Province to regulate body armour - Page 5

Gust · #**121** 03-16-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If you do that, I swear I will pay cash money to see pictures of both the vest and the sign.

see, even rocky has a kinky side.

Rocky7 · #**122** 03-16-2012, 03:34 PM

Gustav: As I've always said: Anybody who's a little kinky can't be all bad.

.....must be Friday pm euphoria......

Rugerb · #**123** 03-16-2012, 03:36 PM

If we start with the small calibers first Smackdown, will you wear it while I help test it out....?......Mooo ha haaaa

midgetwaiter · #**124** 03-16-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 220swifty

Pretty busy for an unelected premier.

The full electorate has never voted for a premier, that's not how our system works. All this whining about the unelected premier is garbage.

rwm1273 · #**125** 03-16-2012, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

The full electorate has never voted for a premier, that's not how our system works. All this whining about the unelected premier is garbage.

Well we have not even had an opportunity to vote for this party while being led by this premier. So she has not been duly elected by the population to act in the current capacity she now holds.

If she was a responsible politician, she would have merely carried out the last items her party had on the table without bringing anything new that had not had an opportunity to be before the people, and then called an election.

Instead she has pushed several controversial bills through because I think even she knows that the next election they may not have a majority, or even hold power.

greylynx · #**126** 03-16-2012, 07:27 PM

Lorne Gunter was correct.

Allison Redford hates Albertans.

guywiththemule · #**127** 03-16-2012, 07:40 PM

If any of you "pro-government,need to be registered(permission) bullet-proof vests and body amour crowd(idiots) on this board, think that gang-bangers ,career criminals, or any other low-life scum will actually ask permission or get a permit(

) to wear any body armour or bullet proof vest , I would like to see you (seriously) get some physiological help. Or at the very least if I could get a glimpse of the color of the sky in your world.

rwm1273 · #**128** 03-16-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

If any of you "pro-government,need to be registered(permission) bullet-proof vests and body amour crowd(idiots) on this board, think that gang-bangers ,career criminals, or any other low-life scum will actually ask permission or get a permit(

) to wear any body armour or bullet proof vest , I would like to see you (seriously) get some physiological help. Or at the very least if I could get a glimpse of the color of the sky in your world.

I see your point, but I don't agree with your message.

I am not for this government making laws, but this is not one I am going to get bent out of shape over, especially since gun owners are excepted from the law.

There are lots of other things Redford is doing that needs to be stopped for me to get all worked up as some here have become on this issue.

Criminals will never follow the laws, so I don't care about them, as I have no control over them. However I do look forward to the changes to the castle laws so that it can be open season on any gang banger who enters my property.

guywiththemule · #**129** 03-16-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

I see your point, but I don't agree with your message.

I am not for this government making laws, but this is not one I am going to get bent out of shape over, especially since gun owners are excepted from the law.

There are lots of other things Redford is doing that needs to be stopped for me to get all worked up as some here have become on this issue.

Criminals will never follow the laws, so I don't care about them, as I have no control over them. However I do look forward to the changes to the castle laws so that it can be open season on any gang banger who enters my property.

Agreed on overdo changes to castle law.

slam · #**130** 03-16-2012, 08:53 PM

Will we need an license to by under armour socks now??????

Boberama · #**131** 08-14-2012, 02:18 PM

Sorry to bump this, but I'm wondering...

This covers stab-resistant vests as well?

^Is there an exception for stuff like that?

jryley · #**132** 08-14-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

You are assuming that criminals are law abiding.

The average law abiding citizen isn't going to go out, buy body armour, and then all of a sudden turn into a violent criminal because of the body armour.

Seems thats what happened to travis baumgartner now isnt it?

There is absolutely no need to own body armoyr of
Any sort unless your profession calls for it. If your pansy enough to have to wear it during day to day life you need to move pal. Your arguement isnt even flawed, its just flat out dumb.

Hagalaz · #**133** 08-14-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.

No it isn't.

Its not about protecting anyone, its all about plain old control.

Edit: Yikes. I didn't realize how old this thread actually was......

wolf308 · #**134** 08-14-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagalaz

No it isn't.

Its not about protecting anyone, its all about plain old control.

Edit: Yikes. I didn't realize how old this thread actually was......

x2

rugatika · #**135** 08-14-2012, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The law is to protect the police from being put in harms way when they confront someone wearing body armour with the intent to do harm and they want to protect themselves from the police.

There is no reason for the average person to need to wear body armour.

If you want to protect yourself from the police a full face helmet would be more in order...

Drip, drip, drip....

CNP · #**136** 08-14-2012, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jryley

Seems thats what happened to travis baumgartner now isnt it?

There is absolutely no need to own body armoyr of
Any sort unless your profession calls for it. If your pansy enough to have to wear it during day to day life you need to move pal. Your arguement isnt even flawed, its just flat out dumb.

Your argument is nothing but capitulation. Haven't you heard.....clothes don't make a man. Your Travis Baumgartner analogy... way silly. The same silly as......guns kill people.

Mutter87 · #**137** 08-14-2012, 11:30 PM

Nothing wrong with owning body armour. Government needs to mind its own.

uglyelk · #**138** 08-15-2012, 01:36 AM

Why not shoot gang types in the face and leave me and my property alone?

Hagalaz · #**139** 08-15-2012, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jryley

Seems thats what happened to travis baumgartner now isnt it?

There is absolutely no need to own body armoyr of
Any sort unless your profession calls for it. If your pansy enough to have to wear it during day to day life you need to move pal. Your arguement isnt even flawed, its just flat out dumb.

