New Federal Bill to Ban Ownership of Body Armor

[Ohdang]

I don't own body armor and probably never will, but they can fuck off if they think they're taking my body armor.

 

[bob2the2nd]

wait wait wait wait.

the house republicans have voted over 50 times to repeal obamacare, and we have people in here asking why this is being proposed.

its the house, stupid shit comes up all the fucking time. Unfortunately its become a politicians job to stay relevant, not actually do anything.

 

[AZ_]

Here's my issue. Anyone that thinks the gov't is screwing us is a "conspiracy theorist" and then it comes out the gov't really is screwing us, no one says a word. I don't remember how many times I was called "crazy" because I said the NSA was keeping tabs on all phone calls made in the US.

A couple years later, here's Snowden admitting they were.

A vest gives you more protection from bullets than nothing at all. It's the principle of the matter boobie.

1. There is a difference between being screwed by the government, and believing that the government will attempt to kill you.

2. Nobody of sane mind with THAT much fear of government should believe that body armor is going to stop them.

3. All vests aren't even being banned in the bill, though I'd imagine that's not how every NRA tagline will read when they flip this into a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

The term `enhanced body armor' means body armor, including a
helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds
the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National
Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

1. There is a difference between being screwed by the government, and believing that the government will attempt to kill you.

2. Nobody of sane mind with THAT much fear of government should believe that body armor is going to stop them.

In the context of feared forced government repression of "freedom", you're right. But just taking your statement -- especially the first one -- at face value, think about the police shootings. There is a much greater likelihood that you'll be shot by a cop than shot by the military suppressing civilian dissent. But unless we think it's a good idea for criminals to be running around in body armor, it doesn't make sense in that context either.

The whole impetus behind this bill isn't a secret plot to massacre the Tea Party. It's cops not wanting to lose gun fights with dangerous criminals wearing body armor.

3. All vests aren't even being banned in the bill, though I'd imagine that's not how every NRA tagline will read when they flip this into a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

I'm a Lifetime NRA member who opposes a lot of gun control initiatives. But this bill has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[OptimusPrime]

1. There is a difference between being screwed by the government, and believing that the government will attempt to kill you.

2. Nobody of sane mind with THAT much fear of government should believe that body armor is going to stop them.

3. Vests aren't even being banned in the bill, though I'd imagine that's not how every NRA tagline will read when they flip this into a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

And no, body armor won't stop them. But it might stop Officer Flopdick and Private Numbnuts when they are ordered to march in and slaughter their fellow citizens and realize the brutal fighting there would be. If they lose their enforcers then they don't have any power. If they disarm us into helpless little sheep, they have nothing to worry about. That is the point.

 

[OptimusPrime]

The whole impetus behind this bill isn't a secret plot to massacre the Tea Party. It's cops not wanting to lose gun fights with dangerous criminals wearing body armor.

Yeah, that is the impetus. Laws works wonders on dangerous criminals. If it is illegal, they won't have it, that's for sure.

 

[AZ_]

And no, body armor won't stop them. But it might stop Officer Flopdick and Private Numbnuts when they are ordered to march in and slaughter their fellow citizens and realize the brutal fighting there would be. If they lose their enforcers then they don't have any power. If they disarm us into helpless little sheep, they have nothing to worry about. That is the point.

Because Joe Flopdick and the his K-Mart brand ballistic vest have them shaking.

 

[AZ_]

In the context of feared forced government repression of "freedom", you're right. But just taking your statement -- especially the first one -- at face value, think about the police shootings. There is a much greater likelihood that you'll be shot by a cop than shot by the military suppressing civilian dissent. But unless we think it's a good idea for criminals to be running around in body armor, it doesn't make sense in that context either.

The whole impetus behind this bill isn't a secret plot to massacre the Tea Party. It's cops not wanting to lose gun fights with dangerous criminals wearing body armor.

Nah, I'm white. I'm probably splitting hairs between the difference in likelihood of these two scenarios.

Also, I'm not going to vastly increase the chances of either by approaching them while wearing riot gear.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Because Joe Flopdick and the his K-Mart brand ballistic vest have them shaking.

