It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: beezzer
I ask myself when is it going to be the time to simply stop obeying the laws that these progressive idiots pour out.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: beezzer
I ask myself when is it going to be the time to simply stop obeying the laws that these progressive idiots pour out.
Not to encourage you to do anything illegal, but that seems like a lot of bold talk from somebody who isn't really going to do anything except huff and puff. What are you going to do? What's your big plan?
originally posted by: beezzer
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.
originally posted by: 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?
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?
originally posted by: butcherguy
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.
originally posted by: beezzer
I ask myself when is it going to be the time to simply stop obeying the laws that these progressive idiots pour out.
originally posted by: queenofswords
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.''.
originally posted by: adjensen
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.
originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: adjensen
Damn them for making my stock up list longer yet again!!
I can dig the rationale behind gun banning...but body armor ?
How do they rationalize it ?
What distinguished Holmes wasn’t his offense. It was his defense. At Columbine, Harris and Klebold did their damage in T-shirts and cargo pants. Cho and Loughner wore sweatshirts. Hasan was gunned down in his Army uniform.
Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence. (Source)
He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: adjensen
He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.
I am going to guess that the person writing this never was shot while wearing body armor.