Here Comes The Next Boogeyman
Criminals are wearing body armor. Why would any law abiding person need a bullet proof vest? Clearly these defensive, passive articles of clothing have only one purpose. That is to protect a criminal from the police during the commission of a crime. Therefore it is an absolute must for law enforcement to restrict and even criminalize the possession of body armor. Afterall, law abiding citizens have no fear of being shot. Even if law abiding individuals are in danger the police will always be a phone call and between a 4 to 20 minute response-time away. Anyone who's ever seen 'Scarface' knows a person can survive upwards of 30 seconds of automatic weapon fire. Four minutes... I can do that standing on my head. Who needs a bullet proof vest? Certainly not this guy.
We have to outlaw body armor now or else we'll have to train our police to be better shots.
We have to outlaw body armor now or else we'll have to train our police to be better shots.
posted by Dean ASC at 12:57 PM
5 Comments:
The only folks who need bulletproof vests are our troops, who have been getting shitty flawed vests that don't do diddly squat, as one of your links pointed out. When our guys over there are duct taping scrap metal to the sides of their humvees, there's something wrong. A lot of them bring their own body armor, which has been pissing off the government.
Why don't you need a gun license to have a bulletproof vest, too? If a cop can see it, he can ask to see the license. Most of these guys are not going to have any license. Then we can confiscate the vests and send them to our boys in Iraq.
Ummmm yeah. You're asking the wrong person about attaching non-gun related things to the gun license. How do you feel about taking away someone's drivers license if they drink without driving before they turn 21? Or taking a persons drivers license away if they can't afford child support? Lose your job and it's tough shit, the courts continue to force payments as if you were still working on Wallstreet instead of flipping burgers. Can't afford it, have fun walking to work. So no, a license should be only for what it is intended for and not have all sorts of extra strings attached to it.
You're right on all of the above. How about a bulletproof vest license? No extra strings. Just something so that your average criminal doesn't have an edge on the cops.
All the thugs now are carrying guns loaded with "will go through a bulletproof vest" bullets. Cop killing guns. Why don't the cops have those? Then the vests won't matter at all.
Black Talons were heavy slugs coated in teflon that would pass right through the vest. They are against the law for anyone to posess, army and cops not included. However, a .22 fired from a rifle and some sport target pistols will also pass right through a bullet proof vest. Any bullet in the head makes that vest a moot point. Really all a bullet proof vest will do is stop flat point .33 and .45, maybe some of the less charged 9mm rounds. 5.65 and 7.62 will also rip through a vest. There are so many ways that a vest won't protect you and yet people are wearing them thinking they're invincible. I'm talking about the second chance style undershirt vest. The real armor that the army and swat teams wear will hold off a mortal wound for quite a while. I think it was 45 minutes in Las Angeles after a botched bank robbery.
Kids, so-called gang bangers, wear them because Fiddycent wears one as part of his tough gang banger everyone is out to get a piece of me image. It's fashion, like pants around your ass from no belt and no shoe laces because the police take them away from you during a lockup so you might as well not bother with them.
It's just something "the Kids" do that bothers "THE MAN".
As a "dreamy" libertarian, I reject any regulation of guns, vests, ammo, or even shoulder-fired weapons. We've never been conventionally invaded because everyone knows that Americans are all gunned-up. I am an amazon woman who wants my guns! (Locked, and loaded).
Post a Comment
<< Home