The federal government seeks to strip us of our ability to protect ourselves with bill H.R. 378 (revision of H. R. 5344), Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, which was just brought to the House this month.
The bill bans the sale, ownership and possession of body armor and comes with a 10 year prison sentence for violations.
The communists not only don’t want you to have guns, they don’t want you to be able to protect yourself from criminals or terrorists either….government or otherwise.
CONTINUE READING ON PAGE 2 + WATCH VIDEO:
What state is this in far as i know califonria has no such law
Tony Gannacone, Ken Grice, Jim Lyons
Pls explain how the$#%&!@*this deserves a 10yr Jain sentence , wtf !!!!!
Bc if u plan to protect yourself it’s offensive.
It’s simple.
It was introduced last January and hasn’t gone anywhere. It will never pass and
I’m glad my rig is complete. I suppose I better buy some extra plates before the fascists ban me from being able to purchase them.
I was wondering when this was coming..
My answer to over weaponized police was uparmored citizens.
Ray Ethier in a round about way, yes it does. It keeps a “non tyrannical” government in power. All these agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re signed on if the current government isn’t in place. When was the last time a “tyrannical” government gave a hoot about their neighbor countries safety, security and well being, unless they were planning to conquer it? In regards to the body armor statements you made, yes, it was developed for combat, as it is way overkill for grease splatter or washing the car… However most innovations and advances come from military development… To name a few, disc brakes, medicine, highway and railway and navigation all came or greatly improved from military technologies and advancement. All those things were designed specifically for military use and combat, and were eventually adapted for civilian use. The way I look at it, body armor is simply protection. There is nothing about it by itself that makes it more lethal, and if someone is wanting to wear it, I think is a clear signal that they are wanting to live. Basically it comes down to choice. The 2nd amendment protects the people’s choice to own and protect themselves with a firearm, it doesn’t force them to. If they feel that having it in their possession to choose to use it if a situation arises, it should be their choice. Most of us would lay down our lives to protect our home and family, having the choice and ability to add protection to increase their chances of staying alive after said situation should be their choice, and hopefully they never will need it. When choices of the governed people are taken away by people who are protected by the same tools they want to take away, that is a double standard and the quiet creep of tyranny…
David Benham Thank you ever so much for your response on the matter as it does give me a different perspective to consider. I guess from my personal perspective, I really cannot fathom anyone having a genuine need for this category of vest under normal circumstances. Items such as these, when made available to every citizen can only make life more difficult for law enforcement personnel, when placed in high risk situation such as those we have witnessed of late. Truth be told, it has been clearly demonstrated in many theaters of war, that even the latest innovations are no guarantee that one will survive the conflict. I do thank you for your input and it would seem that perhaps our difference in perspective is associated to our views of government.
Great!!!….Now put limits on ammo……peace