Open Carry with body armor ? Brady says no.

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

I’ve already shown in previous posts that most in government were not meant to be elected by popular vote.

You're quite right. However, such a system is even today called a "direct democracy", in contrast to a more general form of "democracy", which could be a republic, among other things.

That is to say, although direct popular vote would be one kind of democracy, it is not the only kind, and "democracy" is not defined as "direct popular vote" anywhere except in your world.

Direct democracy is when people vote for all laws and the government is only there to enforce the laws, not make them. Direct democracy is mob rule... basically... California. Anywhere people can vote on referendums or propositions, you have direct democracy. Also, if all those in government were elected by popular vote, you'd be moving towards direct democracy.

The only reason there are some popularly elected officials is because there needed to be a balance between those who are appointed by the elites and the people of the country. But those balances were meant to be able to nullify each other. So while the Congress was elected by the people, the Senate would be appointed by the State Governments, and the President would be selected by electors. Every branch would have the ability to cancel out the effects of the other and all would be subjects of the Constitution which would limit them all. Of course, statists like yourself over the years have done everything in your power to convince people that we live in a democracy, and that every voice counts.... Constitution be damned. The will of the people is more important... the elites want to oppress you etc.... you use your Red Herrings and your sophistry to fool most of the people to agree with you... and when someone smarter than you comes along and proves you wrong... you treat them with contempt and you ridicule them as some sort of crackpot or nut. I don't think you are a crackpot or a nut... I think you're a calculating statist who wants nothing more than to be in the majority of the fantasy Democracy you and your ilk have created.

And my world is the real world. While you and AWD live in a fantasy you like to call the Democratic Republic of the United States... pure sophistry. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

I do my own thinking, I do my own reading and I think I've read everything written by Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Bastiat, Franklin, Locke, Paine, Jay and more over the years. I've made my conclusions based on my reading and my understanding of the terms and how they've been changed or manipulated over the years...

For example... like was pointed out in another thread in these forums... the term "Regulate" used to mean "to make regular" but now is assumed "to control". A Republic is not another word for Democracy.... the sophistry involved in that statement is ridiculous on its face, and insulting at its core. Republic's do not require participation of those it governs, meaning, that the laws laid down as the law of the land in a Republic while made by men, do not require any further participation by those living within the bounds of that Republic. No Democracy required to make a Republic work. And, because in a democracy, laws are not stable nor permanent, democracies are not Republics. Laws, rules, edicts, ordinances, statutes et all in a Democracy are ephemeral and change with the "feelings" and the "popular sentiment of the day". So while you may find there are very few Democracies that do not have some Republicanism in them, you will find that there are Republics without any democracy in them at all.

I believe in making sure that the Democracy in this country that is flourishing at the moment should be defeated and stamped out along with it's supporters in any way necessary. If that means war... so be it. Democracy is a blight on human existence and should be shunned at every opportunity. At the same time, I do not believe in the rule of the elites, and so anyone seeking power and using force or coercion to attain it should be stopped in any way... including war.

So how do we do this without war? Well, our founders gave us a way. They gave the elites some power, the masses some power and the courts some power... and then they made it so each of those powers could counter the other, and that unless all three agreed, nothing should pass or be made law. The founders saw fit to make sure that Democracy was kept at bay by allowing people to vote for Congress. However, we've seen our Republic being replaced over the years with Democracy. The Senate is now elected by popular vote... something that should have never changed.... State Judges and Prosecutors are elected... and we get political prosecutions as a result. You continually reference Jefferson as if he and he alone wrote our Constitution.... oh wait... he didn't. That honor falls primarily on the shoulders of James Madison and what he thought about Democracy along with Dr Franklin, John Adams and more was that if allowed to flourish... our rights and our Republic would die.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote that "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." And I agree with him wholeheartedly. A Republic cannot stand for long in the face of Democracy unless defended against democracy. All Democratic Republics will devolve into Oligarchies much as ours is doing now if not defended at all costs. The GOP and the Democrat parties are basically the same... Republicans do not represent republican values as we see with all the BS pandering... but Democrats embrace pure democracy as it allows their most well spoken demagogues to win them elections... of course they love pure democracy... that gives them power. Support Democracy... ruin the Republic... it's quite simple really.