Organized groups with real armor would though. Body armor wouldn't help if their bosses want to start dropping bombs on U.S. cities, but the goal isn't to kill all of their slaves, just the ones that get uppity. They want to keep around the ones that love their chains.

 

[AZ_]

Organized groups with real armor would though. Body armor wouldn't help if their bosses want to start dropping bombs on U.S. cities, but the goal isn't to kill all of their slaves, just the ones that get uppity. They want to keep around the ones that love their chains.

It ain't easy suffering through such oppression in America these days.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, that is the impetus. Laws works wonders on dangerous criminals. If it is illegal, they won't have it, that's for sure.

Dude....Equating limitations on sales of body armor to sales of guns is a false equivalency.

There are a couple of hundred million guns floating around this country, and outlawing guns really does mean that only outlaws would have guns because there are just too many. But there are very few bits of body armor floating around, and prohibiting the sale of some of it might well make it very tough even for criminals to get it.

Look, please apply some common sense here. The odds on the average law-abiding American even wanting to buy body armor is pretty freaking low. It's a bunch of money for something with very little utility, that very likely will never be used even once. And as you point out, if the government really did decide to go after us hard, body armor will be of little benefit because -- unlike guns -- there wouldn't be enough of us who have it to make a difference.

But consider this for a moment. The people most likely to invest in body armor would be a terrorist group intent on attacking American civilians. Maybe a school, or a mall, or a Wal-Mart, or a restaurant, or sporting event. Or maybe cops/firemen. And a group of terrorists all wearing body armor could create a real problem for local law enforcement, and kill a whole bunch more innocent people in the process.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And no, body armor won't stop them. But it might stop Officer Flopdick and Private Numbnuts when they are ordered to march in and slaughter their fellow citizens and realize the brutal fighting there would be.

Do you realize that "Officer Flopdick" and "Private Numbnuts" are drawn from the at-large American population. Do you really think anything close to a majority of cops or military personnel would be willing to "march in and slaughter their fellow citizens" even if they didn't have to worry about body armor?

Again, you really need to get out more. There are some rogue cops, and a few twisted people in the military just as in the civilian population as a whole. But the vast majority of them would never do that. And, as I pointed out, there's never going to be enough body armor purchased for it to make a real defense on a large scale.

 

[MRMsix6]

Officer Flopdick is getting a bad name in here.

What the hell did he do to you?

 

[natedagg]

You don't need to outlaw body armor to placate the american citizens. They are already being placated by the system. I don't think the system has supreme rulers as much as it's an invisible hand with incentives that are pushing our citizenry in that direction. It's just too easy to buy votes en masse, and it's too easy for corporations to buy directives from politicians, but I digress.

However, getting back to body armor, personally I don't think it should be banned. Why? Because fuck off. If the government bans it, it leads to all of these unintended consequences anyway. If I go to mexico and buy it, is that ok? If I get caught on the border, what if I say I had owned it previously? Couldn't someone make body armor from constituent parts? Are we going to ban the material? If not, could I sell the material and would it be illegal to have a PDF file (not published in America) of how to turn the material into armor? So are we going to track the material buyers?... All of this comes at a cost of taxpayer dollars, which means that I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

I wish that our leaders would figure out our debt, our military spending, and how to incubate small businesses. I get that there are myriad other issues to deal with too, but heaping body armor legislation on top of these primary issues is the last thing that they should get paid for.

There was once an interesting article published on child molesters, and how it is getting easier and easier to be tagged as one. I think the example cited was taking a piss in public within 500 feet of a school. So then there is a campaign competition, and if you aren't more stringent against child molesters, your opponent will be sure to mention it, even if the details of the bill are omitted... Sure this isn't even close to being the same thing, but for most Americans, I think that saying "my opponent isn't interested in who buys body armor, like Jimmy who then shot up a bunch of kids" is a surefire way to collect votes. Hence, I wouldn't be surprised if it passes...

/rant

 

[gourimoko]

Take your damned hands off my body armor.

The purpose of the second amendment, the spirit of the right to bear arms, speaks to the importance of civilians having the right to arm and defend themselves against the government.

Q-Tip's argument that terrorists are a larger percentage of owners is, frankly, bullshit. How many terrorist attacks in the United States involved body armor? How many units of body armor have been sold since the invention of kevlar?