Joined: July 16 2005 Location: United States Posts: 25314
Posted: August 13 2014 at 8:05pm | IP Logged
A California Congressman named Mike Honda has submitted H.R. 5344, “The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” to the United States House of Representatives. In a recent statement, Honda said, “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”
Honda seems to prefer a world in which police can kill people with ease.
The stated purpose of the bill is “to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions.” Exceptions include the federal government, state governments, and body armor already legally possessed.
The definition of “enhanced body armor” in the proposed bill is as follows: “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.”
Honda referenced a recent crime as the reason for this new legislation. An excerpt from a local news story reads as follows: “The congressman cited a shooting on July 22 in Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded another.”
This seems to be fictitious, though. Reports on the crime indicate that the two victims were not police officers at all, and a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department press release states that one officer had “minor injuries” – and makes no mention of the shooter wearing armor.
Predictably, this proposed legislation has been lauded by anti-gun groups. An article at guns.com also deflates claims by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center that the mass murderers at Newtown and Aurora wore body armor.
Laws like this, so often passed with the help of emotional tales like the one apparently concocted to support this bill, do nothing to prevent criminals from getting what they want. I believe this legislation will only widen the gap between the type equipment the government (and criminals) possess, and what’s available to law-abiding citizens–and that is never a good thing.
I fail to understand how any thinking person can believe that making more laws will reduce crime. Criminals commit crimes; it’s what defines them. That means they will break ANY AND ALL laws, including gun laws, armor laws, etc.
Besides, there is already a federal law prohibiting the “purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.”
Honda’s proposed bill will not help law enforcement agencies protect citizens.
The bill removes USA citizens from buying armor (body armorer such as SAPI Plate, AR500 Plate that fits a vest, any soft Body Armorer of any type, or owning it). how dare us be able to survive gun shots from illegal aliens breaking into our home or business... much less from a terrorist who came through our open borders. these days anyone owning a jewelry shop, gun shop, or gas station etc.. that does not have a bullet proof vest ( aka soft body armor, under shirt vest) is nuts, because their life means nothing to anyone willing to rob you to buy some more legal weed.
A California Congressman named Mike Honda has submitted H.R. 5344,
“The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” to the United States House
of Representatives. In a recent statement, Honda said, “There’s nothing
more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can
do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”
Honda seems to prefer a world in which police can kill people with ease.
The stated purpose of the bill
is “to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
armor by civilians, with exceptions.” Exceptions include the federal
government, state governments, and body armor already legally possessed.
The definition of “enhanced body armor” in the proposed bill is as
follows: “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.”
Honda referenced a recent crime as the reason for this new legislation. An excerpt from a local news story
reads as follows: “The congressman cited a shooting on July 22 in
Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an
assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded
another.”
This seems to be fictitious, though. Reports on the crime indicate that the two victims were not police officers at all, and a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department press release states that one officer had “minor injuries” – and makes no mention of the shooter wearing armor.
Predictably, this proposed legislation has been lauded by anti-gun groups. An article at guns.com also deflates claims by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center that the mass murderers at Newtown and Aurora wore body armor.
Laws like this, so often passed with the help of emotional tales like
the one apparently concocted to support this bill, do nothing to
prevent criminals from getting what they want. I believe this
legislation will only widen the gap between the type equipment the
government (and criminals) possess, and what’s available to law-abiding
citizens–and that is never a good thing.
I fail to understand how any thinking person can believe that making
more laws will reduce crime. Criminals commit crimes; it’s what defines
them. That means they will break ANY AND ALL laws, including gun laws,
armor laws, etc.
Besides, there is already a federal law prohibiting the “purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.”
Honda’s proposed bill will not help law enforcement agencies protect
citizens. It will only restrict citizens from buying armor if they
choose to do so.
- See more at:
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/08/proposed-body-armor-ban -american-citizens/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Ema il&utm_content=2014-08-12&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsle tter#sthash.niuMqouh.dpuf
A California Congressman named Mike Honda has submitted H.R. 5344,
“The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” to the United States House
of Representatives. In a recent statement, Honda said, “There’s nothing
more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can
do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”
Honda seems to prefer a world in which police can kill people with ease.
The stated purpose of the bill
is “to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
armor by civilians, with exceptions.” Exceptions include the federal
government, state governments, and body armor already legally possessed.
The definition of “enhanced body armor” in the proposed bill is as
follows: “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.”
Honda referenced a recent crime as the reason for this new legislation. An excerpt from a local news story
reads as follows: “The congressman cited a shooting on July 22 in
Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an
assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded
another.”