So, do you want to destroy the Republic? I think you've answered it here already... and you're just pissed I've recognized your sophistry and called you on it.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Body Armor? Is that the real reason for this thread?

:banghead:

Banning or Limiting access to Body armor is just a symptom of the disease... why treat symptoms when you know what the disease is and you can begin working on a cure?

I want unrestricted access to body armor... that will not happen as there are those out there who want to restrict us in as many ways as they can to make easier their control.

All the dwindling rights we discuss here are symptoms and not the disease. We need to fight the disease and educate as many as we can to the dangers of the disease or be oppressed by the symptoms of the disease.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

First of all, I'm not pissed. Secondly, I haven't made heavy use of logic (or even illogic), so a criticism of "sophistry" has little relevance.

I actually pointed out a relevant bias in one of your few historical references. All you've done is claim I've taken things out of context (without showing how I've done so), cite statist Federalists, and accuse me of sophistry.

You've done a rather poor job of "calling" anybody "out" over anything.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

A "republic" is a form of "democracy", and as such the terms were used interchangeably wherever the distinction was contextually made irrelevant.

quoted for reference x1000 He keeps missing this.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Body Armor? Is that the real reason for this thread?

:banghead:

Banning or Limiting access to Body armor is just a symptom of the disease... why treat symptoms when you know what the disease is and you can begin working on a cure?

I want unrestricted access to body armor... that will not happen as there are those out there who want to restrict us in as many ways as they can to make easier their control.

All the dwindling rights we discuss here are symptoms and not the disease. We need to fight the disease and educate as many as we can to the dangers of the disease or be oppressed by the symptoms of the disease.

Treat the disease , O-FLU , not the symptoms .

+1

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

First of all, I'm not pissed.

The first rule of fight club....

marshaul wrote:

Secondly, I haven't made heavy use of logic (or even illogic), so a criticism of "sophistry" has little relevance.

Um, are you sure you want to go there? Sophistry is a seemingly plausible, but fallacious and devious, argumentation. You don't have to use logic (or illogic as you put) to use sophism in an argument, you just have to make your argument believable enough to fool people... which is what you've done well using Red Herrings and or quoting one guy, albeit a very well written guy, on what kind of government we have... ignoring the volumes of information that contradicts your assertions.

marshaul wrote:

I actually pointed out a relevant bias in one of your few historical references.

You think that because Adams was an elitist... that it makes my argument or my proofs presented invalid? That in and of itself is sophistry. I've not just relied on Adams for my quotes or my assertions that we are a Republic and not a Democracy, but rather, I have delved into our official documents to make this assertion. Nowhere in our founding documents... the ones used officially and signed by all the founders, is there any mention of Democracy. The limits on government and the people as a function of government are many, and the limits on the individual are few. The Constitution agrees with my conclusions in its body and has no relevance for your assertions within it. Just on that alone, my argument outweighs yours, but I go further. I use statements of our founders to back up the laws and the limits enumerated in our Constitution. Our founders expanded explanations so no confusion would be allowed to give government the ability to take our rights... yet those writings and the Constitution is still ignored.




marshaul wrote:

All you've done is claim I've taken things out of context (without showing how I've done so), cite statist Federalists, and accuse me of sophistry.

You've done a rather poor job of "calling" anybody "out" over anything.

Taking your "quotes" from a series of essays trying to discredit Ayn Rand does not legitimize your argument, only falsify it more. Eyler Robert Coates uses false logic and sophistry to far more sophisticated levels than do you. While I don't agree with all of Ayn Rand's positions, the conclusion that Ayn Rand's positions on the individual are incompatible with Jefferson's ideals is blatant poppycock. Her ideas were that our rights exist simultaneously and that natural rights cannot be legislated away with natural rights being those we can provide for ourselves, like freedom of speech and freedom of travel. Her opinion of rights was in line with Jefferson and Madison on the subject in that our natural rights exist simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another other than that ofnon-interference.

