Guns

Only Police Should Have…Body Armor?

Why not ban strong locks on doors, while we're at it?

|

Armor
San Diego Shooter / Foter

Venturing down a line of legislative reasoning that apparently sees threats to the republic in convenience store clerks, security guards, globe-trotting journalists, and shopkeepers nervy enough to do business in troubled neighborhoods, Rep. Mike Honda (D-YouGottaBeKiddingMe) offers up HR 378, The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act. Yes, it is in fact a bill intended to limit people's ability to own gear that reduces injuries and death caused by bullets.

While the text of the bill isn't yet available, it looks like a rehash of legislation introduced last year that would ban "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."

In his press release, Rep. Honda insists:

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.

Uh huh. Police could also more effectively respond to all sorts of situations if they didn't have to fiddle with pesky locks or barred windows. And don't even get started on reinforced door frames and masonry walls.

Do you really need a brick house? Isn't it easier for law enforcement to blow a barrier down if honest people use straw?

Now, Type III armor isn't standard stuff, nor is it cheap. Designed to stop rifle rounds, it carries a pretty price tag and is cumbersome as hell. But police locks, alarm systems, and related security equipment are pricey and cumbersome, too. When I lived in New York City's East Village in the '90s, I could pretty much smoke a cigarette in the hall while waiting for some of my friends to unlock their apartment doors. But if you perceive some danger in your environment, you just might want some protection. Even if that protection incidentally makes it more difficult for police officers to kill you if they feel the need.

And whatever the motivation of the user, this stuff is defensive. The only way to hurt another person with body armor is to take it off and beat them with it.

Of course, Rep. Honda isn't satisfied with restricting body armor; he also want to ban gun components kits and require guns made on 3D printers, CNC machines and the like to have serial numbers. You didn't think he liked armed civilians better than he liked them armored did you?

The serial number bill has the singular characteristic of being completely unenforceable, targeting, as it does, DIY efforts increasingly intended to be beyond government's grasp.

None of these bills are likely to fare well in the new Republican-controlled House. Rep. Honda is posturing by introducing legislation intended to thrill his base by showing that he's "Continuing his promotion of the modern progressive agenda" (in his own words).

But what does it say about him and his perception of his supporters that he sees advantage in banning stuff meant to protect people from harm?

Just wait until he gets around to smoke alarms.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on Government's Role in Income Inequality

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When body armor is criminal, only criminals will have body armor.

    1. Nice.

      Also, having read some of your comments, Fd’A, I’ve only a little doubt that you intentionally implied that the police/law enforcement would be the only ones with body armor.

      Nuance.

    2. ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER THIS THREAD…. WHEREIN JOHN GOES FULL RETARD AND ARGUES AGAINST THE ENTIRE COMMENTARIAT THAT BECAUSE BODY ARMOR ONLY HELPS COPS AND CRIMINALS… ONLY COPS AND CRIMINALS SHOULD HAVE THEM. NO SHIT. THAT IS HIS FUCKING ARGUMENT. BAN ONE FORM OF SELF-DEFENSE BECAUSE IT MAKES THE OTHER FORM LESS EFFECTIVE.

      YE HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!!!!!

      1. Thanks for the warning. There were 405 comments when I arrived. I went a couple past yours, then quit to save the remains of my sanity.

  2. People like this guy love guns,as long as only the government has them.

    1. Nonsense; this turkey also despises the people who carry guns for the State. He considers them dumb, easily manipulated thugs. Oh, no doubt he can fake a smile for the camera when welcoming some soldier-constituent home, but he is contemptuous of soldiers, cops, and all the variations in between.

      That’s one reason why whenever idiots like him manage to gather all power to the State they are almost immediately overthrown by the thugs they despise, and liquidated. They underestimate how much power they are placing in the hands of the cops, and they disguise their contempt for cops badly. So, naturally enough, the cops despise them back.

      1. They underestimate how much power they are placing in the hands of the cops, and they disguise their contempt for cops badly. So, naturally enough, the cops despise them back.

        It’s one of those things these morons never pick up on no matter how much you walk them through it. The guys with guns, when all is said and done, are the government. Without them, the thing Mr. Honda is part of is called a debating society. But, these imbeciles really think their pronouncements and votes elevate to the level of divine mandate.

      2. How many evil overlords love their henchmen?

        1. But…but…Warty said we were all special!

          *runs off sobbing*

        2. Call me Hank!

    2. He wants to be able to order the police to round you up with little resistance at some point in the future.

      1. Isn’t that what he said?

        “Continuing his promotion of the modern progressive agenda”

        Yep, thats what he said.

        1. I enjoy the progressives. Actually, I hate them and hate that they have taken the titles of progressive and liberal as their own.

          The true name of a leftists is a radical. Everyone is a liberal in the States, as the opposite is a totalitarian gov’t. I guess radical sounds bad so they had to come up with new names.

          What I wanna know is who gets to decide what is progress and why do they get to promote their agenda but when other people promote their’s, they turn into rage-engulfed, driveling psychos?

          1. I get highly annoyed when they identify or are called ” liberal “. There is nothing liberal about them. Progressive actually works better. It draws a line back to their beginnings, when they were pushing eugenics and Prohibition.

      2. Mike Honda was raised in an interment camp. You would think he would be sensitive to exactly that.

    3. I’m sure he’d be cool with people like Warren Buffett owning them.

      ‘Cause they’re The Right Sort of People.

  3. I’m sure there will be exceptions for public officials and people with a lot of money and prestige.

    1. Don’t forget “friends of the sheriff”.

      That’s how urban California works? if you’re a rich, famous, or connected, you’re set. Easy to get a gun, easy to get a CCW permit…

  4. It is telling how the government really doesn’t care whether or not its constituents are safe. Their only care is that they can continue to impose their will upon us.

    I mean, if you were to have the right to wear body armor, the King’s Men wouldn’t be able to indiscriminately end your life whenever they choose to. And that would truly be a travesty.

    1. mean, if you were to have the right to wear body armor, the King’s Men wouldn’t be able to indiscriminately end your life whenever they choose to.

      And neither will that homeowner you rob. Think about what you are saying.

        1. Yes, and you so simple minded and have such a fucking Pavlovian response to the right buzz words, my point is going right over your fucking head.

          It is good that you have a good ideology and value freedom. It is not good, however that you let that ideology make you stupid and allow it to prevent you from thinking.

          Forget the issue of banning for a moment. It may not even be possible to do that. But just think for a moment what readily available, cheap and effective body armor would mean. It would mean your gun is likely not going to stop an intruder anymore. It makes it a paperweight that makes noise.

          Can you stop slobbering for a moment and understand what a bad thing that would be?

          1. It’s a bad thing to be able to justify to the wife plunking down money for a gun of a higher caliber? Because that kind of think makes my day.

            1. I am all for larger calibers. But if they have a ballistic plate, that won’t do any good.

              And she is a lousy shot who doesn’t like larger handguns. I would rather have her be able to kill the guy with a small caliber weapon she can handle.

              1. John,

                I think I understand your point, yet I have the impression that most would-be criminals will buy body armor to protect them from armed homeowners (or other individuals they intend to rob).

                1. “will buy” should have been “will not buy”

                2. Charles,

                  Let it get cheap enough and why wouldn’t they?

                  1. Let it get cheap enough and why wouldn’t they?

                    Uhh, the same reason that there are incredibly cheap firearms on the market, and yet some criminals don’t use them.

                    John, you’re making the EXACT…SAME argument Democrats made in the 80s/90s about banning inexpensive handguns.

                  2. In that event some criminals might buy body armor. But according to my own (very limited) experience and my (far less than numerous) police buddies, most would-be criminals are opportunists and they not only take the path of least resistance but also the path of cost-effectiveness. “How much can I get away with without inconveniencing myself?”

                    I think you and I will still disagree here, but if you wanted to buy body armor it is my opinion that, in a “free society” such as ours is touted to be, your intentions in this regard should not be curtailed by your government.

          2. John, have you ever been shot while wearing body armor? It’s not like it just plinks off of you and you keep coming like a bull. It incapacitates the wearer for a moment at the least.

            1. And that moment allows the homeowner to put another round on target.

              And another. And another. Until the assailant is no longer a threat.

          3. Your point ISN’T going over my head. You are saying you should make a self protection device illegal because it has the potential to make another self protection device less effective.

            Which is about the dumbest reason to ban something as I’ve ever heard.

            Stop innovation so our old shit continues to work…

            Make shields illegal so my sword will still work.

            1. I’m struggling with the argument that X can be used by criminals to the detriment of their victims, so it should be illegal for everyone.

              If that isn’t your argument, John, please help me out here.

              1. My argument RC is that it can only be used by criminals. Unless you are willing to wear it 24/7, it does you no good. Body armor only works for aggressors like criminals and cops who know when they are going to get into a confrontation.

                Body armor does home owners and non aggressors and the law abiding no good. It only serves to make their means of defense less effective. So the argument about “well only criminals will have it” doesn’t work.

                It is a simple concept. i don’t know why it goes over your head.

                1. My argument RC is that it can only be used by criminals. Unless you are willing to wear it 24/7, it does you no good. Body armor only works for aggressors like criminals and cops who know when they are going to get into a confrontation.

                  You know who else likes to decide what devices for self defense are effective or ineffective based on an inside-the-beltway attitude?

                2. Lies and bullshit.

                3. My argument RC is that it can only be used by criminals. Unless you are willing to wear it 24/7, it does you no good

                  Bullshit. There was an atricle here on Reason, fucking YESTERDAY, about a man surviving a round with the police because of his body armor. Got away with killing a cop, too. Are you going to tell me that man is a criminal because he used body armor to live through an otherwise fatal encounter?

                  You’re a fucking moron, John.

                4. John, this is the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted on here. Body armor is legal now, yet criminals hardly ever use it. And why would it being illegal stop someone who is already willing to break into someone else’s home from using it?

                5. Probably because it’s an incredibly stupid argument.

                  I have a set of body armor. I sometimes wear it when I’m practicing at a public range, in case some idiot ND’s into me. I also keep my armor handy at home – it’s fairly quick to put on in case the burglar alarm goes off.

                  “Only used by criminals,” indeed…

          4. John, I really do get your point. But, do you honestly think a guy who’s going to rob your house is going to be saying “Gee, I really would like to have body armor in case that homeowner I’m about to rob and maybe rape or kill is armed. But, that would be illegal. So, no body armor for me.”?

            1. That is a good point. Let them have it. Set up some kind of a permit for them. And again, make it so committing a crime while wearing it is a huge sentence enhancer.

              1. Make it “committing a crime of violence” and I might agree with you.

                1. 3 felonies a day.

