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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Poplawski was also charged with possessing an instrument of crime: the bulletproof vest he wore during the gun battle with police. The criminal complaint does not say how Poplawski obtained the vest.
I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.
Poplawski was also charged with possessing an instrument of crime
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Agent Styx
I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.
Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.
The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.
I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.
I do however see plenty of reasons why criminal elements in society would want to acquire it, a prominent example being the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997, in which two heavily-armoured bank robbers fought a pitched battle with police officers whose weapons simply couldn't penetrate their kevlar.
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by jhill76
I don't know about other states, but they are illegal if you are committing a crime. In Texas, you can't wear one if you're a felon.
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Agent Styx
I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.
Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.
The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.
I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.
I do however see plenty of reasons why criminal elements in society would want to acquire it, a prominent example being the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997, in which two heavily-armoured bank robbers fought a pitched battle with police officers whose weapons simply couldn't penetrate their kevlar.
en.wikipedia.org...
Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.
The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.
I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.
Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.
I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to eat either. Should we outlaw that? How about walking down the road? It's not specifically enumerated. Maybe we should make walking down the street illegal too.
It's attitudes like this that have worked to place us all in danger of losing our freedoms to an oppressive and ever-expanding government. So take your attitude and... go away... not what I intended to say, but close enough...
Originally posted by Snisha
My point is that I have some friends who currently live in crime ridden areas and if they could afford it, they would feel a considerably higher degree of safety were they able to don body armor. But you I assume, would not consider this particular example a "reasonable need".... AM I INCORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTION?
Most policemen that I personally know nowadays carry(in their cruisers) weapons which will most assuredly penetrate body armor.
My point is that I have some friends who currently live in crime ridden areas and if they could afford it, they would feel a considerably higher degree of safety were they able to don body armor.