Perhaps you should actually read what you wrote before you call what someone else said dumb.

wolf308 · #**140** 08-15-2012, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutter87

Nothing wrong with owning body armour. Government needs to mind its own.

exactly ,this micro managing from the govt is getting to be too much these days, about everything.biggest criminals around.

jryley · #**141** 08-15-2012, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ehntr

Your argument is nothing but capitulation. Haven't you heard.....clothes don't make a man. Your Travis Baumgartner analogy... way silly. The same silly as......guns kill people.

How was it silly? Baumgartner had no record prior, went nuts and utilized the fact he had armour? Anyways thats aside from the fact. Can u honestly look in the mirror and say theres even one sliver of validity to the average joe owning armour? I stand by my words, if you are paranoid and pansy enough to feel the need to wear armour anywhere in canada during day to day life you are part of the problem. I feel bad for guys like that, and laugh.

Anyways, regulation....not outlawing.

jryley · #**142** 08-15-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagalaz

Perhaps you should actually read what you wrote before you call what someone else said dumb.

Iphone man....iphone. Touch screen isnt the best for flowing correct sentences.

rugatika · #**143** 08-15-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jryley

How was it silly? Baumgartner had no record prior, went nuts and utilized the fact he had armour? Anyways thats aside from the fact. Can u honestly look in the mirror and say theres even one sliver of validity to the average joe owning armour? I stand by my words, if you are paranoid and pansy enough to feel the need to wear armour anywhere in canada during day to day life you are part of the problem. I feel bad for guys like that, and laugh.

Anyways, regulation....not outlawing.

Who cares if you need or want or whatever body armor? I have zero desire to ever own body armor and frankly before this I had never given it a second thought. The point being the government has no right or need to ban it or regulate it or whatever. We keep turning over more and more power to an ever expanding government drip by drip. Already we are telling stories of how we used to be able to be free to do this or free to do that....key words...used to.

100 years from now, law abiding citizens won't be able to tie their shoes without getting a permit, and the crime rate won't have changed one bit.

Enjoy the decline.

Mekanik · #**144** 08-15-2012, 11:42 AM

Explain to me, in any reasonable amount of straight english with no comparisons, analogies, or emotional reasoning why I should not be able to purchase and wear body armor if I decide to.

Here's some legitimate reasons without being a "pansy":

I go to the range on a regular basis. Most people are safe. there're always those few and I prefer not to go home in a body bag when buddy brings his other buddy past the gate and they're whooping it up with a rifle and ignore the ceasefire. (almost seen this one, some nice people verbally corrected the offenders and the situation was resolved.)

If I were to live in a rough area, I'm not allowed to carry. Even a thin kevlar vest can prevent a stab wound from being fatal. (been attacked by a knife, used to frequent some pretty rough areas and were I a tow operator, I would insist on wearing one under my covies)

At what point is ownership an implication of intent? I own many knives and guns: I have zero intent to use them in the commission of a felony. If i were to own body armor, what's different? My intent would remain the same.

Rocky said it best: this is a law that turns the average person into a criminal for possession or the use of an item without malicious intent that does no damage and punishes the legal user of an item "just in case" some random criminal decides to use one in the commission of a crime.

Punish the crime, not the legal users.

And why do I feel that i've fed a troll?

propliner · #**145** 08-15-2012, 12:14 PM

Why are we legally mandated to protect our skulls and brains with helmet laws but are criminalized for protecting our torsos from blunt-trauma or puncture wounds? This is absolutely ridiculous. If I feel I want to protect myself from the dangers of the world then I should be able to, providing I'm not endangering anyone else.

The Nanny state marches on...

rwm1273 · #**146** 08-15-2012, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rugatika

If you want to protect yourself from the police a full face helmet would be more in order...

Drip, drip, drip....

You assume police can shoot at that small of a target. I have seen some of the police at the range, and many can 't shoot very accurately. But I am sure those are the ones who are very proficient with the tazer and baton.

CNP · #**147** 08-15-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jryley

How was it silly? Baumgartner had no record prior, went nuts and utilized the fact he had armour? Anyways thats aside from the fact. Can u honestly look in the mirror and say theres even one sliver of validity to the average joe owning armour? I stand by my words, if you are paranoid and pansy enough to feel the need to wear armour anywhere in canada during day to day life you are part of the problem. I feel bad for guys like that, and laugh.

Anyways, regulation....not outlawing.

Again your Baumgartner analogy doesn't enhance your anti-armour opinion. So what, he had body armour? Body armour was part of his working kit. Your analogy says the body armour turned him into a nutcase. Read your posts, that is what you are saying. It's like saying owning a gun turns you into a nut. Stand by your words all you want. Your continued belittling of people, calling them pansies, dumb, paranoid and laughing at them does not enhance your argument either. Employ some rational thought to your argument that will cause people to reflect rather than fight with you. I don't wear body armour in day-to-day life. I wear it on occasion on the job. I don't own personal armour but I wouldn't scoff at anyone who wants to go out and buy some. What drives you to belittle people who want their own body armour?

jryley · #**148** 08-15-2012, 08:39 PM

Mekanik im far from trolling. Jus because my opinion differs from yours doesnt mean someone is trolling. 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. 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.

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. 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.

vcmm · #**149** 08-15-2012, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by propliner

Why are we legally mandated to protect our skulls and brains with helmet laws but are criminalized for protecting our torsos from blunt-trauma or puncture wounds? This is absolutely ridiculous. If I feel I want to protect myself from the dangers of the world then I should be able to, providing I'm not endangering anyone else.

The Nanny state marches on...

Well said. X2

jryley · #**150** 08-15-2012, 08:43 PM

EH....my reference to baumgartner wasnt me using him as an anti armour
Example. A member stated "i dont think law
Abiding citizens that own armour just up and become criminals".

Its very clear that is exactly the case with my example. Case closed