              2. Ah yes. Permits. Good. Right. Sure.

                Permits, so only “our kind of people” can have these things, right John?

                Even if the people the people that coined the phrase “our kind of people” aren’t the people those people were thinking of?

                That’s statist talk, John. Normally I’m not normally on the “trash John” bandwagon like so many around here, but this is asinine.

              3. John…I don’t know what is happening to you here.

                Let’s take this argument:
                ‘If we allow free trade in firearms, criminals will be allowed to prey on the ordinary civilians’

                The rejoinder is always, “Criminals don’t obey bans in the first place. Putting restrictions on firearms only impacts lawful people and puts them at a disadvantage vs those who don’t respect the law”

                I don’t see how the argument is changed at all if you replace firearms with body armor. Your only distinguishing argument is that body armor is tough to wear all the time. But that could be said about a lot of firearms too. Shotguns aren’t convenient to carry around but they are a standard go-to in home defense. but beyond that there is the same simple fact that if body armor were cheap and available, banning it would do as much to stop criminals as a ban on firearms- nothing. All it would prevent is lawful citizens having body armor too.

          5. Stop John, just stop.

            Criminals are predators. Predators are cowards. They do not usually suit up in body armor because they prey on the helpless. They don’t usually walk into situations where they expect to meet gunfire. The Hollywood bank robbers are the exception, not the rule. It is doubtful many robbers will get body armor. The ones who would are going to armor up whether it is legal or not.

            This bill is idiocy squared. It is also a naked assertion of tyranny. He is saying you can’t put something between you and a gun that will stop a bullet. Is he going to make it illegal to seek cover if cops start shooting at you?

            Dear Mike Honda – Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw you loathsome, evil cocksucker.

            Sincerely –

            Suthenboy

            Related and cool as hell (I want some) :

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYIWfn2Jz2g

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plM6Pp1St6I

            1. Wanna bet he just watched an HD remake of “Rampage”?

            2. That will change when it gets more effective. The better body armor gets, the less effective our existing guns and ammo is. That is not a good thing.

              1. But people will make guns and ammo more effective at that point. Think about it. If body armor technology improves, we can expect it to get more convenient as well as less expensive. A ban means that only criminals enjoy this benefit. On the other hand, if a criminal knows heavy body armor is a chance at the house they invade ( because it is legal) he not only needs his own body armor but a weapon capable of penetrating the homeowners.

                This increases the cost to the criminal. Not only does he need to invade a house in massive armor restricting his movement but he also needs to bring a high powered rifle.

                In short, all the inconvenience of confronting a criminal with body armor must be likewise contemplated by the criminal if he knows homeowners could have it.

            3. It’s already illegal to seek cover if the cops start shooting at you.

              See: Resisting Arrest/Evasion.

          6. John, if I shoot you in close proximity while you are wearing body armor you are stilling going to go down with some severe bruising and probably some broken bones.

            This is a discussion about Level III vests. You require Level IV plates to even have a prayer of stopping a 7.62 X whatever. A level III with no plates will probably only stop a handgun and a shotgun from a distance. Any decent rifle would shred right through it.

            1. This is not correct.

              Level III and IV are both hard armor, typically ceramic plate with an aramid (e.g., Kevlar) soft vest supporting.

              Level III can, by definition, stop 5.56×45, 7.62×39, and 7.62×51.

              Level IV must stop 5 rounds of .30-06 AP fired from 6 feet.

              There are “in-between” vests like the military “SAPI” that can stop 5.56 and 7.62×39. These do not fit into the NIJ levels neatly.

              Vest performance considers both penetrating and blunt trauma. Most level III plates without a supporting vest will stop the bullet but fail the blunt trauma part.

              Level IIIA is soft armor that can stop high-velocity and high-energy handgun rounds (.44 magnum, 9 mm fired from a long barrel) and 00 buckshot. It will not stop, for the most part, rifle rounds.

              1. I was mainly referring to the plate carriers (vests) without plates inserted.

                I have worn the E-SAPI’s so I have a little bit of experience with armor.

                I was unaware of any rigid armors out there as to my knowledge you had carriers and then plates to go in those carriers.

                Also, I’m not protesting the specs that you listed but in the real world there is no plate that is gonna stop five 30-06 rounds from six feet away. Plates are ceramic and they can and do shatter after just one hit.

                I was trying to make a point to John that wearing armor doesn’t make you Superman to where you can get shot and just keep trucking along like nothing happened.

          7. What point that only armed government employees should have protection because bad guys might get body armor? So the rest of us shouldn’t have protection from armed criminals? Also if you shoot someone with level 2 body armor they are going down and you wouldn’t kill them to stopping them. If they use level 3 or more it would be cumbersome and costs big bucks, head or groin shot would do the trick…

    2. They’d also be able to “indiscriminately end your life whenever they choose to” if you have body armor if this bill passes.

      1. They’ll just end your life whenever they want to, anyway. They’re cops. That’s their right.

        1. Contempt of cop will still be a capital offense, subject to instant punishment.

          But with body armor being illegal, they’ll have another law to go Eric Garner on you.

  5. Now, Type III armor isn’t standard stuff, nor is it cheap.

    With advances in materials science and nanotech, it (or clothing that provides the same level of protection, regardless of whether it is officially certified) will be cheaper, lighter, and more practical before too much longer.

    1. That won’t be a good thing RC. It will render your handgun worthless.

      1. Practice headshots.

      2. Bullshit. It may render your handgun “less than lethal” for center mass shots, but broken ribs discourage most attackers. And you ignore head shots and everything else that isn’t underneath armour.

        1. He also is ignoring the fact that it’s not a problem today….when the body armor is legal. He just wants the state to have more power than the individual.

          1. “He just wants the state to have more power than the individual.”

            I’m not nearly as sure as you seem to be, but we’ll see.

            1. I’m not saying he wants it out of malice, but it’s obvious that he wants the state actors to have protections “civilians” cannot legally have.

        2. Head shots are still possible. As far as the rest, give it time and that may not be true.

          Again, you have to know to wear the armor. It only is good for aggressors like cops and criminals. The ability to own body armor literally does law abiding people no good. None.

          Ban cops from wearing it too if you like. At the very least committing a crime while wearing it ought to be a mandatory life sentence. We need to do everything we can to deter criminals from wearing it.

          1. John goes Full Tulpa.

          2. Jesus John. Are you drinking?

            In states where it is legal now, is it a problem?

            Why will not making it illegal suddenly make it a problem?

            Go splash some water on your face. Straighten up dude.

            1. Because someone in a fancy suit is needed to make something (owning body armor) that is not a problem and actually helps folks, officially a problem. This problem of course needs to be dealt with because only the slavers should have armor, and individuals should be kept weak and defenseless. Weak and defenseless folks are easier to control.

          3. This man wore body armor legally and survived an altercation with criminals!

            Is this an illegitimate use of body armor?

            No?

            What’s that? You’re just stupid? Oh, good. I was worried.

      3. That won’t be a good thing RC. It will render your handgun worthless.

        It will? Then explain why it isn’t rendering them worthless today, because body armor is currently legal.

        1. Asking John to explain his reasoning. How quaint.

  6. None of these bills are likely to fare well in the new Republican-controlled House

    I wouldn’t bet on copsucking Republicans to block this thing.

  7. Didn’t someone manufacture a bullet proof backpack for kids not too long ago? It would be great if he specifically banned those in his bill.

    1. it is in fact a bill intended to limit people’s ability to own gear that reduces injuries and death caused by bullets.

      Why do you want inner-city children to be killed by stray bullets, Congressman? WHY?!

  8. Body armor is not the same as guns. Guns allow me to defend myself. Body armor does that to some degree but it does that by taking away someone else’ ability to defend themselves. Lets say really high end body armor becomes cheap an widely available. That means an ordinary hand gun will no longer be a reliable means of self defense.

    If you can wear body armor, home invasions become much less of a contact sport. Body armor does me as a home owner no good, since I can’t wear it all of the time and won’t have time to put it on if someone comes in my home meaning to do me harm. But it does some scum bag looking to rob me a lot of good.

    I frankly don’t want body armor legal. I get the principle of why it should be. But understand the more people who have body armor, the less effective guns are as a means of self defense. That is one hell of a price to pay for having body armor be legal.

    1. So … regulate armor like firearms?

      1. I don’t know. Maybe. It would be easier to regulate that than fire arms.

        It is a tough issue. You see my point. What if advances in body armor render handguns useless or much less effective? That is not a world I want to live in.

        1. This really isn’t a tough issue.

          “Banning” it won’t make it go away.

          You will have to make a giant beaurocracy to keep track of it, and that still won’t work. So now you have a giant mess of ineffectual beaurocracy to try to follow it, and there will be other legislators that will try to increase the scope of this again and again.

          It is already illegal for felons to own. It is already illegal for people to use it while committing a crime.

          That’s the utilitarian reasoning.

          The correct reasoning is “keep your fucking government hands to yourself.”

    2. John, what about those of us who work in gun free zones, who hypothetically speaking might be worth far more dead than alive to a psycho ex?

      Should we be deprived of the one means of defense open to us? People will fabricate body armor if needs be. The criminal who decides body armor is a necessity while planning a crime will be able to get/fabricate one, even if they are outlawed.

      Outlawing it merely leaves the hypothetical person in my first paragraph defenseless.

      1. John, what about those of us who work in gun free zones, who hypothetically speaking might be worth far more dead than alive to a psycho ex?

        Get rid of the gun free zones and buy a gun.

        Should we be deprived of the one means of defense open to us?

        No. We should let you have a gun.

        If body armor becomes cheap, effective and widely used, hand guns will no longer be useful in home defense. That would mean the US would be just like the UK and other countries where it is illegal to own a gun.

        We own guns because we need to defend ourselves. Body armor means guns won’t be able to do that anymore. That is a real problem.

    3. “I frankly don’t want body armor legal.”

      Its already legal

      You want it banned?

      1. Only cops deserve that kind of protection!

        1. The guy who breaks into my house sure as hell doesn’t. Unless you are willing to wear this shit around all of the time, what use is it to you? It is only useful if I plan to do someone harm and worry they might fight back with a gun.

          1. Or maybe I just want to wear it in out in public in the off chance i might get shot, especially if i live in a shitty neighborhood? No need for all these assumptions about what other people need it for

            1. Or maybe I just want to wear it in out in public in the off chance i might get shot,

              Maybe so. Good luck with that. It is legal now and no one does that. You can’t. The stuff is uncomfortable and not practical to wear all of the time.

      2. If it gets really good and cheap maybe.

        We are not quite there yet. Most criminals don’t have it and if you have a powerful weapon, it won’t help them unless they have a very heavy ballistic plate. But what about in ten years when there is some super light, cheap material that will stop a .44 round? What then?