This seems to be fictitious, though. Reports on the crime indicate that the two victims were not police officers at all, and a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department press release states that one officer had “minor injuries” – and makes no mention of the shooter wearing armor.
Predictably, this proposed legislation has been lauded by anti-gun groups. An article at guns.com also deflates claims by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center that the mass murderers at Newtown and Aurora wore body armor.
Laws like this, so often passed with the help of emotional tales like
the one apparently concocted to support this bill, do nothing to
prevent criminals from getting what they want. I believe this
legislation will only widen the gap between the type equipment the
government (and criminals) possess, and what’s available to law-abiding
citizens–and that is never a good thing.
I fail to understand how any thinking person can believe that making
more laws will reduce crime. Criminals commit crimes; it’s what defines
them. That means they will break ANY AND ALL laws, including gun laws,
armor laws, etc.
Besides, there is already a federal law prohibiting the “purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.”
Honda’s proposed bill will not help law enforcement agencies protect
citizens. It will only restrict citizens from buying armor if they
choose to do so.
- See more at:
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/08/proposed-body-armor-ban -american-citizens/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Ema il&utm_content=2014-08-12&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsle tter#sthash.niuMqouh.dpuf
A California Congressman named Mike Honda has submitted H.R. 5344,
“The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” to the United States House
of Representatives. In a recent statement, Honda said, “There’s nothing
more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can
do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”
Honda seems to prefer a world in which police can kill people with ease.
The stated purpose of the bill
is “to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
armor by civilians, with exceptions.” Exceptions include the federal
government, state governments, and body armor already legally possessed.
The definition of “enhanced body armor” in the proposed bill is as
follows: “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.”
Honda referenced a recent crime as the reason for this new legislation. An excerpt from a local news story
reads as follows: “The congressman cited a shooting on July 22 in
Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an
assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded
another.”
This seems to be fictitious, though. Reports on the crime indicate that the two victims were not police officers at all, and a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department press release states that one officer had “minor injuries” – and makes no mention of the shooter wearing armor.
Predictably, this proposed legislation has been lauded by anti-gun groups. An article at guns.com also deflates claims by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center that the mass murderers at Newtown and Aurora wore body armor.
Laws like this, so often passed with the help of emotional tales like
the one apparently concocted to support this bill, do nothing to
prevent criminals from getting what they want. I believe this
legislation will only widen the gap between the type equipment the
government (and criminals) possess, and what’s available to law-abiding
citizens–and that is never a good thing.
I fail to understand how any thinking person can believe that making
more laws will reduce crime. Criminals commit crimes; it’s what defines
them. That means they will break ANY AND ALL laws, including gun laws,
armor laws, etc.
Besides, there is already a federal law prohibiting the “purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.”
Honda’s proposed bill will not help law enforcement agencies protect
citizens. It will only restrict citizens from buying armor if they
choose to do so.
- See more at:
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/08/proposed-body-armor-ban -american-citizens/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Ema il&utm_content=2014-08-12&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsle tter#sthash.niuMqouh.dpuf
__________________ Weaponeer.net survives on donations made each Month by the membership. if we don't get enough donations, our hosting provider turns off the website, and only turns it back on after the hosting fee's have been paid. Please... every donation counts
Status: Offline
Mech warrior
Admin Group
Joined: October 22 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1998
Posted: August 14 2014 at 1:00am | IP Logged
Whats funny about all this....... I seriously was about to do a video, meant to be funny, but also very serious and realistic about body armor. In my video I was going to title it "armor defeating .22LR".
I am still looking for a manaquen to dress it down in full body armor and helmet.....the whole 9 yards. Level 1500 vest. (made that up but it sounds super tough)
Then I was gonna lay down and shoot the wrists off, and the ankles, and the throat......I could think of about 50 different exposed areas that I could hit.
Trust me, all the body armor in the world is not gonna help you stay standing when your foot is seperated from your leg at the ankle with any rifle round....even the lowly .22lr. Your going down and crying for mommy.
Am I the only person who knows about the golden BB???
When your time is up, your time is up, and all the body armor in the world wont help....in fact, it most likely slowed you down which makes you an easier target for me. My .308 FAL doesn't mind armor.
The reason I can say that and mean it....I did appleseed. I learned to be a rifleman. I graduated. Give me any rack grade rifle, with ball ammo, and iron sites....If your 500 yrds or closer....I OWN YOU. I AM GOD. YOUR LIFE IS IN MY HANDS.
Problem is, there is NOT enough people that know how to really do that. Trust me, I thought I was a good shot, then I got there.....found out I had a lot to learn. So I did! Ever since then, I size things up differently. Better then Fight Club!!!!
