Points at videos on Angry Cops channel.
United States Push for gun control at state level include bill from Pennsylvania Democrat to ban body armor
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
That.
Is not.
For you.
To Decide.
Unless and until probable cause is established, you have no justification to prevent people from owning such things. This is a fundamental conflict of 'what is a right,' and you are coming down squarely on the side of 'whatever the government decides is.'
I am on the side of 'rights are inherent, and it is immoral for the government to abrogate them.'
Innocent until proven guilty. Until you can prove at a minimum reasonable suspicion, a citizen can freely purchase and use arms and armor. To say that 'some other person with one or two traits in common with you did a bad thing' is justification for barring a person from doing something, is to justify barring people from doing anything, because in a nation of over three hundred million people, there will always be someone who did something bad who has traits in common with you.
If I want to buy 6000 sets of Level IV body armor, set it up on stands in rows, then shoot at them with a variety of bullets, that's none of your bloody business. If I want to do highly-detailed analysis of their performance, that's also none of your business. If I want to fill the bullet holes with orange juice and start singing sea shanties, that's none of your business.
Unless and until I show that I am actively planning harm or am on the verge of committing harm, you have no reason to deny me.
'Someone might' is not justification.
And you still haven't coughed up sources that demonstrate this would help in the first place.
The Security Company I work for have 18 to 20 year old Armed Guards that have purchased their own III and level IV Armor online. So you don't want them to have their own custom body armor?
I am going to second @LordsFire here. I think such things should be left up to the individual, an 18-20 year old could very well have a sensible motive or reason for having it. Hell, "I want one" seems to be a reasonable motivation or cause to me. We aren't talking about things that could be reasonably restricted or would be restricted by necessity. And really, trying to split hairs if such use is legitimate or not, just allows abuse by those in a position to deny people items. They can then use whatever latitude they have to fuck people over, like the ATFatsos have.
Or maybe even someone working at a gun range, or another place with live fire.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
@LordsFire has the right of it. You are not allowed to ask that question, not in any nation that puts the slightest emphasis on freedom whatsoever. You do not know what vast array of legitimate use they may have, no individual does. Asking this question is the political equivalent of the command economy, it will wind up crashing and burning because there's no way for the people at the top to actually know and keep track of how many billions of goods there are and how many billions of legitimate (frequently oddball and sideways) uses there are for each one.
A good example is flamethrowers, which are completely unregulated. Anybody can just go and buy a flamethrower any time. What legitimate use is there for that? They just let kids have those things!
Except there are some pretty legit reasons why banning or even regulating flamethrowers could destroy the entire world food supply. But you have to be pretty deep into agriculture to realize why, not something some New York politician would understand*. You cannot allow him to make regulation based on "What legitimate use does anybody have for a flamethrower?"
Another good example is baking soda, traditionally used to make certain quickbreads. But in the mid 1900s companies noted that some individuals were buying ludicrous amounts of baking soda way beyond any reasonable baking needs. Turned out, sodium bicarbonate was useful in a vast array of chemical processes used in households, from air purification to cleaning pots and pans. Imagine how much utility would have been lost if some politician were allowed to ask "What legitimate use does a housewife have for five hundred pounds of baking soda?"
*Bloomberg: You dig a hole, drop in a seed, put dirt on it and water it, up comes the corn. I could turn any of you into farmers.
A law abiding citizen should. An 18 year old kid with no clear need for it.....eh, maybe not.
Actually, I'm coming down on the side of "the government must have a compelling interest tailored to the situation before they are allowed to act", which is an existing legal standard.
As I pointed out, the government is already allowed to ban things purely because the chance of them being misused is far greater than them being employed for legitimate reasons, specifically the case of armor piercing handgun ammunition being banned because such ammunition is far more dangerous in the hands of criminals than civilians, who will almost never need ammunition capable of piercing a bulletproof vest. I think that reasoning is correct, and the state's compelling interest in protecting police officers gives them grounds to act here, while your standard of "anyone can buy anything unless we prove otherwise" would lead to a far worse outcome.
Right, sure, just let me grab my copy of the FBI reports from an alternate universe where it's more difficult for 18 years to buy body armor, and see how various mass shootings unfolded differently over there.