        Shut off the Pavlovian response to this, wipe the slobber off your mouth and think about that for a second. It would have the same effect as universal gun control. Guns no longer being useful in self defense is the same as banning them.

        And the armor wouldn’t help you unless you were willing to wear it around all of the time.

        1. I guess I’d just start carrying a concealed flamethrower.

          1. You kid, but that is what it would mean. We are so much safer in this society because criminals know and fear their victims using guns to defend themselves. Let every criminal have really good body armor and that fear will no longer be there. Guns won’t be an equalizer anymore.

            And the people on this board are so fucking stupid, they don’t get that.

            1. I respect your opinion John yet I think you might be limiting your viewpoint approximately as much as the posters whom you have criticized. What of the shopkeepers mentioned in the article?

            2. Again, John, why do you think that criminals would respect a ban in any case. If its good and cheap the only people a ban is going to stop are those who obey the law.

        2. “Shut off the Pavlovian response to this, wipe the slobber off your mouth “

          Are you talking to me?

          What the fuck are you talking about. i asked a straight question.

          1. He’s on a roll.

        3. But what about in ten years when there is some super light, cheap material that will stop a .44 round? What then?

          People will have the ability to wear clothes that will stop a .44 round?

          Some of those people will be criminals. So? Why should my freedom be curtailed because a criminal might find some benefit? That is a steep and slippery slope.

          1. Because in a world where everyone has body armor, we will no longer be able to use guns to defend ourselves. It will be the same world that we would live in if they banned guns.

            RC, you do understand why gun control is bad? It is not just some principle. A disarmed society is a vulnerable and unsafe one. We really don’t want body armor to create the same effect.

            Why don’t you understand that?

            1. At that point you’ll be able to then buy real armor piercing bullets, because that’s how innovation works. If there is a need, someone will fill that need.

              I welcome my rail pistol firing DU slugs, and laugh at your puny body armor. Your crushed internal organs will be seeping out of your ass-hole, in a jellied state.

        4. John is so persuasive. A natural born leader, you might say. C’mob guys, wipe the slobber off your mouths!

          1. I’m starting to think he might be related to Joe Biden. Or at least have a similar head injury.

    4. We should ban the internet too. It used to be a mugger had to physically force you to give them your wallet, but now we’re all endanger of having our money stolen by people we can’t even shoot!

      1. Or maybe guns no longer being reliable means of self defense would be a bad thing. Maybe that.

        You are a bit left Stormy. I would have thought you would have been capable of understanding this.

        1. If there’s one ability mankind has never seemed in short supply of, it’s the ability to come up with more effective weapons. If body armor becomes cheap and common, we’ll come up with some way of counteracting it.

          In the mean time, people aren’t obligated to forgo armor because you think you want to magic some sort of positive right to “weapon effectivity” out of your ass.

          1. LIn the mean time, people aren’t obligated to forgo armor because you think you want to magic some sort of positive right to “weapon effectivity” out of your ass.

            Another word for weapon effectivity is my right to self defense.

            Ask yourself, what exactly is the cost of forgoing body armor? You can’t wear it around 24 7. What reason would you ever wear other than to do other people harm without being worried of being shot?

            You are telling me we have to all live in a world where we are no longer able to defend ourselves from home intruders so you can exercise your right to own body armor. ReallY?

            1. Saying your right self defense means I’m not allowed to wear armor is like saying your right to free speech means I must sit quietly and listen to anything you want to say to me.

              1. Why do you ahve a right to it? It is not an arm? There is no constitutional protection of it. If your owning it deprives me of the ability to defend myself if you attack me, why should you?

                How about this idea, you can own body armor, but if you initiate a physical confrontation with anyone while wearing it, that is a massive sentence enhancer such that you go away for decades for doing it?

                You are right that band are never 100% effective. But this is still a problem and we don’t want criminals wearing body armor and need to deter them from doing so.

                1. Why do you ahve a right to it?

                  Because you have the right to self defense.

                2. No, it is not an arm.

            2. I guess there is no 2nd ammendment for body armor. But you make a decent point. It’s the person who knows they will encounter violence that will be wearing the armor. Only the aggressor (cop/criminal) will get any protection.

              1. That is exactly my point Waffles. Thank you for thinking about this issue instead of just screaming buzz words.

              2. It’s the person who knows they will encounter violence that will be wearing the armor.

                I can easily imagine a jacket, like a windbreaker, made out of next-gen materials that will stop a bullet.

                Banning body armor would ban all such clothes. Including clothes that people might wear pretty routinely. Not just when they were expecting violence.

                And, of course, there’s the usual: if body armor is banned, why on earth would we expect criminals not to use it anyway?

                1. I can easily imagine a jacket, like a windbreaker, made out of next-gen materials that will stop a bullet.

                  Okay. But then we are left with a world where no one’s guns work. That is no better RC. I want to be able to kill the guy who attacks me. Both of us wearing armor doesn’t help.

                  We want guns to work and to deter people. making them universally worthless doesn’t help.

                2. I can easily imagine a jacket, like a windbreaker, made out of next-gen materials that will stop a bullet.

                  The laws that you can’t break are Newton’s.

              3. “It’s the person who knows they will encounter violence that will be wearing the armor.”

                Huh? Maybe I’m going to or live in area with high probability of violence. Maybe I’m going to tell the gang that hangs out in the apartment complex harassing people to step off and I know they might be armed. Why deny me armor?

                1. I don’t think we should ban body armor at all. You can where it all you want. However, using it in an attack should be deterred by some mechanism.

                  1. The fact that it currently weighs a great many pounds and is expensive and only effective a certain number of times is a pretty good deterrence.

                    A lot of cops don’t like to wear it.

        2. As for being a bit left, I’m not the one going “Hey, that gun grabber has a good point!”

    5. Re: John,

      Body armor is not the same as guns.

      Now that we got this irrelevant distinction out of the way, let’s move on to the gist of John’s argument.

      That means an ordinary hand gun will no longer be a reliable means of self defense.

      You can always buy a bigger gun.

      But it does some scum bag looking to rob me a lot of good.

      Only if he’s in great shape. Body armor is bulky. And, you can always get a bigger gun.

      I frankly don’t want body armor legal.

      It’s a good thing it is not up to you.

      1. You can always buy a bigger gun.

        Not if the armor is good enough. And my having a bigger gun, makes it harder to use. My 8mm will burn right through body armor. Indeed, I would love to see the look on the guys face who broke into my house thinking body armor was going to save him.

        But not everyone has an 8mm or is able to shoot one. For those people buyoing a bigger gun is not a solution.

        Only if he’s in great shape. Body armor is bulky. And, you can always get a bigger gun.

        Not really. I wore it for months in Iraq. It is no problem at all to wear for the 20 minutes it would take to break into someone’s house.

        What reason would you what body armor if not to use it to rob and brutalize others?

        It is not up to you either. And thank God since you apparently are incapable of thinking through what this means.

        YOu guys are as brain dead as the SOCONS or progs sometimes. Even a good ideology can make people stupid.

        1. Re: John,

          Not if the armor is good enough.

          I don’t understand how better body armor would preclude me from buying a bigger gun.

          And my having a bigger gun, makes it harder to use.

          Maybe, but even if you don’t penetrate body armor, you can break someone’s sternum with a shot from a bigger gun. That would have to hurt – a lot.

          What reason would you what body armor if not to use it to rob and brutalize others?

          Are you seriously going to question people’s motives now? Because two can play at that game: Why would anybody need anything more powerful than a musket and shot to hunt rabbits? Why would anybody want to have an AR-15 unless they wanted to – your words – “rob and brutalize others”?

          1. I don’t care your motives. It is only useful if you plan to commit a crime. Keeping you from having it doesn’t do anything but make my threat of shooting you more effective.

          2. What reason would you want body armor a gun if not to use it to rob and brutalize kill others?

            John, its remarkable how almost every argument for banning body armor is also an argument for banning guns.

            1. No it doesn’t RC. Armor doesn’t help you the way a gun does.

              1. Face it, you lost this one.

        2. Jesus tittyfucking Christ, John, have you checked your underpants lately? You’re going into full hoplophobic pants shitting hysteria over this, and it’s quite frankly pathetic.

          Banning body armor makes every bit of sense as banning firearms. In other words, none. Actually, scratch that, it makes LESS sense.

          Despite the fact that body armor is legal and available, there has yet to be a significant number of criminals using it, just like there is not a significant number of criminals using .50 BMG rifles. It’s too expensive, too bulky, and generally not worth the trouble.

          Reality is against you on this. Pull your head out of your ass.

          1. It is only a matter of time before its cheap and effective enough for them to use it.

            And body armor is not a .50 BMG. Cops wear it every day. You can’t wear it all of the time. But you can wear it and it is useful.

            And it is totlaly different than fire arms. For the 8th fucking time on this thread, since you can’t wear the shit all of the time, armor is only useful to cops and criminals. that is it. All it does it inhibit law abiding people’s ability to defend themselves.

            Get your head out of your ass. Seriously, don’t let your ideology make you stupid. Its pathetic that you can’t understand this. Just fucking pathetic.

            1. “You can’t wear it all of the time.”

              Again, as if the technology surrounding defensive clothing is stuck in a technological morass, and will never advance to the point where it could be worn continuously.

              Any argument that rests on the assumption that technology will or can be stopped is presumptively incorrect.

              1. Tech will continue. That doesn’t however mean that you can’t make it less available.

                And even if you could wear it all of the time, that just means no one’s guns work anymore. That is no better of an outcome. My body armor does no good when he just beats the shit out of me. I want my gun to work to stop him.

            2. The fact that you don’t see what you just typed as being full of contradictions is pretty much proof that you’re completely irrational on this subject, John.

              I mean, saying it’s not useful because you can’t wear it all the time, then saying it IS useful and cops wear it every day, and then coming back to saying it’s not useful because you can’t wear it all the time…I mean, Jesus.

              You are LESS irrational on this subject than a gun banner. I didn’t think that was possible, but you’ve managed it.

              And to say that it is only useful to cops and criminals is not only dead fucking wrong, it’s fucking insane. I know a fair number of individuals who own it for defensive purposes. They might keep a vest next to their bed along with their defensive firearm to slap on when someone breaks into their home, or they might have a threat against their life and wear it similarly to cops. You really don’t know what you’re talking about, and you should stop before you embarrass yourself further.

              1. I mean, saying it’s not useful because you can’t wear it all the time, then saying it IS useful and cops wear it every day, and then coming back to saying it’s not useful because you can’t wear it all the time…I mean, Jesus.

