United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Only Police Should Have...Body Armor? (Why not ban strong locks on doors, while we're at it?)
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/22/only-police-should-havebody-armor
Published: Jan 22, 2015
Author: J.D. Tuccille
Post Date: 2015-01-22 20:04:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 21771
Comments: 72
Venturing down a line of legislative reasoning that apparently sees threats to the republic in convenience store clerks, security guards, globe-trotting journalists, and shopkeepers nervy enough to do business in troubled neighborhoods, Rep. Mike Honda (D-YouGottaBeKiddingMe) offers up HR 378, The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act. Yes, it is in fact a bill intended to limit people's ability to own gear that reduces injuries and death caused by bullets. While the text of the bill isn't yet available, it looks like a rehash of legislation introduced last year that would ban "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." In his press release, Rep. Honda insists: This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement. Uh huh. Police could also more effectively respond to all sorts of situations if they didn't have to fiddle with pesky locks or barred windows. And don't even get started on reinforced door frames and masonry walls. Do you really need a brick house? Isn't it easier for law enforcement to blow a barrier down if honest people use straw? Now, Type III armor isn't standard stuff, nor is it cheap. Designed to stop rifle rounds, it carries a pretty price tag and is cumbersome as hell. But police locks, alarm systems, and related security equipment are pricey and cumbersome, too. When I lived in New York City's East Village in the '90s, I could pretty much smoke a cigarette in the hall while waiting for some of my friends to unlock their apartment doors. But if you perceive some danger in your environment, you just might want some protection. Even if that protection incidentally makes it more difficult for police officers to kill you if they feel the need. And whatever the motivation of the user, this stuff is defensive. The only way to hurt another person with body armor is to take it off and beat them with it. Of course, Rep. Honda isn't satisfied with restricting body armor; he also want to ban gun components kits and require guns made on 3D printers, CNC machines and the like to have serial numbers. You didn't think he liked armed civilians better than he liked them armored did you? The serial number bill has the singular characteristic of being completely unenforceable, targeting, as it does, DIY efforts increasingly intended to be beyond government's grasp. None of these bills are likely to fare well in the new Republican-controlled House. Rep. Honda is posturing by introducing legislation intended to thrill his base by showing that he's "Continuing his promotion of the modern progressive agenda" (in his own words). But what does it say about him and his perception of his supporters that he sees advantage in banning stuff meant to protect people from harm? Just wait until he gets around to smoke alarms.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
"The bill is a rehash of a similar one Honda introduced last session that died in committee."
Look at you, thinking that the gun grabbers are going to just roll over. What a silly man (?) you are.
"The bill is a rehash of a similar one Honda introduced last session that died in committee. Similarly, a California state senate measure endorsed by Honda, famously dubbed the Ghost Gun bill, became one of the few gun control items ever to see Gov. Jerry Brown’s veto pen."
Look at you, thinking that the gun grabbers are going to just roll over. Silly boy.
You're too hysterical to even try to address the facts. Typical for you.
In the deepest fears of every conspiracy theorist freak is the sinister fearful thought of government confiscating firearms.
“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs. Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question. This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11. “CIA Document 1035-960” was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.” The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.” The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”
There is a much higher proportion of those having mental health issues amongst CT freaks than other segments of our society. They are known to have the inability to think. It is realistic to gather together all available evidence and as many facets of data, then sort though it to apply logic and reason to determine which items are important and which are not. Then organize all of this along with the available evidence into a coherent hypothesis to adequately explain what happened. CT Freaks are mentally incapable of doing this.
CT freaks are unable to form a well-reasoned comprehensive and evidence-based mind set so they can never vet the quality of their arguments. This causes them to make only outlandish and blatantly ridiculous claims which opens them up to ridicule. When someone presents a well-reasoned counter argument to their bogus claim, they do not have the ability to comprehend the logical reasoning and immediately get defensive….often times by moving the goal-posts or changing the subject. If that fails, they resort to name calling.
As surely as a dog returns to its vomit.
There are no replies to Comment # 32. End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Palmdale (#3)
"The bill is a rehash of a similar one Honda introduced last session that died in committee."
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
(Edited)
Look at you, thinking that the gun grabbers are going to just roll over.
#7. To: Palmdale (#6)
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
#11. To: Palmdale (#8)
You're too hysterical to even try to address the facts. Typical for you.
#18. To: Gatlin (#11)
....conspiracy theorist freak...
#24. To: Deckard (#18)
#26. To: Gatlin (#24)
There is a much higher proportion of those having mental health issues amongst CT freaks than other segments of our society.
#28. To: Palmdale, Decard (#26)
#32. To: Gatlin (#28)
When someone presents a well-reasoned counter argument to their bogus claim, they do not have the ability to comprehend the logical reasoning and immediately get defensive….often times by moving the goal-posts or changing the subject. If that fails, they resort to name calling.
Replies to Comment # 32.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]