The arguments made by Mr. Coates are banal and clichéd and are made with the very obvious desire to advance the progressive movement. Countless others like him have been used to rewrite history in order to support the progressive cause. Jefferson would have never agreed with progressivism and would have balked at the idea that this country is somehow a Democracy or Democratic Republic. While he wanted the people to have some say, he did not want there to be collective tyranny and no one else at the time wanted Democracy. The reason you cannot find Democratic values in our founding documents is that Republicanism is the only way to protect our natural rights from the majority.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

A "republic" is a form of "democracy", and as such the terms were used interchangeably wherever the distinction was contextually made irrelevant.

quoted for reference x1000 He keeps missing this.

I don't miss it. I refute it. There is a big difference.

 

[Daddyo]

imported post

If we're going to restrict possession of body armor because it limits the effectiveness of law enforcement bullets, should we not also limit sales of leather and denim jackets or flannel shirts?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Daddyo wrote:

or flannel shirts?

How does a flannel shirt help against bullets? Anyway, I thought it was pure silk shirts that protected against projectiles like arrows or thrown knives ... but not bullets.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

OK, so you disagree with the critique of Rand.

How about I quote the Jefferson letter to John Taylor in question in its entirety, and then we'll see who's out of context?

To John Taylor
Monticello, May 28, 1816

Dear Sir, — On my return from a long journey and considerable absence from home, I found here the copy of your “Enquiry into the principles of our government,” which you had been so kind as to send me; and for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The difficulties of getting new works in our situation, inland and without a single bookstore, are such as had prevented my obtaining a copy before; and letters which had accumulated during my absence, and were calling for answers, have not yet permitted me to give to the whole a thorough reading; yet certain that you and I could not think differently on the fundamentals of rightful government, I was impatient, and availed myself of the intervals of repose from the writing table, to obtain a cursory idea of the body of the work.

I see in it much matter for profound reflection; much which should confirm our adhesion, in practice, to the good principles of our constitution, and fix our attention on what is yet to be made good. The sixth section on the good moral principles of our government, I found so interesting and replete with sound principles, as to postpone my letter-writing to its thorough perusal and consideration. Besides much other good matter, it settles unanswerably the right of instructing representatives, and their duty to obey. The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unincumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life. You have successfully and completely pulverized Mr. Adams’ system of orders, and his opening the mantle of republicanism to every government of laws, whether consistent or not with natural right. Indeed, it must be acknowledged, that the term republic is of very vague application in every language. Witness the self-styled republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Poland. Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say, purely and simply, it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican, in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township. The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is practicable on a large scale of country or population. And we have examples of it in some of our States constitutions, which, if not poisoned by priest-craft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures with other elements; and, with only equal doses of poison, would still be the best. Other shades of republicanism may be found in other forms of government, where the executive, judiciary and legislative functions, and the different branches of the latter, are chosen by the people more or less directly, for longer terms of years or for life, or made hereditary; or where there are mixtures of authorities, some dependent on, and others independent of the people. The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism; evidently none where the authorities are hereditary, as in France, Venice, &c., or self-chosen, as in Holland; and little, where for life, in proportion as the life continues in being after the act of election.

The purest republican feature in the government of our own State, is the House of Representatives. The Senate is equally so the first year, less the second, and so on. The Executive still less, because not chosen by the people directly. The Judiciary seriously anti-republican, because for life; and the national arm wielded, as you observe, by military leaders irresponsible but to themselves. Add to this the vicious constitution of our county courts (to whom the justice, the executive administration, the taxation, police, the military appointments of the county, and nearly all our daily concerns are confided), self-appointed, self-continued, holding their authorities for life, and with an impossibility of breaking in on the perpetual succession of any faction once possessed of the bench. They are in truth, the executive, the judiciary, and the military of their respective counties, and the sum of the counties makes the State. And add, also, that one half of our brethren who fight and pay taxes, are excluded, like Helots, from the rights of representation, as if society were instituted for the soil, and not for the men inhabiting it; or one half of these could dispose of the rights and the will of the other half, without their consent.