                They wear it on duty. Not all of the time. Jesud fucking pay some attention. And for the 8th time, so fucking what? If everyone wears amour, guns are no good anymore. Don’t you get that? We go back to a world where it is rule by brute force. We won’t our guns to work because they make society safer. That is why gun control is wrong. If body armor renders guns useless, we are effectively disarmed. That is a very bad thing.

                Why can’t you understand that?

                1. There has never been a time in human history where armor has prevented weapons from being useless. Are you historically illiterate?

                  In the race between weapons and armor, weapons always win. So to say that body armor will render guns useless is a-historical and nothing but hysteria.

                  1. * where armor has caused weapons to become useless

                  2. There has never been a time in human history where armor has prevented weapons from being useless. Are you historically illiterate?

                    Bullshit there hasn’t been. Armor gets ahead. And you have to find a new weapn yes. But who is to say the new weapon is going to be as cheap and easily available as guns?

                    I know lots about history. I just think about it and understand it. It is not as simple as you think.

                    1. Bullshit there hasn’t been.

                      Name it. When.

                    2. The middle ages. Armor went well ahead of swords and we had to invent guns. YEs, we could replace guns. But good luck making the new weapon as plentiful and cheap as guns.

                      Do you really think the government is going to let people have the new “goes through body armor” weapon? Those are cop killers. I would rather have my gun work thank you.

                    3. You really don’t understand history as well as you think you do, then.

                      First off, the fully armored knight of the middle ages is mostly myth. Full plate didn’t really come into being until the very end of the Medieval period and occurred mostly in the early Renaissance. Second, guns were not invented to deal with it; it came into being after guns were already introduced, and there were ways to deal with it that didn’t involve guns. Mostly, you got a long spear, knocked the plate wearer off his horse, then either used a glorified club — such as a mace or a pollaxe with a hammer head or spike on it — to batter through the armor or you used a narrow blade to stab through the weak points the armor didn’t cover.

                      Finally, full plate, just like the type of armor your shitting yourself over, was expensive, cumbersome, and not something typically worn by even the average soldier, let alone the public at large.

                      There isn’t any technology in the pipeline that will create body armor that will protect people as well as the plate-armored knight as protected, and there were still plenty of ways to fuck up a knight’s day that didn’t require inventing new technology.

                    4. *There isn’t any technology in the pipeline that will create body armor that will protect people as well as the plate-armored knight was protected…

                    5. There isn’t any technology in the pipeline that will create body armor that will protect people as well as the plate-armored knight as protected, and there were still plenty of ways to fuck up a knight’s day that didn’t require inventing new technology.

                      What makes you think the government is going to let you ahve the new technology? They will ban that in the name of protecting cops. You will defenseless against both cops and criminals.

                    6. They’ll ban the new stuff, too, using the legislation that you want as a precedent.

                    7. Historically ignorant bullshit. Standadrd Middle Age period European armour was never able to fully prevent penetration by high-poundage bows and crossbows (to the point where French nobles moved to have them banned). English victories at Agincourt and Crecy would have never happened if the opposite were true. Gunpowder was primarily developed into a weapons platform for destroying city and castle walls. Knights and heavily armoured individual fighters lost their utility against organized pikemen formations that included crossbowmen, who were later replaced by primitive gunpowder weapons.

                      No one magically invented guns to counter armour John, they developed it primarily as a siege weapon and later to replace other projectiles.

                    8. Historically ignorant bullshit. Standadrd Middle Age period European armour was never able to fully prevent penetration by high-poundage bows and crossbows (to the point where French nobles moved to have them banned).

                      They had a lousy rate of fire and were never decisive. And the long bow didn’t kill you by penetration. It killed you by repeated blunt force trauma. The arrow going through armor is a muth.

                      No one magically invented guns to counter armour John, they developed it primarily as a siege weapon and later to replace other projectiles.

                      No, they invented cannons for that. They invented handguns because they were easy to use and would penetrate armor.

                      I know about these things that you think.

                    9. I know about these things that you think.

                      They had a lousy rate of fire and were never decisive.

                      Lousy rate of fire? English yeoman outshot all handheld firearms per minute until the late 19th century! Clearly you know what you’re talking about.

                    10. I can name one time, but I don’t want to be construed as defending John’s point.

                      WWI- Guns greatly outpaced mobility, survivability, and communications at the start of that war. That’s why there were single days with casualties in six figure range.

                      Tanks were then introduced and were completely proof to the current firepower. However, they weren’t dependable and their mobility was sorely lacking. They were still effective enough, that the Germans would steal and recover tanks that broke down on the battlefield and use them back against the Allies.

                      Great leaps forward in communications and mobility were also generated by this need, so the balance didn’t stay out of whack for very long.

                2. They wear it on duty. Not all of the time. Jesud fucking pay some attention.

                  And? You argue it’s useless for everyone else who isn’t a cop or a criminal because they can’t wear it 24/7, but seem to think it’s useful for cops who also don’t wear it 24/7. That is the contradiction.

                  Non-cops/criminals don’t need to wear it 24/7 for it to be useful either. They will only be wearing it while out and about, similar to a cop, or only slap it on when they perceive a threat, such as someone breaking into their home at 0’dark thirty, or when they’ve received a specific threat. Body armor doesn’t need to be worn 24/7 to be useful to non-cops and non-criminals. That is th

              2. WW,

                I cannot understand John’s vehemence regarding this topic. It seems to me that you also consider John a generally rational individual.
                I think I understand his larger points yet he seems to overlook several other points. What if there is a victim of domestic abuse whose previous partner, who is a gun owner, has threatened harm? There is also the article’s example of shopkeepers operating their businesses in violence-prone areas.

                At this point I think it might be best for us to agree to disagree.

                1. Charles,

                  What if? For some people being immune from gun fire woudl be great. On the whole, everyone being so, would be a very bad thing.

                  1. So because someone mighty do something bad, everyone else gets to suffer.

                    Sounds like a line from a drug warrior.

                2. I cannot understand John’s vehemence regarding this topic. It seems to me that you also consider John a generally rational individual.

                  John does this every couple of weeks. He says something he hasn’t thought through and won’t come off it with any amount of rational discussion. Digs himself a hole and keeps digging till he implodes.

                  It usually arises out of topics where libertarian principles come in conflict with a Republican party platforms, but not always.

                  The regulars (myself included) find it amusing to watch.

                  1. It usually arises out of topics where libertarian principles come in conflict with a Republican party platforms, but not always.L\

                    Go fuck yourself. You are the least interesting person on here. I at least take a stand and make an argument once in a while. You never do anything but mouth the party line. Stop projecting on me.

                    You have never had an iconoclastic thought in your life.

                    1. Yep. Adhering to principles makes me right. And right is boring.

                      And, at this moment, you are the most interesting person in the room. Congratulations. Again.

                    2. Yep. Adhering to principles makes me right. And right is boring.

                      No. It just makes you unthinking. It is especially galling to hear someone like you accuse me of being a mindless Republican. I go against the party line all of the time. The last thread everyone lined up against me was me defending Bill Maher of all people.

                      I don’t expect you to agree with me. But don’t accuse me of just mouthing some party line when I clearly don’t just because you don’t like some position I take. It is not true and you know it.

                      And “being principled” doesn’t excuse you from thinking. Every rule has an exception and every principle has a set of circumstances extreme enough to make you rethink it or at the very least doesn’t apply everywhere its adherents claim it does.

                    3. And “being principled” doesn’t excuse you from thinking.

                      Because your position on this topic is “the thinking man’s” position.

                      Let me further congratulate you on such a well argued debate. Your logic has clearly convinced the masses.

                    4. BEcause your position on this topic is “the thinking man’s” position.

                      It is one of them. Reasonable people can disagree. But what it isn’t, is just knee jerk taking a position because it fits my prejudices. I hate banning anything. I hate government control. And I don’t even support a ban here.

                      But I also understand that this is not a good thing and is a problem. This is not my usual position on things. But this case is in my opinion different. If you don’t think so, good for you. Maybe you are right. But don’t accuse me of taking this position out of some mindless party loyalty.

                    5. That is definitely not true.

                      ?I? am the least interesting person here!

                  2. “Because I have a right to guns, just as I have a right to wear whatever the fuck I want to wear, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.”

                    That sums it up very nicely. I think of you as a rational person John, but here you are just wildly wrong.

    6. Your point is clear, and not out of the realm of possibility; I get it. But there’s also “if body armor is banned, only criminals will have body armor.”

      Someone intent on intruding on your property and causing you harm or loss could get their hands on whatever they needed, guns or body armor inclusive, regardless of what law is on the books.

      France doesn’t let civilians buy Kalashnikovs; the ordinary punk-ass Muslim immigrant kid would not be able to procure one legally. And yet somehow, Kalashnikovs turn up in Paris as the murder weapons of a couple dozen people. Gosh, how’d something that’s banned get into the hands of people intending mortal harm?

      1. But there’s also “if body armor is banned, only criminals will have body armor.”

        Since it does me absolutely no good, that fact doesn’t bother me. The reason why “only criminals have guns” is a problem is because a gun is useful. Body armor isn’t, unless the criminal gives you notice or you want to wear it 24/7. So I don’t give a fuck if only criminals have it. It wont’ help me defend myself.

        Someone intent on intruding on your property and causing you harm or loss could get their hands on whatever they needed, guns or body armor inclusive, regardless of what law is on the books

        If they are intent enough sure. But law do deter. They are not totally effective but they work on the margins. Making it illegal does not affect me or my ability to defend myself one bit. It does however, make it less likely, though not certain, that the criminal breaking in my house will be wearing the shit.

        1. I’m afraid I’ll never be about legislation for the sake of “fairness.” It’s asking for legislation to protect the equality of outcomes: to suppress from the market the ingenuity and innovation of defensive technology so that you can win more gunfights. The real solution is to either (1) become a better shot, so you aim for gaps in the armor, (2) or to increase market demand for guns and/or ammunition that can defeat commonly-available body armor.

          1. I am not interested in fairness either. I am interested in killing the guy who breaks into my house. And the less likely he is wearing body armor, the more likely I am to do that.

        2. But the same can be said of cryptography. Who’s going to communicate secretly except someone who anticipates messages being intercepted? And it can be used offensively, by people plotting against you.

          Same with wearing masks.

          It could be said of ballistic missile defense too.

          1. No. There are lots of values to privacy that don’t involve me harming you.

          2. Given the state of the U.S.’ ballistic missile defense research/tests, I suspect we would be better off if we banned that too.

            1. ^^THis.

              BMD, until directed energy can be perfected, is a waste of resources.

              When DEW comes to fruition, nothing will be able to fly in warfare, either.

              Also, body armor won’t mean shit when I have my disintegrator ray!

