Posted on Feb 9, 2016
Does the right to keep and bear arms protect the right to keep and bear armor?
33.3K
405
95
19
19
0
A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to restrict private ownership of body armor (level III and above). Is the right to keep and bear armor protected along with arms?
https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%22114%22%2C%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22H.R.378%22%7D
https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%22114%22%2C%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22H.R.378%22%7D
Firearms and Guns
Constitution
Armor
2nd Amendment
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 52
1
1
0
1
1
0
If we are going by the founder's original intent, to have an at the ready fighting force, seem like anything the military has we should have.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Does anyone have stats on how many crimes are committed with vests on? I bet it is as negligible as crimes committed with so called "assault rifles." Although in FLorida if you commit a felony while wearing a vest you get an extra charge on the house.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I should think that it would. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the pre-existing Natural Right to Self-Defense by establishing a legal right, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing upon its exercise.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Watch Ryan Duffy get shot in the chest as he tests the strength of a fashion forward bulletproof vest made by Steven Seagal's personal tailor. Hosted by Ryan...
Check this out
https://youtu.be/nQM6zLiSn1E
https://youtu.be/nQM6zLiSn1E
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
One (of many) issues I have with this is something the congressman said. They use the same argument in the gun debates. He stared this thing in 2014 and said "no one needs to be better protected than our law enforcement". Quite frankly, when your government tells you what you need and don't need, you are not free. Who is the government to tell me what I need? Message to government: We are citizens, NOT SUBJECTS. In a free society, the individual decides his or her own needs, not a two bit hack tyrannical government.
Okay, getting angry again. Need to sign off before the rant becomes even more nonsensical.
Okay, getting angry again. Need to sign off before the rant becomes even more nonsensical.
(1)
(0)
The 2nd no.. But the basic human right to protect ones self does. If I do that with body armor or passively though awareness, its my basic right to be safe.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I would say technically no, body armor at least as we know it now didn't exist at the time that amendment was written.
I personally don't see why people would need to buy it unless they are in a profession where they could use it but I also don't see why it should be restricted either. You want to keep yourself protected, go for it. I would find it very hard to take people seriously if I saw them shopping in Wal Mart with a bullet proof vest like the one above on though.
I personally don't see why people would need to buy it unless they are in a profession where they could use it but I also don't see why it should be restricted either. You want to keep yourself protected, go for it. I would find it very hard to take people seriously if I saw them shopping in Wal Mart with a bullet proof vest like the one above on though.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SrA Knight-Great points, but the threat has increased to include more than just the average meth addict breaking in for the stereo.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
To bear Arms, is part of the Original version of the Constitution, so each state has its own Army. In today's environment each on knows we have to give up something to be safe, but how much is too much. I look back on History (i.e.) Marcathy Trials.
(1)
(0)
SSG Eddye Royal
Sgt Buckner, now all of us found out that we were LIED to; I've been extended until I'm 65 years old, so I have to look at it from a leadership standpoint. Right now we are having Cyber Attacks on a daily basis, and is attacking our internal systems. That has to be looked at, I can not discuss any of that information because this is not a.MIL or secured line. But we are also not like CHINA, RUSSIA, or the other countries.
(1)
(0)
SSgt James Atkinson
Each state has an Army and an Air Force, called the National Guard and the Air National Guard (which are called the "organized militia") and then each state have the "unorganized militia" which is everybody of military age, or both genders who either not in the regular federal forces, or the state forces, and who can be called up in an emergency. In regards to the National Guard troops, they first take an oath to the federal government, and then secondary to the state military government, so that at any time the state guard can be called to federal duty or activated, and the unorganized militia used to fill the requirements of the national guard slots where people were pulled in for active duty.
Now, someone who served on active duty in the regular military (U.S. Federal Forces), and who was given a retirement or an honorable discharge can be recalled to active duty directly to the federal military forces for the duration of their life. You see once you enter on active duty, you do not finish your military service when your DD-214 gets signed, but rather you can be recalled to active duty for the duration of your natural life. This actually happened in World War II, where veterans of World War I who had specialized knowledge and expertise were recalled to active military service, with "significant medical waivers" to act in support, communications, and intelligence positions. Many were blind or were stuck in wheelchairs, or were amputees, but their mind was still functional, so they can recalled to active duty, to work behind the scenes. In the modern day terms, these people who can not be drafted, but rather they would not be recalled to active duty, and most given direct appointments as NCO or direct commissions as officers. The threshold for these direct recalls is usually in the form of veterans, who have college degrees in certain critical subject matters such as law, medicine, intelligence, engineering, and related "professional degrees" with the "more confirmable transcripted college credits, the higher the recall rank."
Now, someone who served on active duty in the regular military (U.S. Federal Forces), and who was given a retirement or an honorable discharge can be recalled to active duty directly to the federal military forces for the duration of their life. You see once you enter on active duty, you do not finish your military service when your DD-214 gets signed, but rather you can be recalled to active duty for the duration of your natural life. This actually happened in World War II, where veterans of World War I who had specialized knowledge and expertise were recalled to active military service, with "significant medical waivers" to act in support, communications, and intelligence positions. Many were blind or were stuck in wheelchairs, or were amputees, but their mind was still functional, so they can recalled to active duty, to work behind the scenes. In the modern day terms, these people who can not be drafted, but rather they would not be recalled to active duty, and most given direct appointments as NCO or direct commissions as officers. The threshold for these direct recalls is usually in the form of veterans, who have college degrees in certain critical subject matters such as law, medicine, intelligence, engineering, and related "professional degrees" with the "more confirmable transcripted college credits, the higher the recall rank."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt Richard I P.
MSgt James Mullis Because people should have the right to own a product which prevents death when struck by gunfire.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google