Democrat Wants to Ban Body Armor for the Public

[Clementine]

I know a lot of Dems want to ban guns, but that isn't going far enough, according to some. Not only does the idea of people defending themselves from criminals disgust liberals, but now the thought of people protecting themselves seems to upset them. This guy doesn't want the public owning and wearing body armor. The excuse is that gangs of mass murderers would be protected from police gunfire, though that would be rare. For most people, wearing them while hunting or maybe walking through the Chicago would simply be a matter of safety.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/238450-content-restricting-gun-ownership-democrat-congressman-sponsors-bill-ban-body-armor/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Guns

 

[S.J.]

I'd like to say I'm shocked but I'm really not. It's right in line with their attitude toward the American people in general.

 

[Daniyel]

If this is true..Insane..

 

[Two Thumbs]

forced to buy one product and not allowed to buy another.

fucking leftist, hating freedom (openly) since 2008

 

[S.J.]

They want to force us to wear a seat belt for our own protection but ban body armor.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If this is true..Insane..

Welcome to the land of Yes, we can and no, you can't. They have bodyguards for themselves (politicians) and their children at school but don't want your children to have the same rights. They have guns but don't want you to own one (Gabby Giffords husband was caught buying one or two) They do not abide by the laws of the land but they want the people to abide by whatever they come up with. It's insanity.

 

[RUNVS]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

The bad guys always have what they need. Americans have the right to own body armor if they want it. Their reasoning is off. As usual.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

A poor excuse is better than no excuse I suppose.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Always been restrictions on who can purchase body armor. Was a thing when I was still on the job 20+ years ago.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

you're an idiot

everyone else knows why I called you that. But can you figure it out and explain it so you understand?

cuz you have been told before

 

[ogibillm]

can there be any agreement that some technology needs to remain out of the hands of the general public in the interests of public safety?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

can there be any agreement that some technology needs to remain out of the hands of the general public in the interests of public safety?

How is keeping body armor unavailable to the public a safety measure?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

That much is obvious.
And it's also the point. The hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[NLT]

I already have mine, grandpa passed it down

 

[SwimExpert]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

Terrorists are well known to respect and obey the law.

 

[ogibillm]

can there be any agreement that some technology needs to remain out of the hands of the general public in the interests of public safety?

How is keeping body armor unavailable to the public a safety measure?

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

can there be any agreement that some technology needs to remain out of the hands of the general public in the interests of public safety?

How is keeping body armor unavailable to the public a safety measure?

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

How is the public denied safety giving law enforcement the upper hand? Are they public servants or are they not? Their job is to protect the citizens of the United States. Standing in the way of their protection is not part of their job description.

 

[SwimExpert]

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

No. Especially if it gives law enforcement (i.e. the government) an upper hand.

 

[Clementine]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

That was stated in the OP as a reason given for this. That would be a rare instance and police have not been present at any mass shootings. Of course, no one believes that anyone other than police should be able to shoot a murderer anyway.

And have no fear, that criminals will continue to purchase whatever the hell they want regardless of laws.