              1. +1 Illudium Q-36

    7. Body armor is not the same as guns. Guns allow me to defend myself. Body armor does that to some degree but it does that by taking away someone else’ ability to defend themselves.

      By say, diminishing a criminal’s ability to shoot you while you transport cash late at night from your small business?

    8. “If you can wear body armor, home invasions become much less of a contact sport.”

      Does it? Much?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arZV8yT8nBQ

      1. What a fucking idiot. Why would you do that?

  9. People have a right to self defense, and whether they do so by increasing their offensive firepower/weaponry or their defensive locks/alarms/armor capabilities is immaterial to me.

    1. Exactly. The government has no constitutional power to ban body armor. It is in the reserved rights belonging to the people, as promised in the 9th Amendment.

  10. Mike Honda is also the bundle-of-awesome that thinks ‘Home-made guns‘ are a big fucking deal*

    Naturally = He is Beloved by Daily Kos writers. A REAL DEMOCRAT

    1. I don’t fucking get it. Mike Honda, personally, was rounded up at gunpoint by government agents from his home and sent to live in a internment camp in the desert.

      What kind of fucked up brainwashing did they do in those camps?

      1. “Mike Honda, personally, was rounded up at gunpoint by government agents from his home and sent to live in a internment camp in the desert.”

        I guess he learned that day that being on the Team With Guns means you get to push other people around. And that he wanted to join that team.

      2. Huh. Didn’t know that. Interesting.

        So, in addition to being an evil fuck, he is breathtakingly stupid as well.

        Mike, please take my earlier suggestion seriously. Go do it now.

  11. I like girls.

    1. Well, you have *that* in your defense.

    2. …To do da laundry, to clean up my room!

  12. Rep. Mike Honda (D-YouGottaBeKiddingMe) offers up HR 378, The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act.

    The responsible thing to do as a citizen is to die quickly when hit by a hail of bullets shot from guns owned by Our Overlord’s minions.

    If you utilize any means that can be placed in your person that precludes Our Overlord’s minions to quickly dispatch you to Kingdom Come, then you’re committing a grave transgression against Peace and the American Way.

    1. OM,

      I really don’t plan to get into a shootout with the cops. And if I do, body armor isn’t going to save me.

      I may however some day be unlucky enough to get into a shoot out with a criminal. And since I don’t want to spend my life wearing body armor and have no idea when or if that might occur, I likely won’t be wearing body armor. I really don’t want him wearing it either.

      1. I find that the ready availability of football helmets complicates my ability to defend myself by whacking people on the head with a baseball bat. In the name of self defense, we clearly need to ban football and force everyone to watch soccer instead.

        1. Buy a gun, you half wit.

          If you can’t refute my point, admit it. Don’t just say something stupid like that.

          1. It doesn’t matter if I can buy a gun, I want to whack people with a bat. So everyone clearly needs to maintain themselves in a state of susceptability to bat whackings so I don’t have to live in fear that someone in a football helmet might break into my home.

            1. This is why I always wear body armor ?and? a football helmet.

          2. “Half wit.”

            I know you are but what am I?

            This is a level of argumentation not worth responding to.

          3. What are you on John? Tell me so that I will never ever take any. I mean, I don’t use drugs anyway, but ya never know. Just to be on the safe side, tell me what put half your brain to sleep.

            1. Maybe he’s blacked out at the keyboard. That happened to me a couple of weeks ago. Boy, was my GF pissed off.

      2. Re: John,

        I really don’t plan to get into a shootout with the cops. And if I do, body armor isn’t going to save me.

        Whatever you plan to do is irrelevant. What you think body armor will do for you is irrelevant. Only the freedom to purchase body armor is relevant, and you cannot argue against liberty using your own biases or fears.

        1. Yes OM. I get it. You are having a Pavlovian response here. You se ban and you stop thinking and make blanket statements like this one.

          Your ideology has made you stupid on this. Being a fanatic is never a good thing. It always ends badly.

          You can’t defend this other than to scream FREEDOM and to shut off thoughts that might not fit the narrative.

          1. Enough with the insults. You’re articulate enough John that you don’t need to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being stupid.

            1. He can’t seem to help himself with that – it is why I do not speak to him anymore. I deal with enough aggressively rude people in person.

          2. Re: John,

            Yes OM. I get it. You are having a Pavlovian response here. You se ban and you stop thinking and make blanket statements like this one.

            You don’t seem to understand. People who call for bans are the ones not thinking straight. Your penchant for irrelevant arguments demonstrate this.

          3. The crux of your argument, John, seems to be that nobody will wear body armor on a continuous basis, but that argument doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny.

            Materials science advances each and every day, bringing us lighter and stronger materials, so this assumption that body armor (or whatever replaces it in terms of defensive functionality) will always be too unwieldy to wear continuously is one you should likely reexamine.

            1. Okay,

              So we can all wear body armor. Great. Our guns still do us no good in self defense and we are right back to living in a world without guns as reliable self defense.

              My wearing body armor is great, until you beat the shit out of me. I want my gun to work. I don’t care about the body armor. It doesn’t help.

              1. “My wearing body armor is great, until you beat the shit out of me.”

                Again, ignoring the possibility that the body armor that evolves to stop bullets will never advance to the point to where it can stop fists.

                Reexamine this root assumption, John.

                1. Again, ignoring the possibility that the body armor that evolves to stop bullets will never advance to the point to where it can stop fists.

                  And so what? If our guns no longer work, we are effectively disarmed. You would never let the gun grabbers disarm you. But you fucking think it is great when cheap available body armor does the same thing.

                  God damn you people are fucking dense.

                  1. Density is awesome.

                    We RULE.

                    I think most of use view this bill as a way to avail ourselves of killing by the police. As such, it doesn’t really strike the right chord.

      3. “I may however some day be unlucky enough to get into a shoot out with a criminal.”

        That criminal will be deterred from acquiring body armor in much the same way that today’s criminals are deterred by gun laws.

        The assumption that banning something makes it go away is at the heart of your argument.

        1. That criminal will be deterred from acquiring body armor in much the same way that today’s criminals are deterred by gun laws.

          Maybe. But it might help. Since body armor will do me no good, banning it is a price I would happily pay to get even a small advantage.

          Armor is not guns. The arguments against gun control don’t work here.

          1. See above, where you agreed with me that one day, perhaps sooner than you think, everybody might be wearing it.

            Invalidates the entire argument.

            1. See above, where you agreed with me that one day, perhaps sooner than you think, everybody might be wearing i

              Then we are fucked and we might as well let the gun grabbers have their way. What good is a gun if it isn’t going to be effective?

              You may be right here. But understand that if you are and the days of the gun being an effective self defense weapons are over, the world is going to become a much worse place.

      4. You’ll have just as much luck keeping body armor away from criminals as the gun control advocates have with keeping firearms away from criminals.

        As somebody says above, practice head shots if you’re worried about body armor.

      5. I really don’t plan to get into a shootout with the cops.

        Few law-abiding citizens do. Imagine their surprise when they do!

        1. And when they do, body armor isn’t going to save them.

          1. Well, not if they pass a law. But when they do pass a law, the criminals won’t have the body armor either. So there’s that.

            1. EVen if you are wearing it. The cops can just blow you up or fire enough rounds to go through it. Body armor will do nothing to save you from the cops. But it just might save you from that woman you plan to rape who thought a .32 would be a good self defense weapon.

              1. How many rapists* have EVER worn body armor, John? You are shitting your pants over something that has NEVER happened. Might as well argue the woman shouldn’t be able to own that .32 because it will probably just get taken away from her.

                *other than those who were wearing it as part of their jobs, like a soldier or a cop, anyway.

                1. How many rapists* have EVER worn body armor, John? You are shitting your pants over something that has NEVER happened. Might as well argue the woman shouldn’t be able to own that .32 because it will probably just get taken away from her.

                  Let it get cheap and available and a lot would. Why wouldn’t you? They don’t now because the shit is hard to get and expensive. Change that and they most certainly would, especially if it renders guns ineffective.

                  1. So your shitting your pants over something that MIGHT happen. Maybe. Provided technology works out in just the right way, and society adapts to it in just the right way to make your hypothesis work.

                    Hell, at least there have actually been instances guns have been taken away from their users.

                    1. No WAnderer,

                      It is impossible for any of this to be true. No worries about guns being rendered useless. That is just a Republican meme.

                    2. It actually seems to be just a John meme. I don’t see any Republicans arguing it, except you.

                    3. No Wandereer. I only argue the Republican Party Line. Fransisco and everyone on here just knows that.

                      Like I said below, the problem is they will ban the weapons that are effective against the armor in the name of cop safety. Then we will be stuck with guns that don’t work against cops and criminals.

  13. John, maybe you can point us to the rash of home invasions happening every day in America where the invaders are wearing (currently) legal body armor and are killing, raping and/or robbing people without the homeowners able to defend themselves, families or,property.

    You want to ban something because of a problem…….that doesn’t fucking exist.

    1. Home invasions rarely happen in America. They are actually quite common in the UK. The reason for this is that America is armed.

      The need to use guns to defend ourselves is the biggest reason why gun control is so evil. But if guns are no longer effective in doing that, we are stuck with the same effect.

      I get it, you see a buzz word “BAN” and you shut your brain off.

      1. John, have you answered the very salient point that body armor, while it might save your life if you get shot in the chest, does not turn you into The Terminator.

        A largish caliber shot to the chest is going to, at the very least, knock the wind out of you and prevent you from threatening anyone while they either escape to safety or put you down permanently.

        Your concern seems very overblown.

        1. yes Geoff, as I say above, it is not perfect. But it gets better every year. And it is effective against small caiber weapons. Some people like women and old people can only effectively use a small caliber weapon.

          I want guns to be really effective. Everything that makes them less effective, makes all of us less safe.

          The concern may be small now but it is exist and it is only going to get bigger as the armor gets better.

          Again, I get it that a ban is never perfectly effective. But we need to come up with some way to deal with this problem. We don’t want our guns to not work anymore. And frankly, if this shit stay expensive or hard to get, we are probably all a lot better off.

      2. But if guns are no longer effective in doing that, we are stuck with the same effect.

        And people will need to innovate.

        THE HORROR!

        For all you know cheap body armor will be the impetus for the Lassiter laser pistol.

        1. And people will need to innovate.

          So why not let the gun grabbers just ban guns? You can just innovate to defend yourself?

          Your logic works there too. Saying “fuck you figure it out” is not an answer. It is just you saying too bad. Well, the gun banners can say that too. It is not compelling in either case.

          1. So why not let the gun grabbers just ban guns?

            Because I have a right to guns, just as I have a right to wear whatever the fuck I want to wear, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

            1. Well, not those low-riding jeans. Not unless you’re a chick. One who looks good in those kinds of jeans, that is. I mean, we have laws and stuff, you know.

