Points at videos on Angry Cops channel.Uh...
As mich as I defend the military.
Plenty of not sane people get in.
We really don't take a psych test to join.
People will go and sell thoer XMSI plates at a pawnshop for money.
Points at videos on Angry Cops channel.Uh...
As mich as I defend the military.
Plenty of not sane people get in.
We really don't take a psych test to join.
People will go and sell thoer XMSI plates at a pawnshop for money.
And what legitimate use do 18-20 year olds have for body armor, particularly level III and IV armor?
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?And what legitimate use do 18-20 year olds have for body armor, particularly level III and IV armor?
And what legitimate use do 18-20 year olds have for body armor, particularly level III and IV armor? @Cherico mentioned gas station clerks and other people in jobs where they're at risk of violence donning vests, I assume that's probably lighter, level I and II vests and not the heavier stuff. Fair enough, maybe leave that be and just restrict the heavier stuff.
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?
@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.And what legitimate use do 18-20 year olds have for body armor, particularly level III and IV armor? @Cherico mentioned gas station clerks and other people in jobs where they're at risk of violence donning vests, I assume that's probably lighter, level I and II vests and not the heavier stuff. Fair enough, maybe leave that be and just restrict the heavier stuff.
Besides, why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be able to buy a heavier set of body armor?
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.'
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?
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.
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?"
A law abiding citizen should. An 18 year old kid with no clear need for it.....eh, maybe not.
By that logic we should ban 18 year olds from.A law abiding citizen should. An 18 year old kid with no clear need for it.....eh, maybe not.
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.
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.
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.There is no constitutional right to own body armor.
And Roe vs. Wade has shown us that cases can be revisited and decisions reversed.South Dakota vs Dale suggests otherwise.
One the Founders of the Constitution would disagree with you on Body Amor and two These cases exist.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
So say I am 18, I run into the school to stop the shooter because my brother is there and get shot.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.
Yep I own a level IIA Body Armor myself. I am looking into purchasing level IV later this year.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.