Democrat Wants to Ban Body Armor for the Public

[nodoginnafight]

How many people go around wearing body armor everyday?
I mean, you never know when that crap may hit the fan, so you have to wear it everyday????

Man, I think people have a right to do that if they want, but you either have to be in a pretty dangerous line of work or you're just paranoid.

 

[ogibillm]

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

No. Especially if it gives law enforcement (i.e. the government) an upper hand.

so you find that law enforcement should be less able to protect themselves than the general public?
is there no level of weapons technology that you would deny the public?

 

[SwimExpert]

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

No. Especially if it gives law enforcement (i.e. the government) an upper hand.

so you find that law enforcement should be less able to protect themselves than the general public?

What the fuck are you talking about? Me wearing body armor does not inhibit a police officer's ability to protect him/her self.

 

[ogibillm]

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

No. Especially if it gives law enforcement (i.e. the government) an upper hand.

so you find that law enforcement should be less able to protect themselves than the general public?

What the fuck are you talking about? Me wearing body armor does not inhibit a police officer's ability to protect him/her self.

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

 

[SwimExpert]

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

 

[ogibillm]

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

do you have an actual response, or can you not see that allowing all tech to be purchased and used by the public essentially creates an arms race between the police and criminals?

 

[nodoginnafight]

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

No. Especially if it gives law enforcement (i.e. the government) an upper hand.

so you find that law enforcement should be less able to protect themselves than the general public?

What the fuck are you talking about? Me wearing body armor does not inhibit a police officer's ability to protect him/her self.

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

I've heard that argument and it is a decent point (imho).
But outlawing body armor doesn't mean that police will not be confronted with perps wearing body armor. Shoot 'em in the head.

 

[ogibillm]

it's just a general question - is some tech better suited out of the hands of the general public to give law enforcement an upper-hand?

No. Especially if it gives law enforcement (i.e. the government) an upper hand.

so you find that law enforcement should be less able to protect themselves than the general public?

What the fuck are you talking about? Me wearing body armor does not inhibit a police officer's ability to protect him/her self.

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

I've heard that argument and it is a decent point (imho).
But outlawing body armor doesn't mean that police will not be confronted with perps wearing body armor. Shoot 'em in the head.

you're right, it doesn't.
but it does make it less likely.
i'm not saying that outlawing body armor to the general public is right or wrong, but i am recognizing that there is a line, somewhere, where we need to agree to stack the deck on the side of the people we have chosen to protect us.

 

[SwimExpert]

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

do you have an actual response, or can you not see that allowing all tech to be purchased and used by the public essentially creates an arms race between the police and criminals?

You are spouting stupidity. The only appropriate response is to point out said stupidity.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Democrat Wants to Ban Body Armor for the Public

This is absolutely crazy, and it is yet another example of the “police state mentality” that is so prevalent among our politicians these days.

 

[SwimExpert]

i'm not saying that outlawing body armor to the general public is right or wrong, but i am recognizing that there is a line, somewhere, where we need to agree to stack the deck on the side of the people we have chosen to protect us.

Maybe you should try protecting yourself.

 

[ogibillm]

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

do you have an actual response, or can you not see that allowing all tech to be purchased and used by the public essentially creates an arms race between the police and criminals?

You are spouting stupidity. The only appropriate response is to point out said stupidity.

so you do not believe that if all offensive and defensive tech are made available that an arms race will happen between police and criminals?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

do you have an actual response, or can you not see that allowing all tech to be purchased and used by the public essentially creates an arms race between the police and criminals?

You are spouting stupidity. The only appropriate response is to point out said stupidity.

so you do not believe that if all offensive and defensive tech are made available that an arms race will happen between police and criminals?

I hate to be the one to break it to you but ANY "tech" that is actually available anywhere in the world is available to criminals in the US and terrorists. They do not follow laws and smuggle in anything they need or want. All banning something does is ensure the people that follow laws will not have it. Something like about 2 percent of all cargo delivered to our ports is inspected. A nuclear war head could be smuggled in if anyone had one.

 

[Moonglow]

I know a lot of Dems want to ban guns, but that isn't going far enough, according to some. Not only does the idea of people defending themselves from criminals disgust liberals, but now the thought of people protecting themselves seems to upset them. This guy doesn't want the public owning and wearing body armor. The excuse is that gangs of mass murderers would be protected from police gunfire, though that would be rare. For most people, wearing them while hunting or maybe walking through the Chicago would simply be a matter of safety.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/238450-content-restricting-gun-ownership-democrat-congressman-sponsors-bill-ban-body-armor/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Guns

I want a street sweeper...

 

[ogibillm]

except making that available to everyone means that the police officers capabilities are lessened. they are relatively weaker, and thus their ability to protect the public has been compromised.
on the other side of that, if police are the only ones allowed to have body armor they are more capable than the public, and better able to protect them.

do you have an actual response, or can you not see that allowing all tech to be purchased and used by the public essentially creates an arms race between the police and criminals?

You are spouting stupidity. The only appropriate response is to point out said stupidity.

so you do not believe that if all offensive and defensive tech are made available that an arms race will happen between police and criminals?

I hate to be the one to break it to you but ANY "tech" that is actually available anywhere in the world is available to criminals in the US and terrorists. They do not follow laws and smuggle in anything they need or want. All banning something does is ensure the people that follow laws will not have it. Something like about 2 percent of all cargo delivered to our ports is inspected. A nuclear war head could be smuggled in if anyone had one.

i never claimed that prohibiting something would equate to its elimination.
but if i can't own, sell, or buy something legally it'll be a hell of a lot more complicated and more expensive to get my hands on it - especially when we're talking about specialized equipment.

 

[BluesLegend]

This is just a guess but I would think the reasoning behind this is that if a terrorist or a person who wants to commit a massacre for whatever reason is wearing body armor then it is that much harder for law enforcement to stop them.

So...liberals are even dumber than I thought they were? I can just see a terrorist saying, wait we can't wear body armor to the terrorist shooting I just remembered they outlawed body armor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

do you have an actual response, or can you not see that allowing all tech to be purchased and used by the public essentially creates an arms race between the police and criminals?

You are spouting stupidity. The only appropriate response is to point out said stupidity.

so you do not believe that if all offensive and defensive tech are made available that an arms race will happen between police and criminals?

I hate to be the one to break it to you but ANY "tech" that is actually available anywhere in the world is available to criminals in the US and terrorists. They do not follow laws and smuggle in anything they need or want. All banning something does is ensure the people that follow laws will not have it. Something like about 2 percent of all cargo delivered to our ports is inspected. A nuclear war head could be smuggled in if anyone had one.

i never claimed that prohibiting something would equate to its elimination.
but if i can't own, sell, or buy something legally it'll be a hell of a lot more complicated and more expensive to get my hands on it - especially when we're talking about specialized equipment.

The ONLY people you discourage or prevent are Law ABIDING ones , what part of that do you fail to grasp?

 

[ALL SOLUTIONS]

Ban guns and body armor:

-- only the elite will have them as there will be exceptions
-- criminals and terrorist will have them
-- you and your family will be at risk

 

[ALL SOLUTIONS]

Ban guns and body armor:

-- only the elite will have them as there will be exceptions
-- criminals and terrorist will have them
-- you and your family will be at risk

 

[Uncensored2008]

I want a street sweeper...

Yeah, but you'd get high, think it was a bong and end up blowing your brains out with it....

(Assuming such an occurrence is a bad thing..)