Makes sense to me. Just outlaw those darned bp vests and these guys will have no alternative save going back to school and getting a job on Bay Street or else joining the Clergy.
[/QUOTE]Myself, I thought about buying a vest a few years ago for riding my motorcycle after being hit in the chest by a sparrow at 65MPH....mow that hurt.
Rob[/QUOTE]
Well there you have it ! just ban motorcycles, sparrows and people who drive motorcycles. No need for a PB Vest.
How about we ban people who wanna ban things. That would leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves as best we could and pursue our eccentric desires, risking the consequences both good and bad. That'll teach us by golly !!
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are." - Ayn Rand
Why do you think it's a good idea?
I don't really see proper ranges as all that dangerous.
As far as legality, a bulletproof vest is purely defensive. I've never heard of someone being killed by a bulletproof vest.
Personally I don't want one, but I don't see why a responsible citizen shouldn't be able to have one.
Maybe they're scared of criminals, or irresponsible hunters.
Maybe they think they're cool.
A bulletproof vest is pretty darn unlikely to hurt someone.
Also if you get caught committing certain crimes while wearing body armor, it might be easier to demonstrate intent.
i work in security and have a class 7.2.2 fireworks permit and dont mind wearing a level 3a vest. the vest is required in setting up fireworks as this is listed as the needed clothing.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
NFA and CSSA member
http://www.theprovince.com/news/woul...459/story.html
The Body Armour Control Act would:• Place controls on the possession of body armour by allowing police to seize it from those unauthorized to own it;• Create a licensing program for businesses and their employees who sell body armour, as part of the Security Services Act;• Require those trying to buy body armour to get a permit proving a reasonable need for owning it; and,• Require applicants to undergo a criminal-record check.
I am too blinded by rage and the froth from my mouth is jamming up my keyboard to adequately express how ####tarded laws of this kind are. And we make fun of the british nanny state legislation; we're not too far behind now.
"duuuuurrr...should be ok!"
Unsub : "It just isn't as fun if you can't hurt yourself."
"By taking away criminals' sense of security, we decrease the potential for violence in public settings" (quote from the province)
The person who issued this statement has chocolate oozing out of every orifice of their body. They can pass any bill they want. It won't change anything in the drug trade.
If a person wanted to wear a medieval armour suit while shoppong for lattes....well all the power to them.
I bet the B.C government has no issues at all with gangsters wearing "Daisy Dukes" hiked up their backsides.(which should be illegal) lol.
Last edited by jamiejaf; 12-06-2009 at 08:40 PM.
So where can I buy one locally in the GTA?
it would be more successful to outlaw men wearing pants that are too big