The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 14, 2009, 12:11 PM   #26
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,681
Since we know that the AWB had NO effect on any measurable crime indices, I'm willing to bet that a armor ban would be similar. It's just a feel good measure for those in that banning paradigm.

The NY Times has an hysterical rant editorial about an attempt to allow EBRs in DC. How dare folks allow battle rifles in the home? Right now, my EBR is tied down as it is struggling to get loose and cause mayhem. When I shoot a carbine match, those guns go home. How dare TX allow this!!

Just BS - the general principle of not having bans is separate from someone who is ninja-ing up and waiting for the Apocalypse. There is no need for such a ban.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 01:59 PM   #27
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
Quote:
firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not
I think you may be wrong about that, eel-man.

I'll see if I can find it later, but I'm pretty sure there was a chunk of Heller that talked about armor as being a classification of "arms".

People have always tried to stop bullets with various protective stuff. That was true when the Bill o' Rights was written, well before it was written, and well after it was written right up to the present day. Armor has never been unusual, and I think any argument that it is dangerous is pretty flimsy also.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:44 PM   #28
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
Found it:

Quote:
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”


Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
Take that, fishy!
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 05:48 PM   #29
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Take that, fishy
Obiter dicta droog

WildgimmesomeunagiAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 07:17 PM   #30
JustDreadful
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2008
Location: Sin City
Posts: 270
Quote:
The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.
So absent 2A you'd be OK with gun bans?

There are no fundamental differences between the arguments raised in this thread against body armor, and the Bradyite arguments against classes of guns, and in fact against guns in general. The position of your eyebrows is immaterial and uninteresting.

And if someone decides to ninja up and wait for the Apocalypse, what business is it of yours?
__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

"Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge."
JustDreadful is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 07:17 PM   #31
TheFacts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2006
Location: 40 degrees North, 75 degrees west
Posts: 158
Quote:
The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.
Hmmm...don`t forget about the 9th Amendment. One could make a strong arguement for our right to keep our skin and viscera intact. In fact, even the 4th amendment could be construed to protect body armor.

Quote:
Dangerous and unusual wot wot. Civilians who need body armour due to their unique circumstances need body armour. Folks who don't but buy it anyway get the eyebrow. the LRH syndrome is probably the most psychologically innocuous in that crowd.
If I can recall properly, many years ago, there was a clothing manufacturer marketing a line of Kevlar lined coats for children. At the time, it was selling quite well, but like all things... News reporters were interviewing parents who bought the coats. Guess what their reasons were for their purchases

Try telling those parents that they do not have a right to coat their children in adamantium armor.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
TheFacts is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 08:26 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,319
I can see the possible usefulness....

Albeit limited, of enhanced penalties for wearing of body armor during commission of a crime of violence (bank robbery, etc.), but other than that, I see no purpose or good that can come of any restriction on lawful citizens owning and wearing (if they so choose) body armor.

After all, don't we, the people, have as much right to protection from gunfire as someone who makes their living going in harms way?


And I, for one anyway, am sick of hearing anyone talk about need. Particularly when they use their opinion of what I need as justification for what I should be allowed, under law to own.

You can live naked in a mud hut (or not naked in an igloo) and only ingest the bare minimum of calories for survival, if you choose. After all, thats all a human being needs. But don't even think of trying to make a law that says I must do the same. As the bard has been oft quoted, "Man does not live by bread alone".
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 10:37 PM   #33
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
So absent 2A you'd be OK with gun bans?
Your implication that I am is Post hoc ergo propter hoc

By the way, I would argue that certain gun bans would be constitutional

Quote:
There are no fundamental differences between the arguments raised in this thread against body armor, and the Bradyite arguments against classes of guns, and in fact against guns in general.
Reductio ad bradium

Quote:
The position of your eyebrows is immaterial and uninteresting.
Not to normal folks

Quote:
And if someone decides to ninja up and wait for the Apocalypse, what business is it of yours?
I'm entitled to be bemused by the antics of my fellow fleshbots. And as they have the right, to date, to ninja up, so too do I have the right to condescendingly smirk and point out their vagaries to my fellow norms.

Quote:
Guess what their reasons were for their purchases
Tell, pray tell......


WildanddontconfusemyraisedeyebrowwithsupportforalawAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 10:48 PM   #34
THEZACHARIAS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 537
Ironically, criminals who commit a crime using firearms and body armor are more likely than any other offender to be killed by police at the scene.

By armoring those areas, they prevent law enforcement from delivering an incapacitating (as opposed to fatal) shot, meaning the only way to take the guy down is to introduce mr. JHP to mr. brain matter.

On top of that, a crime with an armored bad guy is a pretty strong cop magnet, so there will be lots of extra firepower aiming at said brain matter.
THEZACHARIAS is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 10:59 PM   #35
Shadi Khalil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 4,960
Even if I had access to body armor I would not use it, no matter how vigorously Wildalaska furors his brow....


Shadi Khalil is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:38 PM   #36
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
While the 2A protects the right to own guns it doesn't include CCP's... Most folks do not need to carry a concealed firearm any more than, and likely less than, the average person needs body armor. So WA, you would cock an eyebrow to anyone who applies for a CCP unless they need one due to certain special circumstances...
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:38 PM   #37
Csspecs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Posts: 1,111
Even in the north hollywood shoot out I have read a number of views of it that they did not get hit for some time. That they hid behind overwhelming firepower (that ran out) and did not start getting hit until they lost their firepower advantage. And correct me if I'm wrong but their vest had been stolen right?