__________________ Neanderthal Armory 07FFL
Measure, think about it, measure again, think about it some more, measure again, then cut......."Oh S***!!!!"
"Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened." Billy Gram
"If my calculations are correct......when this baby hits 88mph, your gonna see some serious sh*t!"
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
Posted: August 15 2014 at 11:13am | IP Logged
All a proposed law by a politician means hey look voters I am actually working for you, see I made up a story about a nasty person, and made a law to protect you from said nasty person., that means you really should vote for me.
It's all about convincing some dumb 5h1t to vote for some worthless parasite with delusions of grandeur, full of their own self importance.
As said by Mech Warrior, a well placed round renders body armour useless, and some calibers love to punch holes straight through body armour, that's why I love the 7.62x54r cartridge.
With the right round body armour is meaningless.
Combine a right round with a good rifle, and rifleman, well you can just forget about wearing body armour it is not going to stop you from bleeding to death from a bullet to the femoral artery.
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
NRADon
CPT
Joined: July 05 2008 Posts: 1776
Posted: August 15 2014 at 12:07pm | IP Logged
How about guns and body armor for everyone EXCEPT politicians. Do you think maybe then they'd treat the people with a little more respect? Maybe we should bring back the "Sanction of Seleuse" (Sp?) wherein any politician who proposed a law had to stand with a knotted rope around his neck and a big goon behind him holding it in his hands. If the law was voted down by the other lawmakers, the person who proposed it was strangled on the spot. It worked to protect people's liberty and property for 200 years in one of the smaller Greek city-states.
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
Posted: August 15 2014 at 12:51pm | IP Logged
NRADon wrote:
How about guns and body armor for everyone EXCEPT politicians. Do you think maybe then they'd treat the people with a little more respect? Maybe we should bring back the "Sanction of Seleuse" (Sp?) wherein any politician who proposed a law had to stand with a knotted rope around his neck and a big goon behind him holding it in his hands. If the law was voted down by the other lawmakers, the person who proposed it was strangled on the spot. It worked to protect people's liberty and property for 200 years in one of the smaller Greek city-states.
Oh, if only
x 1
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
UKBiker
1LT
Joined: July 16 2013 Posts: 944
Posted: August 15 2014 at 5:30pm | IP Logged
As others have already said, this law is just another grandstanding political minnow trying to make a name for himself.
I would imagine there will be a surge in the purchase of body armour before any potential ban is brought in.
Maybe he has shares in a body armour manufacturer or shop and he's trying to make a fast buck!!!
Armour is only any use if you get hit where the armour is covering you, there's plenty of exposed vulnerable parts of the body not covered, and as others have stated if you shoot them in the legs first they'll drop like the sack of proverbial, which then renders them an easy target and effectively removes the efficacy of their armour.
Is it election time coming up for these cretins? If your political asswipes are anything like the snivelling whining verminous duplicitous bunch of degenerate traitorous bastards we have running the UK and Europe when election time starts to come round they all start making all manner of outlandish suggestions to try and dupe the great unwashed into voting for their festering parasitic carcasses.
Status: Offline
backbencher
Moderator Group
Joined: February 26 2013 Location: United States Posts: 3770
Posted: August 15 2014 at 9:14pm | IP Logged
Yep, in November. But you have to remember, in America, our legislature truly does represent us. Perhaps not @ our best, but Congress is representative.
Status: Offline
Mech warrior
Admin Group
Joined: October 22 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1998
Posted: August 16 2014 at 1:41am | IP Logged
northumbrian wrote: Combine a right round with a good rifle, and rifleman, well you can just forget about wearing body armour it is not going to stop you from bleeding to death from a bullet to the femoral artery.
Hence "the golden BB"....
The "golden bb" is a slang term referring to a single rifle shot that is so well-placed it can bring down a plane or other aircraft.
__________________ Neanderthal Armory 07FFL
Measure, think about it, measure again, think about it some more, measure again, then cut......."Oh S***!!!!"
"Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened." Billy Gram
"If my calculations are correct......when this baby hits 88mph, your gonna see some serious sh*t!"
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
Posted: August 16 2014 at 2:16am | IP Logged
Mech warrior wrote:
northumbrian wrote: Combine a right round with a good rifle, and rifleman, well you can just forget about wearing body armour it is not going to stop you from bleeding to death from a bullet to the femoral artery.
Hence "the golden BB"....
The "golden bb" is a slang term referring to a single rifle shot that is so well-placed it can bring down a plane or other aircraft.
