Is there a legitimate purpose for civillians to purchase and wear body-armor?

[Murphy]

Why would you deny someone the right to protect themselves when what they are doing has no harmful consequences to anyone around them?

PhysicsGuy pretty much nailed it.

Superjew care to respond to the above quote?

Are the majority of your threads an assignment for a Sociology course?

 

[22many]

Superjew, I can understand why you asked the question. Your curious. But, after reading your other posts you seem to be coming off as if you frown down on it and you don't think people should wear it. Well, I don't think that you should voice you negative opinion about it but that is where the first amendment comes in. Just like people who choose to wear body armor. Because they have the right to do so.

Some people like to be prepared, some people like to just be safe because, in today's world, anything can happen.

2 years ago I wouldn't have even considered carrying a gun daily. But now, if I leave home without it I feel like I forgot my wallet or keys. It's just a natural reaction to ensuring my safety.

 

[Dutchy556]

Stirring the pot yet again I see... SJ, the type of questions you ask and comments you make - and the way in which you phrase them - makes it fairly clear that you're trying to get people riled up.

In any case, here's my answer:

Some folks view armor as another part of the preparedness equation for civil unrest, "shtf" scenarios etc. Real life examples of goings on in post-collapse Argentina demonstrate that having armor around for a rainy day may not be all that bad of an idea.

Some people have high risk jobs or other reasons to fear being shot - think judges, lawyers, anybody who does something that would garner unwanted attention from criminals or crazies...

In addition, others, like myself, choose to invest in armor for protection during more dynamic firearms training - live fire shoot house runs for example. (I can see the thread on why anyone but Mil/LE need advanced training now...)

I'm sure folks can come up with plenty more reasons to own ballistic protection.

What's your point with regards to ownership of armor not being constitutionally protected? People should only be allowed to own or do things that are specifically protected by the constitution or its amendments?

 

[JimmyS1985]

The potential for making a criminal much harder for your average police officer to take down is there if the perpetrator is wearing body-armour is why I question it.

I am just on the fence on this issue, Ive stated and you can probably tell I have left leanings, but I also like the AWB expiring. I want more information before I develop an opinion on the matter so I go here.

WHo here actually owns and wears body-armor that isn't a police officer or in a combat unit in a warzone, and what reasoning made you decided to purchase it and use it?

I guess Im not paranoid about civil unrest or that food-insurance program that Glenn Beck sells and the backpack with 60 MRE's. I have a guy at my work who stockpiles canned goods and shotgun shells incase of some kind of holocaust, but I don't understand his, or other peoples mindset that makes them resort to that sort of stuff.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The potential for making a criminal much harder for your average police officer to take down is there if the perpetrator is wearing body-armour is why I question it.

Owning and driving cars makes it more difficult for the police to catch bank robbers. The inability of the police to periodically inspect homes without notice makes it easier for drug dealers to do business. In short, your argument is not valid.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Does that mean you plan on purchasing body-armor in the near future, and for what reason?

 

[Wallygator]

Its called FREEDOM







wg

 

[deen_ad]

Since the assault weapons ban expired, civilians have access to some high-firepower weaponry

The so called "assault weapons ban" had nothing to do with the power of the rifle, it had to do with a list of "fearsome" accessories that someone dreamed up. The ban had nothing to do with the power of the weapon.

8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

80 MILLION law abiding gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington member

 

[U201494]

WHo here actually owns and wears body-armor that isn't a police officer or in a combat unit in a warzone, and what reasoning made you decided to purchase it and use it?

I do not understand why any one would respond to this.
Why engage this imbecile? She is clearly getting her jollies watching "us" get riled up over the crap she posts.
You respond, she giggles.
You keep responding, she wins and you look foolish.
You will NEVER change her position on anything.
Let it go.

 

[deen_ad]

Perhaps, but the 2A constitutional amendment argument doesn't work quite as effectively when discussing the legality of body-armour since it wasnt around in 1791.

I guess I was just curious why some people require it, I didn't think hunters could shoot until they identified their target was not a female, let alone another human being.

Neither were high speed printing presses nor radio, nor televison, nor the Internet, but the 1st Amendment still covers it!!

8 US Presidents have been NRA members. They are: Ulysses S. Grant,
Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

80 MILLION law abiding gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

----------------------------------------------------------

The "Feedback Score" is low by 4, not everyone posts it I guess.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington member

 

[i8asquirrel]

If I could afford it I would own it. You hear a noise late at night,pick up flashlight and handgun to check things out...A vest would ad some comfort to my way of thinking.