I'd own one if I had the money. I would not wear it all the time or even that often, just keep it handy if things ever got more lawless. Crime rate here has been going up pretty fast, kids (18-25) are carjacking and chopping the cars for cash. I'm guessing that these are junkies needing a fix doing the carjackings, probably lost their crap job months ago when everything slowed down.
Csspecs is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 11:45 PM   #38
AZ Med18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 337
What exactly would constitute a unique need for body armor?

Last time I checked most crimes were committed against the private citizen.

Or EMS never gets attacked....

London for example

http://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/ne...k_paramed.aspx
__________________
XD 9mm service Ruger LCP
Colt Python .357 magnum AK-47
Mossberg 500 12 gauge
AZ Med18 is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 12:30 AM   #39
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea

Not quite responsive to the OP, but somewhat on topic is my post in the thread "Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea."
Ricky B is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 12:41 AM   #40
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
Quote:
dicta
Yeah, but it's still a nice historical argument for us originalist/founder's intent nutjobs. Armor is "arms", and always has been, so the 2nd applies.

Scalia agrees with me, who agrees with you?
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 12:42 AM   #41
THEZACHARIAS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 537
-"Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea."

True, but its relevant only to felons. Joe Schmoe gun owner is, in a legal sense, unaffected.
THEZACHARIAS is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 05:16 AM   #42
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,423
Quote:
my right eyebrow raises over the thought of an ordinary Joe buying body armour
Ah, the anti-armor sentiment. "You don't need no armor, but we will sell you a gun."
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 12:16 PM   #43
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Scalia agrees with me, who agrees with you?
Me

Quote:
Ah, the anti-armor sentiment. "You don't need no armor, but we will sell you a gun."
1. Misconstrues my comment. 2. Guns have purposes other than "defense"

WildiseewehavethebodyarmourwoobienowAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 12:43 PM   #44
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Most folks do not need to carry a concealed firearm any more than, and likely less than, the average person needs body armor.
Where do you get that conclusion from

Quote:
So WA, you would cock an eyebrow to anyone who applies for a CCP unless they need one due to certain special circumstances...
Many folks get CCPs to avoid the NICs check. And quite frankly, I do cock my eyebrow over some folks getting CCPs...DLs too

WildtheleftoneAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 01:38 PM   #45
Housezealot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 606
I am quite suprised how much opinions differ in this forum as to how much freedom a person should have. every body has there right to an opinion, I would think that most of us would not want any of our rights limited.
I also worry that some people think something that is right to them is a "privilege" to everyone else
__________________
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
Housezealot is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 01:51 PM   #46
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
I am quite suprised how much opinions differ in this forum as to how much freedom a person should have.
isnt America great?

Quote:
every body has there right to an opinion, I would think that most of us would not want any of our rights limited.
Bet ya 90% of the folks here agree it's OK to limit "rights"...the question is not whether, but how much...

WildfreedomisnotlicensewotwotAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 02:02 PM   #47
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Just for the record...

No one in this thread has said body armor should be regulated, or that any law-abiding citizen should be legally barred from owning it. Some of us think it's a bit silly to want it, absent a good reason, but I haven't noticed anyone arguing for legal restrictions. Whether or not it could be, or whether armor is protected by the Second Amendment, are completely different questions from that of whether it ought to be, which, unless I've missed something, we've all answered with a resounding "No."

Quote:
anddontconfusemyraisedeyebrowwithsupportforalaw
Exactly. Well tmesified, WA. I envy you the eel, by the way.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old May 15, 2009, 04:06 PM   #48
TheFacts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2006
Location: 40 degrees North, 75 degrees west
Posts: 158
As fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009) we are weighed down with personal and political ideologies. Most agree that body armor is a right protected by some vague aspect of the BOR. Others feel that that is a no no. If I see someone walking around in chain mail (other than at Medievel Times) with a sword strapped to his belt at the local shopping mall, I will raise an eyebrow. If I see someone walking out of a gun show with 5 SKSs, 4 Remington 870s, and 10 Glock 17s (that`s a lot to carry) I will raise an eyebrow. If I see someone at the supermarket check out with groceries and he is sporting a flak jacket with 2 1911s and a Kabar strapped to him, I will raise an eyebrow.

Now just because I raise my eyebrow does not mean that I have the right to deny that individual the right to be unusual. We raise our eyebrows because we experience events that go against everyday norm. Things that shock us may also plauge our logic circuits which can cause us to say silly things like:

1) "What do you need that for."
2) "There oughta be a law against that."
and my personal favorite...
3) "Why doesn`t the govt get involved."

I have personal convictions but I try to keep them to myself (even though I have a right to voice them). However, I do not have the right whatsoever to use my convictions to physically deny the convictions held by other fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009). Please let the fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009) have their body armor...if you scratch their backs, maybe they will scratch yours



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

Last edited by Al Norris; May 15, 2009 at 04:56 PM. Reason: Edited out response to deleted post
TheFacts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13449 seconds with 9 queries