# How can they possibly justify this?!



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344

Apparently it's a bill making it's way to the floor that somehow justifies the concept that civilians having body armor is dangerous and needs to be outlawed.

Click on the 'TEXT' tab for the details


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

They don't need justification. They believe that they know best for us, they can do whatever they want, and us "peasants" can't do anything to stop them. Overlords don't need justification.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Wow, from a democrat out of California, who would have ever guessed?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Once again the Federal Overlords have decried that they will not tolerate the ability of the citizenry to have arms(defensive) that may put them on equal footing with any government entity that desires to administrate via the use of brute force. As I recollect, one of the reasons for the second amendment was so that the people would have the means to resist a tyrannical centralized government as Patrick Henry predicted the constitution would allow for. He did vote against ratification.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-C. S. Lewis


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

If this gets out somehow (unlikely with the Media spinning theirs webs), how could you foresee them spinning this for "our own good"?

I cant even wrap my brain around how wearing protective gear makes me a danger to others


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Body armor is purely defensive. When are they going to start focusing on criminals and psychopaths who use body armor to protect them while they commit crimes and use guns to hurt innocent people?


----------



## Jeep (Aug 5, 2014)

Never


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

And that's the crux of it. They will claim that body armor is only used by psychopaths to protect themselves from the police. Therefore, it's for our own saftey that body armor be outlawed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

sparkyprep said:


> And that's the crux of it. They will claim that body armor is only used by psychopaths to protect themselves from the police. Therefore, it's for our own saftey that body armor be outlawed.


Nailed it!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

In its current state, it does grandfather in any previously owned armor.
If it actually makes it anywhere I guess I'll have to stock up.
Keep a close eye.


----------



## ddj (Aug 18, 2014)

Rob Roy said:


> If this gets out somehow (unlikely with the Media spinning theirs webs), how could you foresee them spinning this for "our own good"?
> 
> I cant even wrap my brain around how wearing protective gear makes me a danger to others


Its easy to spin. If owning body armor is illegal, then when the cops go to arrest the "bad guys" they won't have to fight the "bad guy" in body armor so it will be easier to stop them and protect you. Now replace "bad guys" with you and you with bad guys and you will see what will really happen lol.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Makes .308 down right popular for citizens and police.


----------



## 9UC (Dec 21, 2012)

Isn't this above the same general direction of why only "the government should have gum".

Ask these fellow, earlier Americans, than Us!



Sorry, was not able to pick up full title and as you can guess, it finishes with "The government will take care of you" That phrase alone scares the hell out of me.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

They are always trying to chip and chisel away at our rights in places they think we are not looking. Body armor really? My bet is they are trying to slide this one by without it being noticed.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Why would one criminal (politicians) want to do something bad that would effect other criminals. That's completely against the idea of complete control of the American public. When only the criminals have weapons, the public will need any and all "law enforcement" to protect them, and won't have any choice about it. Look at the militarization of police today. First it started out with SWAT, now if you have an illegal deer in your possession (baby Bambi in WIS.), 15 med, armed with Swat type firearms raid your shelter and hold all the workers at gun point, while Bambi is removed from the barn. What's next, an armed contingent of police knocking my door down and hauling me off to jail for Jay-walking?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Nothing surprises me anymore from idiot liberals. Especially California liberal idiots. Off subject a bit...but California liberals have enacted law after law, regulation after regulation regarding the "environment and water" and now they have run themselves out of WATER! What a bunch of dipshits. 

God Save this Great Republic...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> God Save this Great Republic...


Or just let the liberals kill themselves off with their own regulatory system.
We need to stop saving the stupid.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

We can't justify it. It is just another small step towards the omnipotent govt, telling it's citizens what is ok and what is not. 
Convicted felons that loose gun rights forever, also are not allowed to own body armor.
Saw that on a drawing. 
If the govt were tried, by a court, they would all be felons.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Gun control one little step at a time.

How do you eat an Elephant? One bite at a time!


----------



## Michael_Js (Dec 4, 2013)

idiots, plain and simple. Still working on leaving this kommunist state, but the US of A is in jeopardy, so where do you go? 

My body armor came in last week! Wow, it's heavy!! 

AR500 front, back and sides... 
if the law gets traction, i'll have to get my concealed set next 

oh well...


----------



## FrostKitten (Aug 22, 2014)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...w-abiding-citizens-owning-body-armor/GNrBKFrF

The above link is a petition to stop the law. Anyone besides me interested in signing it?


----------



## StarPD45 (Nov 13, 2012)

I don't want to be on any more lists than I already am.

Of course, you know that if the numbers get too high, the petition will just "disappear". It's happened many times before. Uh Oh Computer crash.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

FrostKitten said:


> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...w-abiding-citizens-owning-body-armor/GNrBKFrF
> 
> The above link is a petition to stop the law. Anyone besides me interested in signing it?


I don't think that the socialists in the administration/white house give one rats ass about petitions.


----------



## FrostKitten (Aug 22, 2014)

No, probably not. But we can still make our opinion known, and they can't say they didn't know how people would react. I personally don't see it as harmful, even if it doesn't really help as much as I hope it will.


----------



## Jeep (Aug 5, 2014)

Michael Js, wear that thing a little bit each day, get used to it. Makes it a lot better down the road. I for one have no more armor. My vest is past its due date and the carrier is torn. I will not be investing in anymore unless I find a deal.


----------

