Bullet Proof Vests

[WISD0MTREE]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/378

Should bullet proof vests be legal or illegal? Debate. 

[Lan]

Why should they be illegal? 

[Wayne]

Surely the USA has bigger problems that could be sorted out then this?

[Livius Clades]

Also no such thing as a Bullet Proof vest. Bullet Resistant yes but not Bullet Proof. Also No they should be legal, I mean it's something that can preserve a humans life. 

[John X]

They can have my armor when they pry my assault rifles firing armor piercing rounds from my cold dead hands. Damn gov.....

[Wayne]

 

 It is common knowledge that one of the main reasons America hasn't been invaded for 200 years is the fact that there are well-regulated militias across the country.

 

I think it has more to do with you being pretty much a !@#$ing continent, making the logistical side of war in your land near impossible.  Also, much like the reasons America dropped the 'bomb' on Japan, invasions by sea are very costly both in terms of human lives and monetary.  Your position on the earth and sheer size are much better deterrents then a bunch of Hillbillies running round the woods on a Saturday evening playing army.

[Jefferson Davis III]

Well, since you can purchase bullet resistant backpacks (perfect for the parents who are over protective!). And you can buy kevlar lined clothing, BPVs should be completely legal. A Bullet resistant vest protects the vital organs from most handgun rounds, shotguns, shrapnel, and some rifle rounds. What should be illegal, is the trama plate which is what also stops high velocity rounds. a kevlar vest will stop a nine mil, but a .223 will go right through, but the trama plate will stop a .50 cal. In most states, anyone can buy the vest, but you must be military or law enforcement to purchase a trama plate.

[Lan]

They should be legal, but there should be civilian and military models.

IIRC there are already civilian and military models, and there should be a noticeable difference.

Military kevlar vests are meant to stop life-threatening wounds on the battlefield. Civilian vests should be able to stop a bullet from a handgun that might be used in a robbery or perhaps a gang shootout.

As one who lives near Chicago I know there are areas that you simply don't walk through as gang violence is a terrible thing.

I say make the vests expensive but available to all. Although criminals would be able to obtain them easily they already can get them through crooked cops if they try hard enough.

 

 

*NOTE: THIS NEXT SECTION IS A BIT OF A RANT AND CONTAINS A SCENARIO IN WHICH ALL RIGHT-WINGERS WILL !@#$ THEMSELVES OVER

Having bullet-resistant clothing is of great use to militias in the United States. It is common knowledge that one of the main reasons America hasn't been invaded for 200 years is the fact that there are well-regulated militias across the country. This coupled with the regular military makes America one of the toughest countries to invade in the world. (arguably of course)

In the event of a hostile takeover, even civilian body armor would be of great use against shrapnel and small-caliber rounds. A guerrilla force armed with nothing but civilian arms and armor would still be a formidable foe. (think Red Dawn)

Body armor doesn't make you invincible, only harder to kill. And the longer it takes to kill someone, the longer they have to kill you. 

Why? Are all lives not valuable? Are you actually saying the life of a soldier is more valuable than any other?

They should be legal across the board. As Clades pointed out, they can potentially preserve a humans life. What's wrong with that? Even if you're these guys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4mcYkIwU

Who cares? If I have enough money I can go get my car fully armored to fully stop even AK rounds. 

Not only that, but getting shot while wearing armor, from what I hear, still applies enough force to break ribs and cause serious damage to the point that if you get shot, whether you're alive or not hardly matters. You're probably too !@#$ed up to be effective at killing anything anyway.

I see nothing wrong with the preserving life when possible, regardless of who it is.

[Spite]

What Wayne said. Plenty of shit hole countries have large actual militias, not inbreds who shoot at signs, and it doesn't do much good in war. Iraq for example.

 

Anyway nobody invaded the USA because there would be no point and like Wayne said, even if you won the war who would have the manpower? It would be pointless.

[Lan]

What Wayne said. Plenty of !@#$ hole countries have large actual militias, not inbreds who shoot at signs, and it doesn't do much good in war. Iraq for example.

 

Anyway nobody invaded the USA because there would be no point and like Wayne said, even if you won the war who would have the manpower? It would be pointless.

Nobody invaded the US because they actually can't. Not because it's pointless. 

Edited August 14, 2015 by Lan

[Sam Hyde]

Why should they be illegal? Anyone should be able to purchase their own protective gear when it comes to protection from firearms, no matter their rank of protection. If someone wants to have military-grade protection, why not? If they can deal with having to lug around this much weight, I don't see a problem with it.

 

Hell, in ancient Athens, there was no restriction when it came to ownership of armor (apart from the price barrier, of course), and in ancient Sparta, ownership was downright mandatory.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I think it has more to do with you being pretty much a !@#$ continent, making the logistical side of war in your land near impossible.  Also, much like the reasons America dropped the 'bomb' on Japan, invasions by sea are very costly both in terms of human lives and monetary.  Your position on the earth and sheer size are much better deterrents then a bunch of Hillbillies running round the woods on a Saturday evening playing army.

This seems pretty accurate. The only thing protecting America is its geology. Crossing either the Atlantic or the Pacific is too much ball ache. We only went to the Falklands because it was a British territory inhabited by British expats as opposed to Argentinians.

 

Militias don't tend to be very well trained, which is probably why they are banned in the UK and have been for many centuries. It is better to have an army that can actually fight a war as opposed to one that thinks it can.

[Jose Rodriguez III]

...China

Assuming that the PLAN is even capable of reaching US shores(let alone Hawaii) before being completely anihilated, even speaking conventionally(no nukes). Consider the possibility extremely unlikely.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Jose Rodriguez III

[WISD0MTREE]

Why should they be illegal? 

Some asses at the mall were complaining that they could help mass shooters. I wondered what PaW thought. 

[Lan]

Assuming that the PLAN is even capable of reaching US shores(let alone Hawaii) before being completely anihilated, even speaking conventionally(no nukes). Consider the possibility extremely unlikely.

The US Navy certainly makes all others look like child's play, but considering the ASBM. Americas navy has been rendered useless in the face of modern technology. mutli billion dollar machines are now only effective against those who can't produce this.

Of course, when it comes to world powers like Russia, China and the US, I highly doubt any of these nations would be able to effectively invade the other. It would all come down to ICBMs, hacking and other forms of solitary warfare. Which would be MAD. Both the US and China can shoot down satellites, and I'm willing to bet those would be the first targets in war between the two, so who knows? But it would be a nightmare on both sides.

[Sam Hyde]

Some asses at the mall were complaining that they could help mass shooters. I wondered what PaW thought. 

 

topkek, my man