As in the opening scene of Air America
Cracking film that
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
Mech warrior
Admin Group
Joined: October 22 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1998
Posted: August 16 2014 at 2:51am | IP Logged
Exactly. But, its not just a movie fantasy, it is totaly possible.
__________________ Neanderthal Armory 07FFL
Measure, think about it, measure again, think about it some more, measure again, then cut......."Oh S***!!!!"
"Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened." Billy Gram
"If my calculations are correct......when this baby hits 88mph, your gonna see some serious sh*t!"
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
Posted: August 16 2014 at 4:43am | IP Logged
Just need to hit the right bit.
In exactly the same way a Sniper can take out a tank.
A sniper can force a tank crew to button down the hatches, and as such now must rely upon the tanks external sensors/optics.
The driver must be able to see where he's going, a couple of well aimed shots in the viewing plates, and the tank is rendered immobile, same goes for the gun sights, if the gunner can't see the target, he can't aim the gun.
All the armour in the world is meaningless, if your going up against a good rifleman.
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
NRADon
CPT
Joined: July 05 2008 Posts: 1776
Posted: August 16 2014 at 12:08pm | IP Logged
northumbrian wrote:
Just need to hit the right bit.
In exactly the same way a Sniper can take out a tank.
A sniper can force a tank crew to button down the hatches, and as such now must rely upon the tanks external sensors/optics.
The driver must be able to see where he's going, a couple of well aimed shots in the viewing plates, and the tank is rendered immobile, same goes for the gun sights, if the gunner can't see the target, he can't aim the gun.
All the armour in the world is meaningless, if your going up against a good rifleman.
It could. however, be quite effective against saving yourself from many of the police out there who simply spray and pray. Remember, it was NYPD that shot that guy with a checkbook in his hands that they thought was a gun 41 times a decade ago and didn't kill him. All they did was create New York City's newest millionaire after the lawsuits were settled. While it's not perfect, most people would choose to wear body armor if they knew a gunfight was about to take place. Every potential advantage helps. That's why cops wear it. This bill is being proposed by another control freak who thinks government should have an unchecked monopoly when it comes to dealing out lethal force.
Status: Offline
backbencher
Moderator Group
Joined: February 26 2013 Location: United States Posts: 3770
They hit him 19 times and killed him. NYC settled w/ his mother & stepfather for $3 million. The cops were acquitted. He was holding his wallet. The 4 cops did not have to pay any of the settlement.
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
But for once the British f**k up makes your American one look like a simple accidental shooting.
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
Posted: August 17 2014 at 3:18am | IP Logged
But the fact that the NYPD fired 41 shots and only 19 hit the target, scares the 5h1t out of me.
These guys are supposed to be their to protect the community not spray the area down with lead.
That almost as bad as the dickheads who do drive by shootings.
Standards are slipping, if anyone needs their guns taking away its the police, if they can't do the job with one or two rounds, they should loose the right to carry a firearm.
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
backbencher
Moderator Group
Joined: February 26 2013 Location: United States Posts: 3770
Posted: August 17 2014 at 10:13am | IP Logged
Oh, that's much better than the Fort Worth police. I remember back in the '90's, 3 FWPD officers fired 15 or 18 rounds between them @ a suspected miscreant. They hit him once & sent him to the hospital w/ a minor wound.
After the shooting above, NYC disbanded that unit.
Status: Offline
northumbrian
MAJ
Joined: August 21 2012 Location: Neutral Zone Posts: 2352
Posted: August 17 2014 at 11:29am | IP Logged
It's bloody ridiculous, how the hell are supposed to feel safe when they couldn't hit a barn door if it fell on them?
__________________ I watched a movie once, where the only people with guns are the Police & military....
It was called Schindler's List
_________________
Don't run...
You'll only die tired
Status: Offline
OldCoot
1LT
Joined: February 11 2013 Location: United States Posts: 758
Posted: August 17 2014 at 11:34am | IP Logged
Armor ain't much help against the rouond that is sent to your address specifically. There are too many flying around as junk 'to whom it may concern', and that's what makes body armor attractive.
Status: Offline
ChuangTzu
E-2
Joined: September 19 2009 Posts: 12
Posted: August 17 2014 at 5:36pm | IP Logged
How about the time a "mass shooting" at the Empire State Building "happened" and it was later revealed that 9 of the people were shot by the NYPD..
Given apparently he'd pulled a gun on them, kinda a no-win situation for them. Even if they hadn't shot, the officers might have been killed, and as far as they knew, might have shot other people. 9 people were injured - some by concrete splinters, not all 9 were shot. Some of the rounds exited the miscreant and may have hit other people.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
