- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
Trolling again? :/
Agreed, too many red flags on this thread...
What do you define as "better"? Dragon skin was heavier and useless when wet (i.e. you sweat too much or went out in the rain). The plates would shift and be useless in certain conditions. The interceptor body armor is superior by any standards I've seen for personal use.I understand there are some great forms of body-armour on the civilian market that may be even better than what the military uses
I just can not fathom why a civilian would need the stuff, unless intent on some kind of shooting spree that winds up in a face-off with police, a civilian militia unit in case the government gets overthrown or some other oddball situation that may or may not happen. I think its pretty well known that a certain famous hollywood shootout, the perpetrators were dressed from head to toe in body armour.
FYI, with the Hollywood shootout you mentioned the perps only had armor on their torso...no helmets, groin protectors, leg covers, ect. LEOs just aimed center mass with 147gr 9mm JHPs- which was not too effective IMHO.
As for the why do I "need" body armor, I guess I can say why do you need to vote? I mean, the government has your best interest anyways, why even bother to vote? Why not just let them do whatever it is that they do so you can live in ignorance watching CNN, eating donuts and taking prozac.
I bought my first AR-15 in 2003...it just didn't have an adjustable stock, flash suppressor and I couldn't put a magazine over 10 rounds on it. If I indeed wanted to wear my body armor to do a shooting spree, you think I would've avoided legal issues by keeping it the status quo on the rifle? You think I would just leave a 10-rounder on it? What about California? They've had an AWB varient on record for YEARS- you think that AK and AR variants don't exist there?Since the assault weapons ban expired, civilians have access to some high-firepower weaponry...