mick silver
14th April 2016, 03:31 PM
U.S. Citizens May Be Banned from Buying Body ArmorSource: Anon HQ (http://anonhq.com/u-s-citizens-may-banned-buying-body-armor/)
It’s time to remind US citizens again of HR 378 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/378/text), the Act that would “prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions,” (source (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr378)). The Act caused a stir (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-ban-body-armor-proposed-congress/) when it was first reported on in early 2015, but has since dwindled in the media, and slipped through the cracks of the public’s attention. The proposal is still open, however, and those who are interested can track its progress through the (source) link above.
The Act was proposed on January 14, 2015 by Representatives Michael Honda (https://honda.house.gov/) (D-CA), Alcee Hastings (http://alceehastings.house.gov/) (D-FL), Robin Kelly (http://robinkelly.house.gov/) (D-IL), and Danny Davis (https://davis.house.gov/) (D-IL). According to washingtonwatch.com (https://washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/114_HR_378.html), other sponsors or cosponsors include Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Julia Brownley (D-CA).
The controversy surrounding the topic spills over into the gun-rights issue, but regardless of your opinion on guns, whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves from them should not be an issue. The fact is, armor itself doesn’t hurt anyone (it’s designed to do the opposite), so why is an Act being proposed to take a form of safety away?
http://gold-silver.us/forum/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=9 (http://anonhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bullet-Size.jpg)
The Act specifically focuses on level III armor and higher, which is mainly designed to withstand rifle ammunition. Unless you’re an avid big-game hunter, the average citizen may not find level III armor useful, and in fact some might consider it excessive, but that isn’t the point; there are some law-abiding citizens who find it useful, we’re supposed to be living in the “land of the free,” and the real question is, why are players in the government trying to prevent citizens from protecting themselves from rifle shots, which are intended to result in serious injury or death?
In a press release (https://honda.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-honda-introduces-legislative-package-to-promote-public-safety-in-week-two-of) from Representative Michael Honda:
“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.”As mentioned in the Free Thought Project’s report (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-ban-body-armor-proposed-congress/), “this speaks to the heart of the law enforcement problem in America.” One of the lessons learned (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-unrest-senate-police-weapons-hearing.html?_r=0) from Ferguson is that law enforcement themselves should not have access to military-grade equipment, as they are not trained to use it properly, and they act like a bunch of pubescent teenage boys who just got a fully loaded, semi-automatic penis for Christmas, waving it around at anyone who pays them the slightest bit of attention.
The argument for the use of this equipment by law enforcement is that it’s intended to protect US citizens from “terrorism.” And yet, US citizens are not killed on a daily basis by terrorists (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/), but they are killed on a daily basis by U.S. police (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/), leaving many to beg the question, who are the real terrorists here?
If the intended use of military equipment by law enforcement is to protect US citizens from terrorism, why is it being used when dealing with Americans themselves, such as we saw in Ferguson? Is the implication that the majority of US citizens are terrorists? And now there are State Representatives who aim to prevent citizens from potentially protecting themselves from this excessive force.
The next question we need to ask is, exactly how many “active shooting situations” are police dealing with to merit an Act that will prevent all Americans from theoretically protecting themselves? According to reports (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/24/active-shooter-incidents-rising-fbi-finds/16158921/), an FBI study in 2014 showed that active shooter incidents (not to be confused with mass shooting incidents, of which there are much less) are on the rise, with an average of 16 incidents a year.
Of course, that’s 16 too many, but it puts things into perspective; police across the nation have been geared for war to supposedly protect US citizens from terrorists when they themselves kill thousands more Americans than terrorists do, and according to Representative Michael Honda, citizens should not be able to protect themselves from this level of law enforcement because there can potentially be around 16 active shooter incidents across the nation this year.
Either these politicians are complete idiots, or they think we are. If it’s to be insisted that military equipment should be used to handle the possible 16 active shooter incidents that may happen this year, why not have the men who were trained to use that equipment deal with the incident? One would think the National Guard, at the very least, could handle such situations. But there are many benefits this Act could bring to the government, all of which are accomplished by tightening its grip on the American people, and that’s precisely what is intended.
There is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel though; should this law pass, reports (http://www.truthandaction.org/h-r-5344-responsible-body-armor-possession-act-violation-gets-10-years-prison/2/) indicate there is a grandfather clause allowing you to keep armor you purchase beforehand. So for the military-survival Anons out there, group hunters, Ted Nugent, and anyone else willing to spend a couple hundred dollars on a vest: We suggest you track this proposal, and in the meantime, gear up.
