or bangers and breathing. I believe that in all three things I just cited, the two (bangers and whatever) should be mutually exclusive. I take no offense or even opposition to your point. My point, however, (which I think may have been lost in my rant) was two-fold:
1) The "why does anybody need" argument particularly bothers me because that's the one that the anti's are using (perhaps successfully) to call for a renewal of an AWB........which I'm confident that will be followed by "why does anybody need a handgun....they're only designed for one purpose, to kill people". How many times have we heard that song in reference to so-called "assault weapons"? Once they convince the sheeple that nobody "needs" a handgun, then why would anybody "need" a high-powered rifle? The only thing they're good for, afterall, is killing Bambi. (It's for the children, you know).
The point is, it's sets us en route down a slippery slope.
2) The gun rights issue is the only one that comes to mind that places the bruden of proof on the individual that they should be "allowed" to excercise a Constitutional right. When I was in school (WAY before the PC BS they teach anymore) we were taught that everybody was entitled to a presumption of innocence. That seems to be the case today, EXCEPT for 2nd Ammendment rights. I mean, they don't require background checks to purchase cars, although many more people are killed in car crashes than are killed with guns. The last time I went to the liquor store there was no background check required before I could make a purchase, although alcohol-related deaths far outpace gun-related deaths in this country each year. There's no background check to go through before you buy a pack of cigarettes, even though they have been proven to cause cancer. Why are guns the only item that you must pass a background check before purchasing. The only items, I might add, the ownership of which is a right protected (supposedly) by the United States Constitution!!
For many years gun owners have "gone along" with a series of minor restrictions, thinking that if we played nice the bad people who don't think we should be able to defend ourselves will take their small victories and leave us alone. We can see how well THAT has worked out, now, can't we?
The illustration of the frog in the pot of water has been made many times on this site, but in case you missed it, here it comes again. If a frog is placed into a pot of boiling water he'll immediately jump out, but if he is put into a pan of room-temperature water he'll sit there, calmly, while the water is slowly heated to a boil, and he'll be cooked. As gun owners we have been sitting in the pot, not noticing the ever-increasing temperature, and now it's approaching a boil.
On the subject of paranoia, there's an old joke that comes to mind........."Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you!"
Ping, I apologize if you thought that I was bashing you for your position, for that was absolutely not my intention. I am simply sickened by the path down which this country that I have served, and that I love, finds herself traveling. And, much like Haz and "clips", there are certain things that tend to set me off. The things about which I am passionate.
I want you, and everyone elsse here, to know where I'm coming from. If I have offended, I apologize. Have a nice day.