Congressman from CA introduces Bill banning body armor for the slaves.

page: 1
33
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
H.R.5344 - Responsible Body Armor Possession Act.


(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 932. Ban on purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians

``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess enhanced body armor.

Its my understanding that the slaves are currently permitted to buy Level IV. Thank you oh gracious Masters.

The slaves musn't be allowed to protect themselves.

Confiscate the guns, armor and anything else which could be used for self defense.

Gotta ensure that the slaves are easy targets.



edit on 14-8-2014 by gladtobehere because: not enough usage of the word "slave", added another



+3 more 
posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere
I bet that California has a law mandating that people wear seat belts when they are in a car... right?

They can force you to protect yourself in one instance..... but when they don't want you to protect yourself, they make a law preventing you from doing it.

Slaves is pretty much the right term. Sad, but true.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Oh yeah? Well they can have my body armor when the pry it from my cold dead.. er.. body.

Typical control the worker mentality. Let me guess, sponsored by democrats? I couldn't tell from the HR. I doubt it won't pass anyway. Just a hunch.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Hilarious title of the thing, "Responsible Body Armor Possession Act", reminds me of the "Patriot Act" that was anything but, lol.

I went to the proposed bill to see what subsection (b) granted an exception to, and, surprise, surprise, it is to the Federal and state governments and their subdivisions, like cities. Oh, and an exception that if you already own some, they can't take it away.

So stock up, I guess… given the obvious rise of the police state, depending on where you live, you're probably going to need it.

edit on 14-8-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I say pass the bill... as long as the representatives (civilians themselves) have to abide as well... No special permits for the "elites"...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

Notice that politicians who call for gun control and gun bans always have their own armed security exempt?


I believe in leadership by example. The secret service should be disarmed first.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Why does the People's Republic Of California feel a need they cannot resist to impose their sense of right and wrong on 49 OTHER sets of people who largely don't care or want to know what California thinks or wants?

Unfortunately, they can get a bill passed like anyone else, and our reps may or may not deem to even mention the thing is out there.

They can outlaw clothing itself for all I care, as long as it is on the other side of their state line for where this all happens.

Hey, there may actually come a time where the wet nurses of government are not there to nurse our every need and desire. That could be a time where 911 doesn't dial to anything, anymore. We'll all feel so happy to know some pencil pusher, years before, outlawed access to what would HELP in situations said pencil pusher could never have imagined, let alone considered. Really..what could go wrong?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


Why does the People's Republic Of California feel a need they cannot resist to impose their sense of right and wrong on 49 OTHER sets of people who largely don't care or want to know what California thinks or wants?

This bill is before Congress, not the California legislature. It just happens to be sponsored by a California Representative, along with Reps from Florida and Illinois.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

I understand that completely. It was brought up by a California Rep. If a radically unpopular bill came up from any other state, I'd look a little cross eyed at them, too. All kinds of reasons exist for why Congressmen or Senators later co-sponsor or vote something once it's there to bite into...or get something done in return for supporting...but it was the source and mindset which elected the origin of this one I was thinking of.

This body armor thing has come up before, and I thought it was illegal in their state already. I know I can buy the whole kit near me tomorrow if I want to, and that's nice if I had some need. Private security perhaps...or just a burning paranoia about taking a group out shooting for the first time, for instance. It shouldn't concern Reps from other states, deciding in Washington..why or how I ought to be permitted something that cannot hurt anyone unless clubbed over the head with it (and even then..?).



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000


This body armor thing has come up before, and I thought it was illegal in their state already.

According to these guys and here as well, the only state that has banned it is Connecticut, though that may have changed.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: gladtobehere

Typical control the worker mentality. Let me guess, sponsored by democrats? I couldn't tell from the HR. I doubt it won't pass anyway. Just a hunch.


This bill is weird. I had to look up its sponsor and, yes, he's a democrat, and a far left progressive at that. He's a vice chair for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a left of center political position. Congressional Progressive Caucus

It includes helmets?!! I guess when 'they' decide to drone someone, they want it to be clean and non-problematic.


(36) The term `enhanced body armor' means 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.''.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

You may well be right... I thought California had after the N. Hollywood shootout, but maybe it had just been a strong effort which failed.

3 co-sponsors on this isn't a very hopeful start for what he's trying to do anyway, so it's probably not destined to get far.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Since when did it become their business if I own and wear body armor? How do these loons stay in office??



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yep seems like no better time to get yours while you still can and anyone else who wants it better safe then sorry.You know the saying better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. i see increased sales of it now. I say we outlaw politicians .



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

It won't really matter anyway. This is simply another fear quivering from TPTB who are afraid of what's going to happen when SHTF. They think this type of repression will keep them safe.

Like when things finally do go down what do they think, that people are going to meet them face to face over an open field like the Colonials vs the British? Ha good luck with that. I suspect the next big battles will be a "reach out and touch somebody" from 500+ yards. No body armor required.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry about this bill passing. It won't even leave the House. This bill is election bait so that a politician can pander to his base by saying "See I voted for this bill, but my opponent didn't. He's a monster." Then all the saps vote his dumbass back into office.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Lo and behold Congressman Mike Honda (D) of California is District 17....which turns out to be...Silicon Valley. Hmmmm...

Congressman Mike Honda, D 17th District


Why is Silicon Valley worried about Body Armor? And why would you want to regulate something that stops you from being killed?



Just another supreme example of Reps doing what the people want, eh? Oh wait...nope.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Damn them for making my stock up list longer yet again!!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The slaves musn't be allowed to protect themselves.

What do you have in mind that will put you in a position to be a target? What are you planning?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I ask myself when is it going to be the time to simply stop obeying the laws that these progressive idiots pour out.

I think it is coming soon.

But that's just my humble, wee, insignificant opinion.






new topics
top topics
 
33
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join