FEDERAL NATIONWIDE BODY ARMOR BAN: Unconstitutional and Stupid....

[billdeserthills]

View: https://youtu.be/zfkgGDKF4is?si=yWdlcoUhiVoFpUqN

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

Does someone have a version of this that does not mean watching a video? Something with a link to what going on?

 

[Yarome]

Does someone have a version of this that does not mean watching a video? Something with a link to what going on?

Ya know, the time spent typing and posting that you coulda just googled it in under 6 words... instead of waiting or asking for someone to do it for ya.

NY Congresswoman Seeks to Outlaw Civilian Body Armor - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ In more anti-everything wackiness from the Empire State, New York Democratic Congresswoman Grace Meng apparently wants to make it easier for criminals to shoot you. Meng has reintroduced legislation – for the third time – that would ban civilian body armor if it...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[Alexx1401]

Ya know, the time spent typing and posting that you coulda just googled it in under 6 words... instead of waiting or asking for someone to do it for ya.

NY Congresswoman Seeks to Outlaw Civilian Body Armor - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ In more anti-everything wackiness from the Empire State, New York Democratic Congresswoman Grace Meng apparently wants to make it easier for criminals to shoot you. Meng has reintroduced legislation – for the third time – that would ban civilian body armor if it...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

I had no idea what I was supposed to be looking for but I see you had to carve out time to complain.

 

[Yarome]

I had no idea what I was supposed to be looking for but I see you had to carve out time to complain.

Said the pot to the kettle... not once but twice... with no meaningful input added in either post(?)

**There! Now I'm caught up with you and we're even... although I did provide a relevant article link (as requested)... so are we really??

 

[Diamondback]

The only reason to object to someone having armor is if you intend them harm...

 

[Yarome]

The only reason to object to someone having armor is if you intend them harm...

Yup. The argument that LE attempting to use a taser or trying to put someone down can be ineffective when someone is wearing body armor, but then again, just recently, if Airman Fortson had been wearing a vest he would likely still be alive today. Getting put down for answering the door to your own home?? Or the poor woman just a few weeks prior that reported a burglary in progress and got hit 5 times in her own home when 2 cops mag dumped through the front of her house??

The whole, "so LE and criminals can kill you better" argument doesn't fly with me.

 

[Alexx1401]

The only reason to object to someone having armor is if you intend them harm...

Now that I see what the "sky is falling" was all about it was a big yawn to me. This is why I no longer will click links to YT video like this. Some stupid click bait headline, takes me to a video of someone trying to sell me some crap, only to tell me to panic over nothing. People have been beating this drum since before Al invented the net. The law makers have managed to scare the people who sell it a couple times but even that was short lived. The one good one was after those clowns caused the huge shoot'm'up in LA who were wearing armor. For a short time after that Galls was "hesitant" to sell the stuff to the general public. It did not seem to last long. I know a LONG time ago some states passed laws that criminals could not own body armor. In a way this seemed like maybe a good idea to me. That way if the scum get shot they may die faster.

 

[Diamondback]

Convicted violent crims are one thing... then again if someone isn't rehabilitated to a point they can be trusted to walk the streets with iron, they shouldn't be out at all.

Remember when being sentenced to Life meant LIFE?

 

[Yarome]

Convicted violent crims are one thing... then again if someone isn't rehabilitated to a point they can be trusted to walk the streets with iron, they shouldn't be out at all.

Remember when being sentenced to Life meant LIFE?

I tend to agree. Just like firearms... if a person is of the criminal type that misuses something for nefarious purposes they are choosing to have their right to them curtailed.

I too remember when sentences used to mean something and actually worked as a deterrent. Nowadays though you can go to jail for 5 years on a 10 year sentence for owning a piece of plastic... having never actually used it in the commission of any crime or against another. Yet attempted murder... shooting someone with the intent to kill, but they live... you'll do 3yrs for a 7yr sentence. The "criminal justice" system in the US has become an utter joke.

 

[Diamondback]

There's also a big difference between a one-time "crime of passion" and a habitual Frequent Flyer violent crim too. Like in an episode of The Fugitive near the series' end where Gerard has to choose between pursuing Kimble or a serial killer and he lets Kimble get away because "that man's done all the killing he ever will, this guy's gonna keep killing until he's stopped."

I mean, going Carl Lee Hailey in A Time To Kill ain't good, but... there's a big gap between the one-time guy who kills a dude that raped his wife/daughter/sister and a Lifestyle Violent Crim who collects Robbery, Assault, etc convictions like stamps on a "Buy 10 Get 1 Free" sandwich card.

 

[The Heretic]

It isn't stupid if you are the government; the PTB do not want to govern the populace, they want to RULE the populace. If you want to rule, then you must remove any means for the ruled to defend themselves against any force you may wish to employ to keep them in line. This includes armor.

