Quote:
Originally Posted by jryley
Mekanik im far from trolling. Jus because my opinion differs from yours doesnt mean someone is trolling.
|
No, the inflammatory language and name calling points us in that direction. It has nothing to do with your opinion, just how you choose to express it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jryley
And absolutely i will scoff at people that buy bloody body armour. Lol. Are you kidding me? Owning armour is on the same level as doomsday preppers. Did any of you guys not see the thread from a few weeks ago with the "club" of guys wanting to shoot live rounds at eachother? Thats exactly why it should be regulated.
|
Those wonderful individuals were outted as fakes and banned for obvious foolishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jryley
Again, if your Profession dictates it to be useful then great. Go ahead and Buy armour....through responsible regulation. Im all for protesting the things that legitimately shouldnt be regulated, but
Im sorry, body armour isnt one of them.
|
Once again, you fail to mention on any sort of realistic, logical argument as to WHY this item needs to be regulated. Is this a dangerous item? Will it cause a child to be injured? To die? Are you scared of a guy being seduced into a crime spree because he believes he's invincible in his body armor like those individuals mentioned earlier in your post? Or does it simply strike you as something you simply do not care to use or have an option to own in your life so simply strip others of their right to make a decision in their own lives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jryley
If you towed vehicles and felt the need to wear armour while on the job, that would be exactly what i said is a fair use of the product.
|
Unfortunately, with someone deciding what I may or may not be jusitifed in using it for, a legitimate user may be denied or made into a criminal by some burecratic snafu. To be honest, it's not that far of a stretch. Canada has open carry laws for different reasons such as animal dispatch for trappers, etc. This is a legitimate carry reason yet many get denied by CFOs despite Canadian laws allowing the petitioner to do so. It's not hard to believe that the same situation would begin to occur once the burecrats get their hooks into the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jryley
I personally dont believe owning armour just for the sake of owning it isnormal. Are your kids bubble kids too? Do you sit around your log Cabin in the back woods with weibo and tell your families about the "dangerous urban metropolis criminals"? And How only the prepared survive a dangerous trip to safeway in edmontons North end? Gimme a break man.
|
And we end with a personal attack that has no relevance to the argument at hand. It's not even worth my time refuting. May I suggust actually dealing with the issue at hands as reasonable adults? Name calling and suppositions as to how I choose to live my life with no foundation as an effort to draw attention away from dealing with any rational argument show that you do not grasp the discussion at hand.
The core of this argument has nothing to do with myself or anyone deciding that we "need" or "want" to wander around all day, every day wearing kevlar. Not really something that goes with my wardrobe, personally. The crux of the argument is that this is an item that does no harm, does not encourage crime, and has no need of regulation. This is another attempt on the behest of the social engineers to make choices for all of us based off of a fantasy that this item will somehow manage to influence otherwise law-abiding citizens into becoming criminals. This is the same thought that brought us prohibition and many other well intentioned programs designed to move us all towards a perfect, safe, society where we're all magically taken care of.