              1. Finally, a law I can get behind.

                1. You know what they say: The law is an ass.

            2. That is not an answer. If “just innovate” works here, it works with guns too.

              1. Let’s stick to the low-riding jeans thing from now on.

                  1. No! They must be BANNED!

    2. So did you escapre VA permanently, or are you just visiting?

      1. I’m here for the foreseeable future.

        1. You’re not in prison, right?

  14. If we don’t ban privately owned body armor, every day will have one of these.

  15. Typical modern Democrat: Nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  16. Jesus- John has the bit in his teeth, again.

    This “ban” will have no effect whatsoever on home invaders; only people who actually obey laws in the first place. A guy who runs an all night diner will be shit out of luck, but the guy who might want to rob him will be no more or less inhibited than before.

    Did you get your talking points directly from Mayors Against Legal Guns, John?

    1. I am not saying we should ban them. But hey Brooks, don’t let what I am actually saying get in the way of saying something stupid.

      The point is, we probably can’t stop them. And that fucking sucks.

  17. OT: Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah just died; Salman takes throne.

    1. Rushie? I’m glad. What with the fatwa and losing Padma, he’s had a rough time of it.

    2. A shift in Saudi leadership just as Yemen falls. We’re in for some interesting times indeed. Fortunately, the Saudis have made a science out of smooth successions. Problem is, there is some evidence that the 80-year oldSalman is senile, and perhaps has Alzheimer’s.

  18. Contra to the ravings of the upthread pants-shitter, I and everyone else has the full and absolute right to where body armour whenever and where ever I have the permission of the private property owner.

    1. Look, at some point, we’re all going to be invincible cyborgs. Why not embrace this reality and the steps towards it?

    2. Then why do you want a gun? If you think it is okay for people to render it useless, why do you want it?

      You do understand gun control is wrong for more than because of principle? An armed society is a much safer society. Let everyone wear body armor and the society is effectively disarmed.

      1. TIL that body armor renders guns “useless”. Do you think it causes the bullets to just bounce off your chest like a Superman cartoon?

        1. No. I am fully aware of what it does. And it does render small caliber hand guns useless, which sucks if you are only good with those. And it will only get better and eventually render a lot of weapons useless.

          That won’t be a good thing. Why people who claim to be pro gun can’t see that is beyond me.

          1. And it does render small caliber hand guns hande drawn bowes useless, which sucks if you are only good with those.

            I fixeth that for ye.

            Then saith I, ye shall wield a crossbowe to defend your properties when a highwayman approacheth ye to obtain your properties by force of armes.

            1. HA!! I was waiting for someone to bring up crossbows. =)

      2. I rather think the government needs to stop regulating anything and everything. Armor isn’t inherently dangerous, and if it’s illegal, the criminals and the government will have it while the rest of us little people will be even more behind the 8-ball in comparison.

        There are also uses for armor of a sort beyond being bullet-proof. What about that?

      3. “Let everyone wear body armor and the society is effectively disarmed.”

        John =

        Body Armor is already currently *legal*, and has been for a very long time.

        I made this point above and you started saying something about ‘pavlov’.

        Do you think that our society is currently *effectively disarmed* because Body Armor has not been banned Yet?

        Your point has the little problem of *reality* not currently conforming to your imagined consequence.

        1. Sur eit is. And what happens when it gets really cheap and really effective?

          I am well aware of how effective it currently is. That is not my point. My point is what are we going to do in the future?

          And again, banning probably wont’ work. But you guys need to understand this is a big fucking deal and not a good thing.

          1. But if I need a gun to protect myself from bad people who may have guns, and the body armor neutralizes the advantage of having a gun, don’t I…not need the gun anymore? That sounds like a win for both safety and self-protection.

            1. No it is a loss loss. If I don’t have the gun, then anyone who is bigger or more violent than me or out numbers me is free to victimize me and I out of luck. Guns are the great equalizer. ANd that is why they made society so much less violent and so much safer. After guns, young, violent men were no longer free to prey on the weak like they always had been. The old lady or woman could kill them now. We don’t want to go back to that world.

              1. John… Just buy a shotgun, and load it with Flechette’s. Your issue with criminals wearing body armor is solved.

                Your welcome. =)

          2. “John|1.22.15 @ 6:56PM|#

            Sur eit is. And what happens when it gets really cheap and really effective?”

            AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN…[insert pants-shitting hypothetical]

            You really think this is a compelling case for banning something *now*?

            1. I didn’t say ban it. But maybe control it? Maybe make using it while committing a crime mean you never see the light of day again?

              How about that?

              1. “I didn’t say ban it”

                ‘I frankly don’t want body armor to be legal’ (quoting you above) actually DOES sound pretty close to ‘ban’… But whatever

                Now you’re suggesting some kind of special extra-punitive measures for things that generally already don’t happen are super-important, because JESUS WHAT IF IT DID?!

                Do you think laws should be written in advance for any other currently-non-existent problems *just in case*…?

                …or is this just a special category where you’ve decided “its a big deal” and “a real problem”?

                …even though there have been almost no highlighted cases of ‘criminals in body armor’ since the North Hollywood shootout, which prompted so much *other* super-commonsense legislation…like the ‘banning’ of vertical foregrips, barrel shrouds and the like… because WHAT IF _____??!

                Because your line of reasoning seems to be identical to every other Nanny-Statist who wants to childproof the planet out of fear of absurd hypotheticals which laws generally wont ever stop any committed criminal from conducting no matter how ‘strict’ they are.

                1. If someone wears body armor while comitting a crime, why should t they be punished for it? If you a re using it to keep peolel from defending themselves, you deserve what ever you get.

                  And i want this shit not used because i want to retain the ability to kill some if i need too, yeah that is nanny state there. Stop throwing out buzz words.

                  1. You’re right. We need more laws for problems that don’t exist.

        2. You know, along these lines, what about the growing gap between common citizen weaponry and that of the government, including the police? I mean, I know everyone likes to pretend this doesn’t matter, but the relative freedom of the American population likely does correlate with the fact that the people have been at least roughly as well-armed as the police for most of our history.

          1. Yes. It is a problem.

            1. From that perspective, if cops get body armor, so do I. I refuse to accept or agree to any viewpoint other than cops being citizens who deal with criminals more often than I do. Regardless of how much the government acts otherwise. I haven’t signed off on these usurpations of power, after all.

              Do defensive measures destabilize things? Sure. But that’s true in all respects, including the military ones. Change is just something we have to deal with, and sometimes it brings its own dangers.

              1. My worry is that the government will be able to keep the ammo or new weapons out of the public’s hands in the name of cop safety.

                You are right, anything a cop has a criminal can have if they want it badly enough. So we will end up in a world where our weapons are useless against cops and criminals. Won’t that be great.

                1. Well, as a student of history, you know that there’s a long see-sawing history between weapons and means of defense.

                  That said, given that we’re capable of generating a great deal of kinetic force or projecting other kinds of energy, it’s hard to imagine any armor that would be so effective as to negate all handheld weapons.

                  1. True. But you never know

  19. “body armour”

    That’s the can the ham came in, right? Are those really bulletproof?

    1. Ever seen a ham get shot?

      1. What about in that French deli last week?

        1. Wasn’t it a kosher deli? I don’t believe they house armored hams.

          1. Dude, those hams are still warm

            1. I wasn’t making any jokes, just trying to stop sloopy, who is mad with definite article fever. And there’s the whole Armstrong thing.

  20. OK John, so who opposes such a ban? Just unthinking libertarian idealists and the criminal lobby?

    1. Unthinking Libertarians for sure. Charles made a good point above about night clerks needing them. And yeah, they should have them. Why can’t you just only sell it to them?

      And again, why not at least try to control them and make wearing them while committing an act of violence a huge sentence enhancer?

      I am not saying ban them. But you guys are kidding yourself if you don’t think they are a real threat to our ability to defend ourselves.

      1. Then why is a bill like this unlikely to make it out of committee? There must be people who’d be against it for other reasons.

        1. Nope, only drooling, idiot rigid libertardians.

  21. John has convinced me. We can base restrictions on other people if exercising the freedom in question seems to make one of my freedoms less effective. Since I only own a shotgun and inherited revolver, I’d be at a disadvantage in many situations against someone with a better firearm, say someone with a ‘high capacity magazine.’ Therefore I call on these to be banned, because I want my RKBA to be effective, and people getting those weapons who might do me harm would make my ability to defend myself less effective.

  22. Kind of off topic, but not completely…

    Why, in a home defense scenario, would you want a handgun over a shotgun? Speaking for myself, a pump or semi-auto with a shortened barrel is ideal.

    1. First, totally fireproof your house. Next, acquire a flamethrower.

      1. Ha ha. I only use flame throwers to toast marshmallows and weenies.

        1. If body armor gets great at stopping kinetic energy, time to move to plasma, electricity, or whatever you have at hand. Maybe water cannons?

          1. Put up a moat; can they swim with that shit on?

            1. Brilliant. Your home gets invaded by armor-wearing thugs, and your automated defenses promptly flood the house with water from the cistern on your roof.

    2. A shotgun is big and can hard to use in a confined space. A hand gun is easier to keep within reach and easier to wield.

      Even still, a shotgun can be very effective.

      1. It’s my personal preference. I am a better shot with one as opposed to a pistol.

        I also don’t need rounds going through the walls and hitting neighbors, which might happen with my pistol.

        1. I don’t blame you. I love shotguns.

        2. It’s mine too, though partly out of necessity (it was given to me so my college student budget can afford it). It also doubles for hunting. I know about the ‘tight spaces’ concerns, but I think that’s an unlikely spot to worry about compared to other concerns.

        3. Unless you use very small birdshot, shotgun pellets go through walls just fine.

          1. I say this as someone who used to prefer shotguns for the neighbors reason, but then I saw a penetration study on shotgun rounds. An 00 Buckshot pellet, for example, has about the same pentration as a .45 ACP round, only you’re firing off a dozen of them at once.

            1. OO doesn’t have the ballistic stability of a pistol round, so it won’t go as far. If you live in an apartment, just about anything other than Glaser Safety slugs and their ilk have a problem with over-penetration. A shotgun has the most violence in a short distance, and the least violence in the far. Still your best bet in a home.

      2. A shotgun is big and can hard to use in a confined space.

        Get one with a barely legal barrel and a pistol grip (and maybe a vertical foreend grip), and its a pretty handy weapon.

        1. Get one with a barely legal barrel and a pistol grip (and maybe a vertical foreend grip), and its a pretty handy weapon.

          Very handy and very controllable.