What I think is reasonable is something that will meaningfully impede mass shooters from getting body armor or at the very least provide another chance to catch them before they act that's triggered by buying body armor, while having the least impact on law abiding citizens as possible.
I don't think that's a workable standard either. Yes, politicians can screw up and make mistakes. I've mentioned AP handgun rounds being banned, for the valid reason they endanger police far more than they protect anyone else. The IL version of that law, naturally, goes even farther and bans dragon's breath shells and bolo shells as well, for no apparent reason (both shells are, too my knowledge, almost purely gimmicks with no utility for self defense or crime). But the fact they screwed up and banned some things for no reason doesn't address the fact that the AP handgun round ban was valid.
Also, there's a very clear difference between household chemicals and supplies, or dangerous tools (and to my knowledge agriculture flamer throwers are not WW2 style napalm devices, they're overgrown blowtorches, so while they're dangerous they're not particularly lethal), and body armor, an item carefully designed for and optimized for one single task.
Counterpoint, how many lives would have been saved if someone was allowed to ask "what legitimate use does someone outside the agriculture industry have for hundreds of pounds of ammonium nitrate"?
Ixian
Well-known member
An 18 year old adult with no criminal history is by definition a law abiding citizen.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
There is no doubt that speeding cars have killed far more people then gunmen in bodyarmor or AP rounds ever have. Why are cars built to go over 75 mph? What possible legal use could people have for a vehicle that could go that fast? As young men are the most likely to hurt people with a fast car, they should be barred from owning them until 25.
By that logic we should ban 18 year olds from.
From joining the US Armed Forces.
From being allowed to drive any vehicle
from serving on juries
from working for a corporation
from working a government job
from getting married
from having their own bank accounts
from voting in any election
That is not a reasoned way to treat fellow citizens. Either you are a full citizen of a country with the full rights every other citizen has. Or you are a second class citizen which flies in the face of the 1st, 13th and 14th Amendment. All of these laws that bare people 18 to 20 from having the rights of people 21 and over are unconstitutional and if a serious case that challenges those laws ever reaches the Supreme Court. They will all be struck down.
There is no constitutional right to own body armor.
South Dakota vs Dale suggests otherwise.
The right to keep and bear arms is grounded in the inherent right to self-defense. This right to self-defense is what body armor would likewise fit under. It is entirely ludicrous to suggest banning something that is entirely defensive in nature. I'm also shocked that you would be so easily manipulated as you have been on this topic.
And Roe vs. Wade has shown us that cases can be revisited and decisions reversed.
One the Founders of the Constitution would disagree with you on Body Amor and two These cases exist.
{{meta.fullTitle}} The Supreme court did the bonehead.
{{meta.fullTitle}} The Supreme court corrected the Bonehead.
Edit: I will also point out that in early 1992 when I was still 19. I wore a Flak jacket while on duty some times. So I guess 19 year old me should have never been allowed to wear one.
Last edited:
@Battlegrinder the incidents recently show why there should be no restrictions on body armor purchases.
When cops are cowards who will keep you from saving your own kids, people (both adults and kids) are fully justified getting any armor they want to protect themselves from random shit popping off.
The only thing restricting body armor will do is remove one of the options parents and teens have for self-protection in an increasingly chaotic world.
This auth-right, conservatise nanny state mindset you are showing, where people have to justify purchasing legal items to random bureaucrats (who already abuse gun-control laws to removing people's Constitutional rights on the flimiest excuse or no excuse at all) shows why the auth-right is just as much an enemy of liberty and freedom as the woke Left.
When cops are cowards who will keep you from saving your own kids, people (both adults and kids) are fully justified getting any armor they want to protect themselves from random shit popping off.
The only thing restricting body armor will do is remove one of the options parents and teens have for self-protection in an increasingly chaotic world.
This auth-right, conservatise nanny state mindset you are showing, where people have to justify purchasing legal items to random bureaucrats (who already abuse gun-control laws to removing people's Constitutional rights on the flimiest excuse or no excuse at all) shows why the auth-right is just as much an enemy of liberty and freedom as the woke Left.