From the perspective of the PTB - this makes perfect sense. Gun control is not about our safety, it is about the safety of the rulers. Ditto for armor.

 

[Jay Walk]

Meanwhile we have a $26 Billion dollar trade deficit with India and keep enriching their country...



Russia supplied India with around $13 billion of arms in the past five years, and New Delhi has placed orders with Moscow for weapons and military equipment exceeding $10 billion, Russian state news agencies reported late on Sunday.

India is the world's biggest buyer of Russian arms, accounting for around 20% of Moscow's current order book, and New Delhi has not explicitly condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

 

[red442joe]

It isn't stupid if you are the government; the PTB do not want to govern the populace, they want to RULE the populace. If you want to rule, then you must remove any means for the ruled to defend themselves against any force you may wish to employ to keep them in line. This includes armor.

From the perspective of the PTB - this makes perfect sense. Gun control is not about our safety, it is about the safety of the rulers. Ditto for armor.




View attachment 1887357

Damn, when you say it, sometimes it's even scarier.

Joe

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ya know, the time spent typing and posting that you coulda just googled it in under 6 words... instead of waiting or asking for someone to do it for ya.

NY Congresswoman Seeks to Outlaw Civilian Body Armor - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ In more anti-everything wackiness from the Empire State, New York Democratic Congresswoman Grace Meng apparently wants to make it easier for criminals to shoot you. Meng has reintroduced legislation – for the third time – that would ban civilian body armor if it...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

It isn't stupid if you are the government; the PTB do not want to govern the populace, they want to RULE the populace. If you want to rule, then you must remove any means for the ruled to defend themselves against any force you may wish to employ to keep them in line. This includes armor.

From the perspective of the PTB - this makes perfect sense. Gun control is not about our safety, it is about the safety of the rulers. Ditto for armor.




View attachment 1887357

Meanwhile in Conneticutt (where body armor ban exists), people are like

Oh. yes. Its long been ripe for a SCOTUS/District challenge.. since Heller's historical analysis and opinions used the definitions for "arms" from the 1790s that explicitly states "weapons of offense, and armor of defense""

 

[Bobbygun]

I too remember when sentences used to mean something and actually worked as a deterrent.

You must have an amazing memory, because if you remember those times, you must be really OLD.

What really burns me up is watching the nightly news. Every time they throw a picture up of some loser that committed a crime, one of the "tack on" charges is "felon in possession". Sheesh. It's a joke. The number of times that comes up, tells me that the criminals aren't the least bit worried about having guns. Makes a guy wonder if there was a non-negotiable five-year sentence for that offense, things might be different. Heck, even one year.

 

[American123]

In short: democrats don't want the citizenry to have guns, or body armor, but smoking/snorting whatever is totally fine (S evidenced in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, etc.)

Gee, if only history could explain to us what happens over time when a population is disarmed and left at the mercy of that government…

 

[The Heretic]

In short: democrats don't want the citizenry to have guns, or body armor, but smoking/snorting whatever is totally fine (S evidenced in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, etc.)

Gee, if only history could explain to us what happens over time when a population is disarmed and left at the mercy of that government…

I wouldn't say it is just democrats.

I suspect that most of the GOP politicians are either silent on 2A issues, or they only profess support for it to protect their position, and usually only when it comes time to vote on legislation or answer a question on their position - maybe during a speech during election times, but are otherwise silent.

I further suspect that most actually have strong feelings about it and that at least some would wish the issue would go away.

 

[American123]

I wouldn't say it is just democrats.

I suspect that most of the GOP politicians are either silent on 2A issues, or they only profess support for it to protect their position, and usually only when it comes time to vote on legislation or answer a question on their position - maybe during a speech during election times, but are otherwise silent.

I further suspect that most actually have strong feelings about it and that at least some would wish the issue would go away.

While I understand politicians in general suck - When republicans propose the bills or vote in favor of the ones democrats do, let me know. Otherwise it's BS to try and paint them all with the same brush. If democrats didn't propose these bills, we wouldn't have them.

As someone who has experienced several right infringements surrounding firearms in my lifetime, they have 100% come from democrat bills and politicians.

 

[CamoDeafie]

While I understand politicians in general suck - When republicans propose the bills or vote in favor of the ones democrats do, let me know. Otherwise it's BS to try and paint them all with the same brush. If democrats didn't propose these bills, we wouldn't have them.

As someone who has experienced several right infringements surrounding firearms in my lifetime, they have 100% come from democrat bills and politicians.

And we are not getting near the same number or frequency really, of pro2A bills being proposed from the Republican side oh yes. What happened to Hearing Protection Act...
And who was it that said he would have signed to renew the AWB if it came across his desk? (It wasn't Obama)

Really, I see where @The Heretic is coming from, the GOP Leadership have been pretty much silent on 2A except when they campaign. Fact of the matter is... its the leadership politicians that have ensured that no pro2A bill survive committee or get to house/senate floors..