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

[ds5160]

My former roommate word body armor on her job as a mental health counselor. She was frequently called in to help with trauma care after gang shootings, rapes, and other violent attacks. She also started to carry after her first couple of gang shootings. As a civilian counselor, she realized because violence that ended up at the hospital, it did not mean that it stayed out of the hospital.

 

[SPU]

I guess if you reign from the left, your a troll amongst gun owners....
I trolled a gunshop pretty hard today....

I'm a liberally inclined guy on social issues, graduated from an Ivy League college, and have voted Democratic in all but one national election. I did not get instruction or own a gun until fairly recently, despite being in high inner-city risk areas for many years back in New England. So I was one of your ilk. And in many ways I still am. I do not agree with many of the opinions of members here, but I can see the logic in some of the arguments presented from an extremely conservative viewpoint, though I disagree with some of the premises resulting in the arguments.

But your desire to ask inane questions and use of illogical as well as red herring arguments offends my sense of intellectual honesty. Your corruption of the Socratic method to incite and inflame rather than to enlighten and learn is useless. You are illogical, and therefore a waste of my time.

I do not own nor do I intend to own armor. I do own guns. I can see how some may wish to own body armor. I don't care because it does not harm me or society.

From my understanding of the definition of an internet troll, you meet the criteria.

 

[Crispy]

I'm a liberally inclined guy on social issues, graduated from an Ivy League college, and have voted Democratic in all but one national election. I did not get instruction or own a gun until fairly recently, despite being in high inner-city risk areas for many years back in New England. So I was one of your ilk. And in many ways I still am. I do not agree with many of the opinions of members here, but I can see the logic in some of the arguments presented from an extremely conservative viewpoint, though I disagree with some of the premises resulting in the arguments.

But your desire to ask inane questions and use of illogical as well as red herring arguments offends my sense of intellectual honesty. Your corruption of the Socratic method to incite and inflame rather than to enlighten and learn is useless. You are illogical, and therefore a waste of my time.

I do not own nor do I intend to own armor. I do own guns. I can see how some may wish to own body armor. I don't care because it does not harm me or society.

From my understanding of the definition of an internet troll, you meet the criteria.

This is probably the most well articulated post here. Cheers SPU!

 

[Redcap]

 

[Dutchy556]

... your desire to ask inane questions and use of illogical as well as red herring arguments offends my sense of intellectual honesty. Your corruption of the Socratic method to incite and inflame rather than to enlighten and learn is useless. You are illogical, and therefore a waste of my time.

...

From my understanding of the definition of an internet troll, you meet the criteria.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Today I had taco bell for lunch.

 

[simpleguy]

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.

SJ - You are not an idiot, it's just your perspective starts from "why should the government ALLOW us to do XXX..." When you need to look back at the formation of our Constitution, it was made to be a document CONTROLLING our Government, RESTRICTING what the Government could do, not restricting what WE THE PEOPLE can do. I think a lot of people have forgotten it. As far as I am concerned, as I stated earlier, do what YOU want as long as you are not hurting others. If you want to paint yourself pink, run around singing hymns, and profess yourself to be a diety, as long as you are not hurting anybody, be my guest.
Try this, why shouldn't law abiding people have access to body armor? If body armor was more prevalent, wouldn't it be cheaper and safer? How does having body armor hurt anyone that is already law abiding? On the flip side, if someone is a criminal and they have body armor, isn't there already 20,000 or so laws on the books they've ALREADY broken? At what point to we need more laws and more complicated ones at that?

What you continue to propose in the posts I've seen is a further complication of our already complex legal system. It needs to be simpler and easier, which doesn't necessarily mean letting people "off the hook" or letting people out earlier or any of that. If a new law is being created, we need to look at it from the perspective of, "if someone is doing XXX, haven't they already broken a bunch of other laws? What does this law do? Is there Constitutional justification for creating this law?, etc"..........the previous quote would eliminate a lot of the crap we already have out there today.

In closing please don't pick apart my post in to little inane bits that do not pertain to the OP.

thank you.

 

[madcratebuilder]

 

[twoclones]

I just can not fathom why a civilian would need the stuff

I cant' fathom why anyone would need a television either.

 

[Just Jim]

Just a point here, the Jews in Hitlers Germany were not allowed body armour or guns. How did that work out for them?

jj

 

[ablaut]

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.

Um....what? No. Body armor has been around for a long, long time (see: Goliath)

Concealable Kevlar vests, no. But to suggest body armor was unavailable or un-thought-of is silly. What were you trying to get at?

 

[U201494]

That sounds like a legitimate use to me for the sale and use of body-armour in the private sector. Thats all I was looking for.