The 2nd amendment is grounded in the natural right of self defense, but the actual law says "right to keep and bear arms" not "right to keep and bear self defense equipment".
I'm not sure what you mean. I've been generally consistent in my position that I think it's very likely future mass shooters will copycat the tendency of several recent shooters to employ body armor, and that given the extremely limited use of high grade armor within most mass shooter's age range, some sort of additional restriction on that age group is not unreasonable.
I've been very flexible on the details, because unlike other issues you've seen me debate, I do not have a thorough understanding of the entire issue and so have misstepped or changed my position based on new information, but I don't think I'd call that being manipulated.
The SC has reversed itself, on rare occasions, yes. That does not mean that just because it has happened, no SC precedent is strongly binding and they're all just as likely to get reversed.
Furthermore, Seals, your are misreading the relevant amendments, or are not aware of how they are interpreted. Dale established a test that any restriction the government imposed or encouraged the states to adopt must itself be constitutional, and the federal drinking age was held to be so. This because while the 14th amendment states that citizens shall not be deprived of their privileges and immunities as citizens and no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process, that does not mean you can't be impeded for doing anything that you declare to be a "privilege of citizenship/liberty", those clauses are interpreted rather narrowly to refer to specific things.
And while there is talk of beefing up the privileges and immunities clause, no one has suggested that they were intended to be read as "doing X is a privilege, therefore I as a citizen cannot be stopped from doing X".
I'd love to hear how parents in Texas having body armor, which they already could have purchased and didn't, would have changed what happened in Texas.
And the counter point of "I shouldn't have to justify anything to anyone, what business of yours is it that I'm buying all this ammonium nitrate fertilizer despite not having a farm" demonstrates why the libertarian party is viewed as a joke.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
And now you're functionally claiming that actual evidence in support of your position cannot exist.
Is your argumentation on this thread some long joke where you're deliberately trying to destroy any respect that anyone here has for your ability to argue for or support a policy? This is an actual question, because I'm having a hard time figure out what the heck you're trying to accomplish with the nonsense you're posting here.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'm not. I remember arguing with him about whether or not the 2020 election was fraudulent; he's got something of an authoritarianism bent, and tends to lean towards trusting the government and wanting to give it more power.
Better to be a 'joke' that actually values liberty and freedom than to be an auth-right neo-cons who is trying to sell the same poison as the auth-left under a different label.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Well, since the conversation has broadened beyond "body armor", I'll ask a question I've had for a while. That is, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees private citizens the right to keep and bear arms as a failsafe against a tyrannical government, then... why should a government that may one day turn tyrannical have the power to regulate weapons, at all?
I'm not even talking about Supreme Court decisions, I'm talking about how if you fear the US government will eventually turn on its citizens, then it doesn’t make sense to give that same government the ability to decide what weapons you can or can’t have. Because then, tyrannical elements within the US government will use and abuse their power to deprive you of what you need to defend yourself, so that by the time they’re ready to pounce, it’s already too late—and that misses the whole point behind why the 2nd Amendment is there to start with. In which case, I’m honestly inclined to think the only interpretation true to the whole point of having it is, indeed, an absolutist one, whatever ramifications that may have.
I'm not even talking about Supreme Court decisions, I'm talking about how if you fear the US government will eventually turn on its citizens, then it doesn’t make sense to give that same government the ability to decide what weapons you can or can’t have. Because then, tyrannical elements within the US government will use and abuse their power to deprive you of what you need to defend yourself, so that by the time they’re ready to pounce, it’s already too late—and that misses the whole point behind why the 2nd Amendment is there to start with. In which case, I’m honestly inclined to think the only interpretation true to the whole point of having it is, indeed, an absolutist one, whatever ramifications that may have.
So say I am 18, I run into the school to stop the shooter because my brother is there and get shot.
Now, I have body armor because I bought it because I have seen incompetence from the police, and or because I have family who own it amd stuff.
My life is now saved because if the armor.
You are basically saying 18-21 shouldn't be allowed to have them because they can't decide to be heros and try and save someone.
I guess we shouldn't let 18-21 year Olds join the military, because they carry fully automatic guns and get body armor.
Yep I own a level IIA Body Armor myself. I am looking into purchasing level IV later this year.