As to the Hollywood shoot out statement: I understood the problem the LEO's had was not as much that the badguys were in Head to toe body armor as that the LEO's had inferior weapons ( 9mm. and shotguns) I understood the event to be one of the biggest reasons LE started carring tactical carbines as standard..

 

[Generator]

I do not understand why any one would respond to this.
Why engage this imbecile? She is clearly getting her jollies watching "us" get riled up over the crap she posts.
You respond, she giggles.
You keep responding, she wins and you look foolish.
You will NEVER change her position on anything.
Let it go.

Ah, your right, but IF, and its a big IF, SJ, reads this, I want her/him to know that they are an anti-American idiot. I don't like to feed the troll, but darn it if I don't hope that it realizes that it is lucky to live in this country, and should stop suppressing us, even through the internet. I spent most of my life in a foreign country, and I greatly appreciate my freedoms here, and hate people who shoot off at the mouth without an ounce of sense or perspective.

 

[deadeye]

Well Ive never been in a "high-risk" environment that required body-armour for starters. I prefer to live in "low-risk" areas and in such areas I don't see why I, or anyone else besides law-enforcement, would need to purchase body-armour.

It seems that I have offended a great many of you for simply asking the question.

This man was not cited for DWI for intoxicated horse ridership

More On Horse Riding While Intoxicated

Well if you left your mommas basement once in a while you may realize the world isnt as safe a place as you are led to believe. As for owning body armor it is no different then owning any other safety equipment that you might need to protect yourself in certain situations. As for the incident in LA, it was the LA cops ineffective firearms training that it lasted as long as it did, not the body armor IMO...

 

[Generator]

If I could afford it I would own it. You hear a noise late at night,pick up flashlight and handgun to check things out...A vest would ad some comfort to my way of thinking.

As to the Hollywood shoot out statement: I understood the problem the LEO's had was not as much that the badguys were in Head to toe body armor as that the LEO's had inferior weapons ( 9mm. and shotguns) I understood the event to be one of the biggest reasons LE started carring tactical carbines as standard..

If I was SJ, I'd say... the intruder has a right to shoot and rob you.
You don't have a right to be protected.

 

[Generator]

Helmets should be illegal on Motorcycles - SJ.

I'm prematurely attributing this quote to him/her.

 

[deadeye]

Helmets should be illegal on Motorcycles - SJ.

I'm prematurely attributing this quote to him/her.

Well not illegal just not required....

 

[Generator]

Well not illegal just not required....

Only the police should be able to wear helmets, because no one else will ever be in danger. Some times the cops drive quickly and they are a different class of citizen than us....


Man, I never get mad online until now, I'm a little surprised at myself.

 

[drew]

Man, I never get mad online until now, I'm a little surprised at myself.

I know. I'd probably respond to most of SJ's questions with MYOFB instead of the normal MYOB.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Well if Im the idiot for questioning legitimate purposes for civilians possessing body-armour how many countries have faced downfall or had seriously bad things happen to them from making purchase and use of body-armour illegal? How many first-world countries have recently required their common citizenry possessing body-armour for overthrowing their government? Libya doesn't count folks, and Egypt was done peacefully.

I guess if you reign from the left, your a troll amongst gun owners, its too bad that a constitutional amendment has been completely hi-jacked by party politics.

I trolled a gunshop pretty hard today when the employee went to show me his favorite shirt in the store and it had a picture of GWB and it said "Miss me yet?" and I simply stated Im a lib and I don't miss him at all. He seemed to be taken aback that my type enjoy firearms as well since I obviously did not fit into his stereotype for people who prefer the current president over the former.

The N.Hollywood shoot-out was just an example I used where the ability to purchase it had been abused.

 

[Generator]

SJ, you are siting the ability to use Body armor by a disruptive force. No gun owner was a fan of the N. Hollywood shoot out (the reason why Norinco ammo is banned) what we question is: No one can buy BA, therefore citizens are second class to police.

I hated Bush too, but I don't want to take away products from people because you think they are simple stupid civilians.
As you say: How many countries have faced downfall or had seriously bad things happen to them from making purchase and use of body-armor illegal? So body armor hurts no one.. but you want to ban it.. why do you want to stick your fingers into my life for doing something non-violent...

I never wanted body armor before, but I do now, SJ makes me feel like I might be unable to buy it soon... Since I'm not special.