champu 1 #1 October 28, 2014 This bill is in its infancy, and I don't actually think it will go anywhere, but I'm curious as to what people think about representatives proposing laws like this, as a gesture or otherwise. What does this law say to you when you read it? https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344/text To save you the trouble of looking it up, type III basically means anything that will stop rifle rounds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #2 October 28, 2014 champuWhat does this law say to you when you read it? It says "Haven't these people got anything better to do?"Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #3 October 28, 2014 I guess I'm a little worried that the steel plate I have in my basement ( for fabricating things ) could be considered a "shield". Or the engine block in my car could be considered a "shield". Or ... In other words, when Congressmen start solving problems that aren't problems, how many other problems can they cause.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #4 October 28, 2014 Has there been a recent epidemic of violent incidents involving criminals in body armor that I somehow missed? Maybe we need a law requiring politicians to wear ball gags at all times, just in case they say something stupid. Which seems a pretty high probability event. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #5 October 28, 2014 Asinine. When your government makes passive defensive items illegal, it is time to be scared of the government. What's next? Brick or concrete block homes made illegal because police bullets can't penetrate them?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 October 28, 2014 QuoteWhen your government makes passive defensive items illegal, it is time to be scared of the government. QuoteMr. Honda (for himself, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Pascrell) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary Who are they? Mr Honda - Mike, Democrat, California Ms Kelly - Robin, Democrat, Illinois Mr Hastings - Either - Alcee (Dem, Florida) or Doc (Rep, Washington), Mr Pascrell - Bill, Democrat, New Jersey ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #7 October 28, 2014 By way of context, it appears Honda was prompted by this incident in his home state, which occurred about a month prior to the bill being introduced: Man On Loose With Body Armor, AR-15 May Be Tied To Multiple CA Shootings Investigators Piecing Together Slayings, Shootout in Moreno Valley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 October 28, 2014 Mr Honda seems, then, to be a very reactionary person, or his constituents are very reactionary. (This might also be a good time to reference the whole - emotional vs rational - discussion and how it plays out in politics). But it's a pretty sad thing for any congresscritter to have happen in his district for sure. Anyway - everyone that watches movies knows that bad guy bullets are stopped by objects in pockets. - usually a lucky coin given by grandpa from way back when - or a whiskey flask given at a law enforcement forced retirement party we should pass a law to distribute whiskey flasks to everyone that doesn't own a gun - just to even the odds. Bill Gates can afford it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #9 October 28, 2014 Hi ryoder, Quote Asinine. Yup. It could also mean the end of backpacks for kids that have Kevlar in them to, hopefully, save a life or two. Way over the top; hopefully, more sensible minds will prevail. But, then again, it is election time. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scubanaff 0 #10 October 28, 2014 I find it funny as hell that the same people here that are against guns which are used for good and bad, and would like nothing better than to have them all removed from the us. When it comes to body armor which is used for good and bad they get up in arms about how the government is overstepping and needs to back off taking away their liberties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #11 October 28, 2014 >I find it funny as hell that the same people here that are against guns which are >used for good and bad, and would like nothing better than to have them all >removed from the us. >When it comes to body armor which is used for good and bad they get up in arms >about how the government is overstepping and needs to back off taking away >their liberties. So far it looks like all the people on this thread support ownership of guns _and_ body armor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #12 October 28, 2014 ScubanaffI find it funny as hell that the same people here that are against guns which are used for good and bad, and would like nothing better than to have them all removed from the us. When it comes to body armor which is used for good and bad they get up in arms about how the government is overstepping and needs to back off taking away their liberties. You seem to be very well informed about posters here considering that you only registered a few days ago. Sock puppet, anyone?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #13 October 28, 2014 Most people here are about protecting their rights, some are just more verbal than others about which ones they are willing to fight for. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GD64 1 #14 October 29, 2014 I think most times politico's use the word reasonable, it really means the exact opposite......"The Reasonable Body Armor Possession Act". ........with prison terms up to 10 years (sounds "fair") sarc switch off. Seems like a solution looking for a problem, in other words, more politico hackery. It is amazing what these hacks and their staffs can come up with around election time to crow about. As far as type 3 goes, I believe pretty much any round larger than 7.62 and over approx. 1500ft/per sec will penetrate. Maybe as a fund raiser these clowns could put a vest on and auction off live fire tests on them. Hell, broadcast on pay per view, I'd buy in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #15 October 29, 2014 My extensive google research says type III is rated against .308/7.62x51 whereas one level down is IIIa which is rated up to .44 mag. So basically they're drawing the line against body armor that protects against most rifle rounds. .30-06, .338, etc. not withstanding. My cynical translation of this proposed bill is, "if you get shot by a rifle round it means it was by a cop and you deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #16 October 29, 2014 champuMy extensive google research says type III is rated against .308/7.62x51 whereas one level down is IIIa which is rated up to .44 mag. So basically they're drawing the line against body armor that protects against most rifle rounds. .30-06, .338, etc. not withstanding. My cynical translation of this proposed bill is, "if you get shot by a rifle round it means it was by a cop and you deserve it." Correct. IIIA is the light version (stops most handgun rounds) while III will stop most rifle rounds. IV is rated to stop at least one AP rifle round.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #17 October 29, 2014 The media in Vancouver tell us that the only civilians wearing bullet-proof vests while driving around in their armoured SUVs are evil, wicked, mean and nasty drug king-pins. Canadian police are trying to use armour as an excuse to arrest drug-dealers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GD64 1 #18 October 29, 2014 champu......count me as a +1 on your cynical translation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GD64 1 #19 October 29, 2014 riggerrob......does that mean the Canadian police will start arresting those evil, wicked, mean, politico's that drive around in those armored SUV's (approx. $100K plus cost of vehicle)? Oh that's right......they're so special. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 October 29, 2014 riggerrobThe media in Vancouver tell us that the only civilians wearing bullet-proof vests while driving around in their armoured SUVs are evil, wicked, mean and nasty drug king-pins. Canadian police are trying to use armour as an excuse to arrest drug-dealers. same argument used for window tint therefore: window tint = body armor therefore: window tint stops bullets isn't "armour" some kind of hot dog? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #21 October 29, 2014 >isn't "armour" some kind of hot dog? Even kids with chicken pox love them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #22 October 29, 2014 Quoteisn't "armour" some kind of hot dog? Isn't it French for "love"? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #23 October 29, 2014 Quotesame argument used for window tint I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #24 October 29, 2014 GeorgiaDonQuotesame argument used for window tint I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night. Don When you're cool, the sun always shines. I have lightly tinted windows, but it was a Florida car. It is, however, a grandpa machine that no self respecting desperado would have anything to do with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 October 29, 2014 GeorgiaDonQuotesame argument used for window tint I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night. Don I'm more on the fence about the body armor issue. If enough cops get shot by criminals wearing protective armor, I think a reasonable argument can made that these things should be made illegal. Also when the armor is too heavy it compromises the wearer's ability to move, and it's not comfy when hot. so, it's apparently another 'where do you draw the line' discussion on how much big brother do you want then? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites