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.

 

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

page: 2
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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?




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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?


Write angry letters and shake my fist angrily at the tv box.



Aside from an aversion to sharing anything of a personal nature to a nameless face on the intraweb box, that's about as much as you'll get from me.

(big hugs, always)

beez



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I don't even...

Was there a problem?

Were too many people's lives being saved by body armor?

Were too many people beating innocent bystanders with their bulletproof vests?

I don't understand...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift
Airsoft. Paintball. Fencing. I could think of tons of reasons. Just want to be extra sure I'm safe. It's none of your concern.

What can you do with body armor, anyway? Beat someone over the head with it?

Left logic, ban everything by default, unless proven to be needed. Bas aackwards.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

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.


I think that time may be soon-- when like a majority of
us come up with that question at the same time.

Or, maybe a lot less of us at once could be quite troublesome.
For example: the same twelve in the jury will be their time to worry.


EDIT:: PS... Rep. Robin Kelly? Illinois gun grabber nonpareil and Bloombergite?
I'm so surprised and infuriated I should call my Senator. Oh wait...
edit on 14-8-2014 by derfreebie because: Wikipedia couldn't save her bio, it's hopeless...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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?


OMG Wrabbit, no body armor is a bad enough prospect-- even
if I could afford some decent gear, but clothing in my state is
crucial to traffic flow and the children's mental well being.
And strictly to the thread-- they're just trying to float this in
the PRC because that's where the 9th Appellate lives. Truly the
arbiters of law in Fantasy-land. God help us if it argues there.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

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.


Like how forced medication is illegal except when somebody at the water treatment plant puts fluoride in the water, claiming it is for dental benefits (medication?)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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've been operating this way for years. Individual morality guides my actions. I care about what happens to the Earth and the creatures around me, adore selfless and patient people and try to incorporate their good qualities into my own personality. Honesty and manners are vitally important to me and determine my conduct. I want to be the man the Earth needs me to be, a defender of purity and the truth.

I also have no regard whatever for the laws written by corrupt, evil men who never intend to obey those laws themselves. Think nobody in the DEA blows coke? Think a senator who voted against legal brothels never bought sex? People can't be so naive!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

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.''.


Lots of Kevlar Motorcycle helmets ;-) Google Link

Cheers - Dave



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

But you can still buy body armour that police wear, which is rated to stop a 9mm full metal jacket or .357 magnum...

You weren't trying to suggest all body armour was to become illegal, were you now..?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

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.


I see what you are saying, but that is the whole point of "representatives" they are supposed to "represent" their state.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

As long 'wee' you are lurking in my garden, near the venerable patch Beezzer, I will be sure to read annd respect your opinion - something to do with the gnashes your cute little picture doesn't show and the common sense you write.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
If this passes, there will be more body armor sold than ever.
Look at the bill. It will outlaw armor that meets a certain spec.
Any manufacturer could produce body armor that doesn't meet the spec in just one tiny way....
Just like the 'assault' weapons bill that spiked sales in rifles that were legal.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: adjensen

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



Is it bad that this was my first thought as well..



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I can dig the rationale behind gun banning...but body armor ?

How do they rationalize it ?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


I can dig the rationale behind gun banning...but body armor ?

How do they rationalize it ?

If I'm making a guess, it's articles like this one:


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)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

my point exactly...returning to the bill proposal....shouldn't body armor be considered a strictly a "defensive" gear ? Since when this became an issue. I thought it's the offensive gear was the problem.

Silly me...



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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.




LOL. How true. Yet another "opinion" derived from watching movies and TV.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

"Slaves" sounds about right.

Not surprised, not one bit, about such an attempt.




top topics



 
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join