Share This Article...
It’s time to remind US citizens again of HR 378 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/378/text), the Act that would “prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions,” (source (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr378)). The Act caused a stir (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-ban-body-armor-proposed-congress/) when it was first reported on in early 2015, but has since dwindled in the media, and slipped through the cracks of the public’s attention. The proposal is still open, however, and those who are interested can track its progress through the (source) link above.
The Act was proposed on January 14, 2015 by Representatives Michael Honda (https://honda.house.gov/) (D-CA), Alcee Hastings (http://alceehastings.house.gov/) (D-FL), Robin Kelly (http://robinkelly.house.gov/) (D-IL), and Danny Davis (https://davis.house.gov/) (D-IL). According to washingtonwatch.com (https://washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/114_HR_378.html), other sponsors or cosponsors include Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Julia Brownley (D-CA).
The controversy surrounding the topic spills over into the gun-rights issue, but regardless of your opinion on guns, whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves from them should not be an issue. The fact is, armor itself doesn’t hurt anyone (it’s designed to do the opposite), so why is an Act being proposed to take a form of safety away?
http://gold-silver.us/forum/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=9 (http://anonhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bullet-Size.jpg)
The Act specifically focuses on level III armor and higher, which is mainly designed to withstand rifle ammunition. Unless you’re an avid big-game hunter, the average citizen may not find level III armor useful, and in fact some might consider it excessive, but that isn’t the point; there are some law-abiding citizens who find it useful, we’re supposed to be living in the “land of the free,” and the real question is, why are players in the government trying to prevent citizens from protecting themselves from rifle shots, which are intended to result in serious injury or death?
In a press release (https://honda.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-honda-introduces-legislative-package-to-promote-public-safety-in-week-two-of) from Representative Michael Honda:
“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.”As mentioned in the Free Thought Project’s report (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-ban-body-armor-proposed-congress/), “this speaks to the heart of the law enforcement problem in America.” One of the lessons learned (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-unrest-senate-police-weapons-hearing.html?_r=0) from Ferguson is that law enforcement themselves should not have access to military-grade equipment, as they are not trained to use it properly, and they act like a bunch of pubescent teenage boys who just got a fully loaded, semi-automatic penis for Christmas, waving it around at anyone who pays them the slightest bit of attention.
The argument for the use of this equipment by law enforcement is that it’s intended to protect US citizens from “terrorism.” And yet, US citizens are not killed on a daily basis by terrorists (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/), but they are killed on a daily basis by U.S. police (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/), leaving many to beg the question, who are the real terrorists here?
If the intended use of military equipment by law enforcement is to protect US citizens from terrorism, why is it being used when dealing with Americans themselves, such as we saw in Ferguson? Is the implication that the majority of US citizens are terrorists? And now there are State Representatives who aim to prevent citizens from potentially protecting themselves from this excessive force.
The next question we need to ask is, exactly how many “active shooting situations” are police dealing with to merit an Act that will prevent all Americans from theoretically protecting themselves? According to reports (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/24/active-shooter-incidents-rising-fbi-finds/16158921/), an FBI study in 2014 showed that active shooter incidents (not to be confused with mass shooting incidents, of which there are much less) are on the rise, with an average of 16 incidents a year.
Of course, that’s 16 too many, but it puts things into perspective; police across the nation have been geared for war to supposedly protect US citizens from terrorists when they themselves kill thousands more Americans than terrorists do, and according to Representative Michael Honda, citizens should not be able to protect themselves from this level of law enforcement because there can potentially be around 16 active shooter incidents across the nation this year.
Either these politicians are complete idiots, or they think we are. If it’s to be insisted that military equipment should be used to handle the possible 16 active shooter incidents that may happen this year, why not have the men who were trained to use that equipment deal with the incident? One would think the National Guard, at the very least, could handle such situations. But there are many benefits this Act could bring to the government, all of which are accomplished by tightening its grip on the American people, and that’s precisely what is intended.
There is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel though; should this law pass, reports (http://www.truthandaction.org/h-r-5344-responsible-body-armor-possession-act-violation-gets-10-years-prison/2/) indicate there is a grandfather clause allowing you to keep armor you purchase beforehand. So for the military-survival Anons out there, group hunters, Ted Nugent, and anyone else willing to spend a couple hundred dollars on a vest: We suggest you track this proposal, and in the meantime, gear up.
Share This Article...