“What constitutes a State ?
Not high-raised battlements, or labor’d mound,
Thick wall, or moated gate;
Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crown’d;
No: men, high minded men;
Men, who their duties know;
But know their rights; and knowing, dare maintain.
These constitute a State.”

In the General Government, the House of Representatives is mainly republican; the Senate scarcely so at all, as not elected by the people directly, and so long secured even against those who do elect them; the Executive more republican than the Senate, from its shorter term, its election by the people, in practice, (for they vote for A only on an assurance that he will vote for B,) and because, in practice also, a principle of rotation seems to be in a course of establishment; the judiciary independent of the nation, their coercion by impeachment being found nugatory.

If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their government be the measure of its republicanism, and I confess I know no other measure, it must be agreed that our governments have much less of republicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that the people have less regular control over their agents, than their rights and their interests require. And this I ascribe, not to any want of republican dispositions in those who formed these constitutions, but to a submission of true principle to European authorities, to speculators on government, whose fears of the people have been inspired by the populace of their own great cities, and were unjustly entertained against the independent, the happy, and therefore orderly citizens of the United States. Much I apprehend that the golden moment is past for reforming these heresies. The functionaries of public power rarely strengthen in their dispositions to abridge it, and an unorganized call for timely amendment is not likely to prevail against an organized opposition to it. We are always told that things are going on well; why change them ? “Chi sta bene, non si muove,” said the Italian, “let him who stands well, stand still.” This is true; and I verily believe they would go on well with us under an absolute monarch, while our present character remains, of order, industry and love of peace, and restrained, as he would be, by the proper spirit of the people. But it is while it remains such, we should provide against the consequences of its deterioration. And let us rest in the hope that it will yet be done, and spare ourselves the pain of evils which may never happen.

On this view of the import of the term republic, instead of saying, as has been said, “that it may mean anything or nothing,” we may say with truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient. And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

I salute you with constant friendship and respect.

The only poppycock is you accusing me of using Jefferson out of context.

You might as well face it, you just disagree with the man. That's fine; our "founding fathers" didn't agree on much. You're a Federalist (statist) who quotes Adams; Jefferson refers in this very letter to the rhetorical "pulverization" of Adams' "system of orders, and his opening the mantle of republicanism to every government of laws, whether consistent or not with natural right".

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

You think that because Adams was an elitist... that it makes my argument or my proofs presented invalid? That in and of itself is sophistry.

SoI'm allowed to quote Hitler toprove the morality of genocide, andbecause he's an authority on genocide it makes myargument valid? Can I quote Osama on the merits of terrorism? How about I ask a fish how the water is?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

You think that because Adams was an elitist... that it makes my argument or my proofs presented invalid? That in and of itself is sophistry.

SoI'm allowed to quote Hitler toprove the morality of genocide, andbecause he's an authority on genocide it makes myargument valid? Can I quote Osama on the merits of terrorism? How about I ask a fish how the water is?

Strawman... worthless arguing technique.

As for the letter from Jefferson to To John Taylor...It is sad that you quote a man in his aging years giving in to populism. But, our government is in the hands of regular citizens, whether by appointment or vote.It ishowever starting to become as Jefferson described as "where the authorities are hereditary (Kennedy, Bush), as in France, Venice, &c., or self-chosen, as in Holland (thebureaucrats appointed themselves in our huge bureaucracies)" Why not quote him from the only document that matters... the Declaration of Independence? Or, how about his writing before that? Those were his shining moments... and not theyears after his failure to live up to his Republican values when President.

However, in this letter, he was alsotalking about protecting government from those who would seek to corrupt it... like we now have with the Federal Reserve... funny you picked this letter as it was fairly prophetic of Jefferson to assume that it would be banking that might very well doom our Republic. However,once he saw the damnable actions of those promoting and using democracy as only democracy can be corrupted, he would have changed his tune.