Alrighty then, keep on trollin'. What your next post? "Anyone believe in a Prophylactics for Handguns program"?

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

I had a question that needed answering, I fail to see how I am trolling, other than I can't see a plausible reason to own it and some people on here do.

Because I want to - and it's nobody's effing business if I do... I don't answer to you. Don't you people have something to take care of in YOUR life instead of worrying about mine?

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

Alrighty then, keep on trollin'. What your next post? "Anyone believe in a Prophylactics for Handguns program"?

Prophylactics are great for guns!! Keeps the rain out of your barrel!

 

[Trlsmn]

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

Is there a legitimate reason for asking this question?

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.

I doubt he cares what you think about it, you on the other hand seem to have given thought and judgement to something that is none or your business and does not affect you, is it intruding on your life in any way? rhetorical question.

If I chose to buy body armor the government needs to understand that it is none of their business.

 

[Trlsmn]

Today I had taco bell for lunch.

I'm sorry.....

 

[miletwo]

I for one am impressed with the civil conversation coming FROM SJ and quite ashamed at the amount of angry, mean-spirited rudeness coming the other direction.

I'm definitely very RIGHT leaning, but appreciate the dialogue. I wish folks could avoid calling people idiots just because they began a dialogue from a viewpoint different than their own.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

I for one am impressed with the civil conversation coming FROM SJ and quite ashamed at the amount of angry, mean-spirited rudeness coming the other direction.

I'm definitely very RIGHT leaning, but appreciate the dialogue. I wish folks could avoid calling people idiots just because they began a dialogue from a viewpoint different than their own.

So he is quite civil in the expression of his desire to intrude on the lives of others. That makes everything wonderful. Shame on me for not noticing. As long as I am asked politely, I will cheerfully give up all my rights and freedoms...

Well - probably not. This has been going on for far too long, we have lost way too much already, and the stakes are much too high to allow it to continue. No matter how well intentioned, intrusion is intrusion. I will not back up one more inch without putting up as much resistance as I can.

You want something to be ashamed of, be ashamed of what we have allowed our country to become by not resisting death by bureacracy. Land of the free home of the brave no longer.

 

[armedredneck]

I understand there are some great forms of body-armour on the civilian market that may be even better than what the military uses (dragon-skin, which I've heard is better than interceptor armor despite failing a high profile military test)

I just can not fathom why a civilian would need the stuff, unless intent on some kind of shooting spree that winds up in a face-off with police, a civilian militia unit in case the government gets overthrown or some other oddball situation that may or may not happen. I think its pretty well known that a certain famous hollywood shootout, the perpetrators were dressed from head to toe in body armour.

Can someone please elaborate for those of us that don't know why there is a need for body armor? Since the assault weapons ban expired, civilians have access to some high-firepower weaponry but who in the heck would need body armor? Couldn't the ability for US Citizenry to purchase body-armor be abused and smuggled to Mexican drug cartels, criminals or other enemies of the state? There is nothing in the 2A that states that the public needs to be protected from firearms, on top of bearing them.

Troll is obvious. AGAIN. Really?

 

[miletwo]

So he is quite civil in the expression of his desire to intrude on the lives of others. That makes everything wonderful.

When did he do that? I saw him ask a question and engage in dialogue. Which part of that was an intrusion into somebody else' life?

As long as I am asked politely, I will cheerfully give up all my rights and freedoms... Well - probably not. This has been going on for far too long, we have lost way too much already, and the stakes are much too high to allow it to continue. No matter how well intentioned, intrusion is intrusion. I will not back up one more inch without putting up as much resistance as I can.

Now see... this makes you sound like a nut case. Note: I'm not calling you one... just pointing that out. I do agree that our rights have been infringed for far too long and that the USGOV has overextended the reach of govt. creating what you and I would call a "Nanny State." For this reason I stockpile ammo when it's cheap, keep about 3 weeks of food in storage and have the means to survive should our society melt down in an extreme fashion...

BUT!!!

You want something to be ashamed of, be ashamed of what we have allowed our country to become by not resisting death by bueracracy. Land of the free home of the brave no longer.

Undoing what you so correctly point out is the erosion of our freedom and the sub-contracting of bravery to the government WILL NOT HAPPEN BY CALLING PEOPLE IDIOTS! If you want to change this, do it by education, by literate and coherent arguments, and by intelligent conversation. Don't think for a moment you will accomplish the education of a troll by stooping to their level. That sir makes you a fool.

Unlike others might be... I'm not DONE with this thread, throwing my hands up in disgust and walking away. Rather, I'm open to intelligent debate, concerned for the safety and welfare of my fellow man, and protective of my freedoms just like you are.

First three rules of intelligent dialogue: Be Nice, Be Nice, Be Nice.