          1. Serbu Super Shorty FTW.

        2. As general advice, when you’re buying a self defense gun, don’t getting anything too “weird”. It one of those things that shouldn’t matter but in practice does: if you ever have to go before a jury, they’re more likely to convict if you used some really unusual looking gun.

          1. Damn. I have a civil war cannon next to the bed aimed at the door.

            1. I think the jury would be cool with that.

    3. I like a machete. Clean up is a bitch but you can really work your stress out.

      1. Just don’t bring a machete to a gun fight, at least in Idaho.

  23. Mike fucking Honda? Goddamn it. My neighbors elected that brain-dead piece of shit.

    -jcr

  24. 18 USC 931 already prohibits people convicted of a felony “crime of violence” from owning such armor.

    (As d3x said above; though I can’t remember where the “illegal to use while committing a crime” bit is in the Code, I do recall reading it.)

    Other people are … not likely to be serious abuse risks, so much?

    Double-illegality will solve yet another non-problem!

    1. I always thought that was deliberately assholic.

      You’re convicted of a felony, serve your time, and get out. Now you can’t get a job, so you have to live in a shitty place. You can’t own a gun, and you can’t even own something that can potentially save your ass?

      And since they keep making more and more obnoxious laws (the whole “three-felonies-a-day” thing), it’s almost as if the goal is to put us all in this category. Funny that.

  25. I worry more about them banning the ammo that penetrates body armor than them banning body armor. As long as I can buy a weapon that beats it, body armor is no big deal.

    The problem is that any ammo that will go through body armor will be called “cop killer” and people like Honda will line up to ban it. So we will live in a world where our guns are useless against both cops and criminals. And of course the criminals will have the ammo, so even if you can get body armor, it won’t do you any good.

    None of this shit is good. None of it.

  26. don’t let what I am actually saying get in the way of saying something stupid.

    I can’t compete with you.

    1. Oh but you try so hard Brooks. You try so hard.

  27. The only time you you really need body armor is when the government doesn’t want you to have. Maybe the body armor industry is tired of the gun companys record sales due to gun grabbers. Pay a congressman to propose making them illegal and boom record sales. Maybe thats what step 2 is?

  28. Not that it matters. You can buy steel plate and kevlar.

    1. True enough. The issue is can you still get the ammo to go through it. What if they ban that? That would really suck.

      Ultimately, we want guns to be as effective as possible.

      1. I can also reload.

      2. Banners gonna ban. They don’t give a shit about protecting citizens anyways. Just the cops.

  29. I, for one, refuse to cower inside my killdozer once the code-enforcement office has been demolished

    1. Is there a wesite for a killdozer? I want to add it to my Amazon wish list. I’m not sure what it is but I’m pretty sure I need one.

      1. Or a website. It doesn’t have to be a wesite.

      2. You have to build your own.

        1. Awesome. I was looking for an excuse to buy welding equipment.

          1. I think the guy in CO used a lot of concrete as well.

  30. “Continuing his promotion of the modern progressive agenda”, in his own words

    Please board the next plane to Sweden. The airfare’s on me, pal.

    1. Kickstarter? Could work. I’m in.

  31. Headline on MSN right: “We’re closer to ‘Doomsday,’ scientists say.” And that appears to be the actual word used by Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

    Scientist confirms: the fourth horseman is upon us!

    It’s almost as embarrassing as the 200 posts above me.

    1. The russians would be crazy to attack us while we have Dr. Manhattan!

      1. But the Russkies have a tachyon generator to cloak their activities. Almost like BODY ARMOR!

  32. So we had Bo melt a couple of days back, Tony has been off kilter forever, I swear we had a “muricna sighting, shriek seems like a blood vessel in his brain ruptured and now John has gone off the rails, hard.

    Did the squirrelz pump something into the vents around here?

    1. I think all their menstrual cycles are synchronizing.

    2. So we had Bo melt a couple of days back

      Really? I fascr blocked him a while back, so I wasn’t witness to that. What set him off?

      1. I don’t know what they’re talking about, but he got very upset with me for pointing out Jimmy Carter’s continuous support for Hamas and other terrorists, up to and including speaking at a fundraiser for an organization that was previously shut down by the Canadian government for siphoning funds to Pakistani terrorists who are trying to establish a Sharia state.

        I posted literally a dozen articles over the course of 10 years where Carter was explicitly agitating in favor of Hamas and was claiming that Hamas just wants peace but those damn Israelis won’t let them! This was insufficient proof that Carter is distressingly pro-Hamas.

        Carter really does know how to pick them, doesn’t he? His administration was also instrumental in Robert Mugabe seizing power in Zimbabwe, after all.

    3. “So we had Bo melt a couple of days back, ”

      In your dreams Republican tool.

      1. Why do you assume its “Republicans” who think you’re a fucking retard?

        There is bipartisan consensus on this issue.

        1. “There is bipartisan consensus on this issue.”

          Tri-, quad-, penta-, etc.
          I’ve gotta presume he posts here since he would have been pounded to dust if he pulled that sort of insulting sophistry in person.

  33. I don’t know what worse (or more hilarious): Red Tony going full retard or all the people here trying to reason with him.

  34. It’s almost as embarrassing as the 200 posts above me.

    You won’t be saying that when roving bands of armored-up domestic terrorists seize control of America’s streets. Your puny guns will be useless.

    USELESS!

    1. Ummm. Body armours bad m’kay

    2. I’ll still have my two by four with a nail in it!

      1. It’ll have to be a 2×3 when the ban takes effect.

  35. John’s a member of the army, and he seriously believes that body armour is pretty much the same as the Invincibility Equipment from Halo 3 and this somehow disarms everyone. Newsflash John: my liberties and rights trump your hysterical fears. Thanks though I think we all needed a reminder that you are in fact insane.

    1. No i domt. I know exactly how it works and how effective it is. The point is it will only get more so and our guns less efective. Will there be counter measures ? Probably. But the government will do everything it can to make those measures illegal in the name of cop safety.

      With the advamcments in nano tech and materials, it is a real possibility that in ten or twenty years that any gun own today could no longer be a reliable tool for self defense. That would likly be a nightmare.

      It is more disappointing than anything else the people on here cant grasp that. Ultimately most people on sither side are not very deep thinkers and just grap on to a few ideas and that is it. Here is no different, though sometimes it is and it should always be.

      As long as you can ammunition that defeats boxy armor, its not a problem. But of course the armor is not very effective then either. If the comes when there is body armor effective enough that no ammo available works on it, that is a real problem.

      Sadly libwrtarians will be incapable of understanding the problem much less solvong it.

      1. There is a point where the energy from a bullet will hit so hard that the “nano” magic material won’t be worth much, as you will be thrown back with so much blunt force internal trauma will occur. If you are going to go of the rails, leave the physics out of it.

    2. And if it is so ineffective, then how can you claim not having it is such a big deal? It either works and renders gums ineffective or it doesnt and banning it just saves people from having a false semse of security.

      1. If i were a forensic analyst i’d probably conclude you have “fat hands”

        1. If i were a forensic analyst i’d probably conclude you have “fat hands”

          +1 special dialing wand

  36. 90 Susan Kelo’s

    “TransCanada Corp., the Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, filed eminent domain proceedings against an estimated 90 Nebraska landowners Tuesday to secure the right to build the controversial project across their property.”

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

    1. Wow, we should totally stop using fossil fuels now.

      1. I say we get rid of eminent domain and this ridiculous idea that the federal government has any business getting involved with this pipeline.

        1. Its shocking that in the history of America that no one has ever tried building a pipeline before, and all of a sudden now this first one ever comes along with a host of problems no one could possibly have foreseen like way way way in advance.

          We should probably just ban them in advance just in case.

          1. Good thing we don’t need oil or anything. And that the Middle East is so stable.

  37. John, have you watched the British documentary series, Monarchy? I’ve been watching it on Netflix. I’m watching it right now–Stephen and Matilda are having a little squabble.

    1. No. I will look that up. Thanks

      1. It’s so. . .British. Quite good.

      2. Now we’re up to Henry II, one of my favorites.

  38. I have it on good authority that eminent domain involves the outright theft of land and the forcible displacement of the owners.

    1. Also, don’t forget that this land is covered entirely with orphanages. For Native American children. With disabilities.

  39. This quote about Venezuela is amazing:

    The fiscal situation is so dire that Citgo, which, remember, supposedly wouldn’t count as a part of the Venezuelan state, is planning on taking out $2.5 billion in debt to give to its parent company, which would presumably pass it along to the government. This makes sense, as much as anything does in Venezuela, because Citgo has a higher credit rating than the government, so it can borrow, and if it defaults, it will just be as if the country sold it.

    This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard. The state owned oil company has a higher credit rating than the government that owns it so they take out loans to give to the government because if it defaults it doesn’t really matter.

    1. Here’s another great part:

      Some of it gets sent to friendly governments, like Cuba’s, in return for medical care.

      What WaPo doesn’t mention is that the Cuban ‘medical care’ that gets sent to Venezuela comes in the form of, I am not making this up, slave doctors.

      Instead the funds are credited to the account of the dictatorship, which by all accounts keeps the lion’s share of the payment and gives the worker a stipend to live on with a promise of a bit more upon return to Cuba.

      Cuban doctors sent to Venezuela live in Venezuelan slums making barely enough money to live so that the Castro regime can pocket Venezuelan oil money.

      This is one of the worst ongoing human rights atrocities in the Western hemisphere, and no one even gives a shit.

      1. Because commie thugs are sooooo dreamy.

    2. “if it defaults it doesn’t really matter.”

      Uh, yeah… speaking of Argentina….

      It seems apparent that they assassinated one of their own prosecutors and are trying to spin his death as *part of an attempt to discredit the government*

      by who? probably *the jews*.

      Not kidding, since what he was investigating was a bombing attack against a jewish group. apparently iran was involved, and maybe the argies covered it up to keep nice with them… or something.

      Its pretty fucked up. CF Kirschner isnt the WORST person on earth, but dammit if she doesn’t make a good run for at least “shittiest woman”. she’s something of a category unto herself.

      1. Really a banner month for South American socialists, huh?

      2. If she’s not the worst person on earth but maybe the shittiest woman, is she worse than Nikki?

        1. Its a tough call. i think you’d have to sleep with both of them to be sure.

          1. Ahh, then I guess it will remain a mystery.

  40. It’s funny how liberals (and no, I’m not specifically referring to you, Bo) find eminent domain so horrible when they can use it as a rallying cry against something they don’t like. If those people were being dispossessed for school or hospital construction, you wouldn’t hear a peep of protest.