Jefferson and Adams had an ongoing feud for years, continuously arguing about the role of government and how big government should be. I agreed with Jefferson on the limitations of government and the need to keep those in government refreshed... but I also agreed with Adam's dire warnings of democracy and how it could and would consume itself.

In fact, I try not to vacillate on one person as they all had ideas that strayed from Liberty and Freedom. Jefferson was right to be wary of the Statists (of which I am not one) and Adams was right to be wary of democracy. But the issue at hand is greater than just those simple arguments... you're using Jefferson to make the claim that a Republic is a Democracy.... which, while he implied it, he did not say it. The problem with your example is that it is from a letter he wrote after he began moving away from earlier republican values and moving more towards populist ones. Madison was more level headed, but he also got caught up by Jefferson's ideals.

We have a bunch of men, all who could not completely agree, come together and create something that none of them would have done on their own. Jefferson would have created a democracy... and Adams would have created a Constitutional Monarchy. But instead... we got a Republic. Sure Jefferson complained about the Senate in later years... but his objections during the Constitutional Convention were unheeded and lucky for us. He did not like Judges having seats for life... but his shortsightedness would have meant that laws would be enforced not on legal terms, but on political lines. We should be grateful that we got the document we did and we should be grateful we did not get a democracy... and we didn't. Just because Jefferson's belief in 1816 was that Republic = government elected by popular vote does not mean that Republic = Democracy.... it was his opinion and not a fact.

Finally, I still hold that while most Democracies in the world are Republics... A Republic does not have to be a Democracy... and the best Republics are those that do not allow democracy in other than one branch being elected by their constituents.

As far as I am concerned, the Senate, the President and the Judiciary should not be elected by popular vote. Only the house of Representatives should be elected by the "people" and that should be the end of any democratic function.... and of course, this was the original construction of our government, and the only construction that was any good. As far as I am concerned, the 17th Amendment should be repealed as it is an evil thing to move us to democracy. Democracy will destroy this country and democracy will take away all of our rights. It's already taking away Liberty and Freedom everywhere you look.

We argue semantics, but my issue is one of Form vs Function.... you are saying that the Form of government is a Democracy, and I am saying that one function in our Republic is to elect representatives... not making our government a democracy, but allowing the will of the people to be represented. A TV is not a computer chip, but a computer chip is part of a TV... same with theDemocracy and Republic argument... Democracy is just the chip... not the TV. The word Democracy should not be uttered. The idea of Democracy should be dismissed in every instance save for electing your district's representatives. A tool of government... not a form of government.

Republics are based on adherence to the law... and in a good Republic are designed to protect pre-existing civil rights. Democracies will never protect anyone's civil rights unless it is popular to do so. Republics do so in spite of popularity. While Jefferson was a gifted writer, his meanderings in his later years seemed more to me designed to oppose Adams than to form an opinion separate from his arguments.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

You still missed the fact that Jefferson's sole criteria for a government qualifying as "republic" is your sole criteria for qualifying it a "democracy". That is, what you call a "democracy" Jefferson quite literally defined as a "republic".

So, to be clear, your views represent -- at best -- an evolution of republican theory, but they do not represent republican theory as unanimously agreed upon by "the founding fathers", nor are your definitions similar to those in use in the 18th century.

Now, with that out of the way, we can get to the meat of the issue. Understand, I don't like the idea of a "tyrannical majority" stripping rights away. But what you must realize is that the power to do so always ultimately lies with the people, whether right or wrong, and whether impeded by what you call a "republic" or not. Jefferson's belief was that the best way to preserve individual rights was to place them directly in the hands of those actually affected (collectively "the people"), rather than a group of distant elites who have no real need to recognize the rights of the common person.

(Example: What motivation does an anti-gun politician have to be pro-gun? They are not a member of the mere "people", and they get all kinds of awesome security that the rest of us cannot afford. The rest of us must provide our own security, so the need for gun rights becomes very real.)

I'll point out the elites you defend are (well, half of them anyway) responsible for the likes of Sarah Brady and the anti-RKBA camp. It's not exactly a "popular movement", although they do their best to give that impression.

