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: 21794
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 # 46.
#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.
they resort to name calling. Pot - meet kettle.
I guess I could never really say CT freaks are stupid….some do hold PhD’s. But I can say they lack the ability to think logically and rationally. They allow themselves to get into the CT mind trap of endless circular arguments over completely irrelevant minutia.
Anything you say after that is meaningless gibberish. "The problem with the conspiracy theory label is that it is overly broad in its condemnation of speculation about political intrigue. The label provides no basis for distinguishing groundless smears from reasonable suspicions warranting investigation. History has shown all too clearly that public trust in high officials is sometimes misplaced." Lance deHaven-Smith. "Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government." American Behavioral Scientist (February 2010) How To Spot A Disinformation Agent “Information warfare” is being waged throughout the cybersphere. Whether they are CENTCOM disinfo government employees or ill-informed know-it-alls, there has been an ugly battle raging on the Internet for the minds of the public. As any 9/11 truth activist who uses the web regularly can tell you, truth obfuscaters are crawling around message boards like locusts, referring to 9/11 truthers as “fringe nutcases,” “ridiculous,” “…f**king conspiracy theorists” and the like, while simultaneously hijacking rational discussions by planting bogus information. And no, jet fuel fires can not melt steel. Naturally, it is not just information about what really happened on 9/11 that is under attack, the infowar is evident in relation to other topics that governments have a vested interest in lying about, such as chemtrails, mercury in vaccines leading to autism, AIDS/HIV being man-made, “man-made global warming” and the health effects of fluoride and depleted uranium (DU). The disinfo artists who work on the Internet, referred to as “trolls,” use a number of tried and tested means to mislead those who are trying to learn the truth about controversial issues, while attempting to make those disseminating the truth feel reluctant to continue. Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress The Truth -The Rules of Disinformation by H. Micheal Sweeney covers their methods in some detail. Their dirty work does have some positive spin-offs for those who care about the truth however. For one thing, if they argue incessantly about a particular topic, they are waving a flag and telling you indirectly that this is an issue you should be particularly concerned about. And secondly, when they quarrel about a little-known area, they are often helping those they engage with gain more knowledge. Not because of the misleading information they post, but because arguing with them can lead people to do far more research than they would have done otherwise. Short YouTube Clip about Disinformation Agents **** So Gatlin, you are actually performing a service to the site by displaying your utter ignorance and your refusal to consider any facts that are not fed to you by the Pronouncers of Acceptable Opinion. Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful ***** Your entire baseless argument can be summed up here : There are No Conspiracies Because Daddy Will Always Protect Us **** When are going to grow up?
Having gray hair does not by any means indicate I am fading away. You young whipper snappers have to realize that us older folks can still be young at heart despite the ravaged body. We still see the world through young eyes, it is only the bones and sinew that doesn't come to out party. We are not bothered with what you young'uns think because we know that old attitudes are the worse enemies of the young since we see things as they really are. Listen to us old folks an....we will keep you straight.
Howdy, Gat Let's see how long this "Liberty" page allows me a voice without being "suspended" or banned.
You could not be an asshole like you were at the other site. Yeah, I know - that's impossible.
#49. To: Deckard (#46)
Yeah, I know - that's impossible. I'm betting the hipocracy here will have me banned for no reason at all. Im willing to bet that EVEN IF I DON'T call names, cussed and acted as poorly, like you do often and did on this post, above, I'll still get banned and you'll still be free to post conspiracy theories about Goldi being knocked off by GW. The Ron Paul cult needs your kind. lol
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)
#30. To: Gatlin (#28)
...CT freaks ...blah, blah, blah...
#34. To: Deckard (#30)
#36. To: Gatlin (#34)
CT freaks
#38. To: Deckard (#36)
When are going to grow up?
#39. To: Gatlin (#38)
#46. To: GrandIsland (#39)
Let's see how long this "Liberty" page allows me a voice without being "suspended" or banned
Replies to Comment # 46. You could not be an asshole like you were at the other site.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]