Even in California, Propositions are, in practice, penned and pushed by members of the elite with an agenda. There is no evidence that Californians, left to their own devices, would have become so anti-gun without certain groups of politically connected elites pushing the mindset using their disproportionate influence (we need more libertarian filmmakers!, especially in a state where the film industry has notable political influence), simply because Californians never were left to our own devices.

Jefferson's system didn't fail us, because it was never implemented and it never had the opportunity to "crumble on itself'. The truth is, what you call "republicanism" did fail us -- all the "populist" (and "socialist") movements have been pushed by elites with an agenda using the extant republican system. Jefferson saw this as inevitable, and believed that the way to prevent it was to place the responsibility for preserving and power to nullify rights directly in the hands of the people (where it ultimately lies anyway), so as to encourage a sense of responsibility in people to protect their own rights, instead of relying on their political party to tell them what their politics are and how they should react to the world around them.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

You think that because Adams was an elitist... that it makes my argument or my proofs presented invalid? That in and of itself is sophistry.

SoI'm allowed to quote Hitler toprove the morality of genocide, andbecause he's an authority on genocide it makes myargument valid? Can I quote Osama on the merits of terrorism? How about I ask a fish how the water is?

Strawman... worthless arguing technique.

You people really need to learn the definition of a strawman. Extended logic and applyingidentical logic to other examplesIS NOT a strawman.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I'll point out the elites you defend are (well, half of them anyway) responsible for the likes of Sarah Brady and the anti-RKBA camp. It's not exactly a "popular movement", although they do their best to give that impression.

Even in California, Propositions are, in practice, penned and pushed by members of the elite with an agenda. There is no evidence that Californians, left to their own devices, would have become so anti-gun without certain groups of politically connected elites pushing the mindset using their disproportionate influence (we need more libertarian filmmakers!, especially in a state where the film industry has notable political influence), simply because Californians never were left to our own devices.

QFT and relevance.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

\
For example... like was pointed out in another thread in these forums... the term "Regulate" used to mean "to make regular" but now is assumed "to control".

That requires some pretty fancy "interpretation" there doesn't it? Didn't they go over that "interpretation" in Heller? You know, SCOTUS and all that?

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

If you live somewhere that the cost vs. benefit of wearing a vest tips towards you wearing it... you need to move.

I'm going to take your quote and alter it just ever so slightly to show you how absolutely silly your argument is.

If you live somewhere that the cost vs. benefit of carrying a gun tips towards you wearing it... you need to move.

Now, can we discuss this with a bit more intelligence please?


---


Just recently, an Open-Carrier (and hero) in Virginia shot (and killed) a bad guy who shot the owner of a stop'n'rob. The good guy who was defending the lives of all of the people in that stop'n'rob was also shot at. He dove to the ground to avoid being shot and he also took cover behind a large drink cooler filled with drinks and ice.

You too may go into a convenience store sometime. Robberies happen everywhere, not just in "bad neighborhoods." Furthermore, you might not have true cover like this OC'er had to hide behind if you're taking return fire. A vest might save your life. Sure, the blunt-force trauma might still kill you and will still definitely cause massive bruising, but it's better than having those bullets penetrating through your internal organs, isn't it?

There's nothing wrong with wearing body armor if it's legal to do so. I have a spare tire in my car even though I've never had a blowout or even a flat tire. I carry a flashlight even in the daytime. I wear my seat belts even if I'm just moving my car in the street. I carry a cellular phone even where the service is spotty. I open carry even when I think I don't need a gun. I carry spare magazines even though 12+1 of my .45 ACP should be enough. I carry a knife even though I carry a gun.

And... I very often wear armor too even though I don't expect to be shot and I live in a "good neighborhood."

It's not called paranoia, it's called being prepared. I'm not doing it to be tacti-cool or to feed my ego; I'm wearing it because it's one more edge I have over the hypothetical bad guy and I'll take every edge I can get legally.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

If you live somewhere that the cost vs. benefit of wearing a vest tips towards you wearing it... you need to move.

Hmm, they don't want you to have a gun OR body armor.

They just want you to DIE.