    1. One thing I will say (although I wish they wouldn’t use eminent domain for the pipeline and the government probably shouldn’t be involved in its construction) is that eminent domain for something like a highway system or a pipeline at least makes some degree of sense. The reason is because if you’re building a highway it is immensely difficult to buy every parcel of land along the route. That doesn’t make it okay to use eminent domain to get it, but there’s at least a rationale behind it.

      With the shit that was going on in Kelo, there was no rationale. They could have put the factory somewhere else, but would just rather have had the Kelo land. That’s why the idea of eminent domain being used to build a factory or something is an absurdity far beyond using it to get some land along the pathway of a highway.

    2. So, I’m not taking sides here (honest). But I’m curious as to what folks here think about the eminent domain issue as it applies to Keystone (and, yes, I realize there is a lot of politics being played on both sides). Libertarians support individual property rights. Is that absolute? If not, how does one define eminent domain?

      Is the answer that, because Keystone is a private entity that eminent domain doesn’t enter into it?

      1. I’m against ED on principle, but I have a hard time coming up with another “initial” solution.

        I do, however, have an “existing” solution. There are so many rights of way through private property now (roads, power lines…) that are, in fact, larger than the existing structures on them, why not just run the pipeline along an existing road/powerline…

        1. co-location

          They do that but different utilities can’t occupy the same easement for a variety of reasons so they run new ones adjacent to existing ones. FWIW, transmission lines fuck over landowners far worse than pipelines do.

      2. OK, so I didn’t refresh before posting and didn’t see Irish’s comments. Is that the general take on this?

        1. I’m conflicted because I don’t know how else to do it when you’re talking about a pipeline or a highway that needs to cover long distances.

          I’m unequivocally opposed to eminent domain being used for buildings like factories, and on principle I oppose eminent domain for pipelines. I just don’t know what other options there are.

          1. Irish|1.22.15 @ 9:29PM|#
            …”I’m unequivocally opposed to eminent domain being used for buildings like factories, and on principle I oppose eminent domain for pipelines. I just don’t know what other options there are.”

            I can see a discussion of ED in the abstract, but regarding Keystone, I’m not finding a libertarian point.
            That oil is coming out of the ground, and will be burned for energy; I really don’t care if it is refined in China or the Gulf refineries. People working both places deserve to eat.
            I like sticking it to the greenies, but not enough to give ED a pass.

        2. I’m curious as to what folks here think about the eminent domain issue as it applies to Keystone

          Doesn’t bother me, but I’ve also been on ranches in Texas that have pipelines running through them.

          If the ranchers were honest, they would admit that having the pipeline is a net plus because the pipeline company generally has to keep a pretty good road going for maintenance, inspection, etc. A few years after the pipe is laid and the land heals, hey, free road! is about the only “burden” on the landowner.

          More generally, I’m pretty comfortable with “olde schoole” ED for roads, pipelines, hell, even actual buildings owned and operated by the government for government purposes if need be. Its the bastardization of the Takings Clause by SCOTUS via de facto amendment that is the problem. As amended in Kelo, it now reads:

          nor shall private property be taken for a public use purpose, without just compensation.

          There’s your fucking judicial activism.

      3. Try to buy up all the land. If you can’t, find a different route. If that doesn’t work, skip the project.

        I’m a minarchist, but I have trouble with eminent domain. I suppose I could come up with some extraordinary circumstances where it makes sense, but I mostly think it’s a leftover concept from the sovereign owning everything. Screw that.

      4. ” I’m curious as to what folks here think about the eminent domain issue as it applies to Keystone”

        From what i’ve seen, the relationship between the two has been vastly exaggerated to attempt to find an angle to undermine the project among people unmoved by environmental panic.

        I think that there’s some relevant qualitative difference between the crony-real-estate development projects which typify Urban Government use of eminent domain and the Rural use of it which tends to be connected to utility/roadway projects etc. (*but has also been used to steal mineral rights, etc.)

        I object to any outright ‘property dispossession’ by the government in all cases. Eminent domain is sometimes used as a replacement for any honest negotiation rather than a last-resort measure.

        As others note: power lines, roadways, pipelines – these things are almost impossible to put in place without some exertion of ED authority. Usually the threat of it is enough to get people to deal.

        As it applies to keystone; my impression is that the project would probably have entailed *some* ED in the process of its development; but that the politicized environment sparked opposition which probably resulted in its expansion. i.e. ‘more than there should have been’.

        as noted above = we’ve got pipelines running all over the country. I doubt all those projects were ED-free while this one is Pure Evil. That’s how its being spun, in any case.

      5. If the people building the pipeleine weren’t required to file a proposed route years ahead of time and were able to just negotiate with landowners and build the route from the easements they could obtain then ED would be a non issue but thats not the case. It would take take decades to get the necessary permits to reroute around landowners who refuse easements.

    3. “Under the terms of the permanent easements, the company controls the rights to a 50-foot-wide strip of land for the sole purpose of operating a single, underground oil pipeline. But the property owners retain ownership of the land.”

      DONT YOU SEE its like TOTALLY JUST THE SAME as when Robert Moses ran through NYC and evicted 100,000+ people and razed whole neighborhoods to the ground.

      Dear god man, its not like anyone’s going to use this oil anyway.

      Your failure to scream foul over this project is just like saying that you think the Taliban was justified in blowing up the statues of Buddha.

  41. Libertarians support individual property rights. Is that absolute? If not, how does one define eminent domain?

    In the world as it actually is, eminent domain exists, and will be used. As Irish pointed out, a right of way requires contiguous parcels. These pipelines are primarily underground, so once it’s in, it presents a fairly small intrusion into the daily lives of the people whose land it crosses. Obviously, the devil is in the details.

    1. Some of the details are mentioned in the link above in my comment.

      Everyone’s keeping overall ownership of their land whether or not ED gets used.

      Everyone’s going to ‘get paid’ – both up front and as part of ongoing contract allowing their use and access. And they’ll pay again if there’s any further damages etc.

      What the filing on the 20th means is that unless the holdouts come to an agreement, it will go to an arbitrator type-arrangement.

      The idea that they’re ‘seizing massive amounts of land’ willy-nilly seems to be something of a slight exaggeration.

      “Tuesday it has filed papers in Nebraska seeking to acquire the final 12 percent of easements from holdout landowners along the pipeline path.

      The company is seeking to use eminent domain to compel reluctant property owners to sell easements for the use of their land. “Despite the filings, TransCanada will continue to work to acquire voluntary easement agreements,” Keystone projects land manager Andrew Craig said in a statement. “If we are unable to come to agreement, a panel of local appraisers appointed by the county court will recommend a value for compensation.””

      1. You can still farm and graze over the easement. If the pipeline company wants to run a second line you get paid all over again. With electric transmission lines you get paid once, have unsightly wires and the electric company can come back and replace the wooden poles with giant metal towers, double or quadruple the lines and not pay the landowner another dime. Pipelines are the “good guys” of the implied threat and exercise of E.D.

  42. OK, this confuses me even more. Assuming the accuracy of the map, I don’t see why they can’t run it through existing pipelines. Is volume a trouble. That said, I’m reasonably familiar with Nebraska and Kansas. And it’s not like those are intensive farming regions. Cattle and wheat – farmers could probably have made a good deal with the company in the beginning.

    http://keystone-xl.com/keyston…..route-map/

  43. I’ve skimmed the comments, but bottom line: Say a shopkeeper gets nervous and wears a suit of body armor to protect himself/herself against robbers, but he neglected to fill out the appropriate paperwork or the police “lost” the paperwork or they said he didn’t really “need” body armor.

    So the cops discover he has body armor, they arrest him for unlicensed body armor, and he goes to prison.

    This is the bottom line of what John in advocating, sorry.

    1. what john *is* advocating

    2. Now, suppose the shopkeeper gets shot by a robber, he goes to the hospital, and the doctor says “you’d be dead by now if you weren’t wearing that body armor.” Then in come the cops, and when they find out the shopkeeper doesn’t have a body-armor license, they grab him off his hospital bed, handcuff him, and off to prison he goes!

      This is at least as plausible as John’s scenarios, and (because it involves the government) even more chilling.

    3. Or joe blow wears soft body armor while its black-powder hunting season, and accidentally shoots off-limits game or hits some jackass in the foot.

      10year mandatory minimum! When did extra-punitive laws ever hurt anyone??! I mean, otherwise we’d be a nation of Crack Babies, which were totally like a real thing.

      1. Statists are always good with the “seen” benefits. Not so good with the unseen costs.

        Banning body armor means creating a new ineffectual beaurocracy that will keep trying to find reasons for its existence and will crush those who accidentally cross its path. Similar to the poor bastards who accidentally bought too much pseudephedrine at once.

        But that Joe Blow guy: total asshole.

  44. BTW…the chick in the pic is hot. Well done JD.

    1. I second this.

    2. Hopefully we can all agree on that.

      1. Can’t the whole article just be a bunch of pictures?

    3. Something is wrong with us that we were nearly 400 posts in before somebody pointed this out.

      And I agree totally. Cute as a bug.

  45. That said, I’m reasonably familiar with Nebraska and Kansas. And it’s not like those are intensive farming regions.

    I’m deeply ambivalent about eminent domain. In a perfect world, NO MEANS NO, whatever the reason. But absolutist refusal to allow anybody or anything to cross your land means the complete absence of trade. That can’t be what we want.

    It is alswo my understanding that there are activist environmental groups actively seeking willing collaborators who own property along the route.

    1. That has definitely been going on. In my travels I’ve seen signs in the suburban areas of Omaha & Lincoln protesting the pipeline. And I know people who live in large-ish houses with lawns and gardens crying about the water table. They probably think it’s something you use in the pool to serve food on.

    2. Perhaps they should just buy the airspace rights over the land, then shoot the oil to Texas in a many mile high stream.

      1. Peter North was from Canada, right?

  46. The idea that they’re ‘seizing massive amounts of land’ willy-nilly seems to be something of a slight exaggeration.

    Yes, exactly. Every thread about eminent domain devolves into hysterical shrieking which implies the land owners will be rounded up and forcibly carted off to the frontier, in the manner of the ChiComs’ “redevelopment” of their Olympic sites.

  47. Perhaps they should just buy the airspace rights over the land, then shoot the oil to Texas in a many mile high stream.

    Flying tankers!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. I was thinking more an oil fountain.

  48. So what did the Conservative Testicle say to the Progressive Liberal Penis?

    1. ‘There’s a vas deferens between you and I’

      1. Arghhh.

      2. Something something female libertarians.

  49. I have a personal anecdote related to the topic of body armor. I own a locksmithing company here in SF and a few years back was doing a shit ton of evictions. Some of them got a bit messy, but one in particular stands out. I was called to take an eviction that went sideways the first time. It seems that the Occupy dude who had not paid his mortgage in a year and a half had stood on the inside of the door and held the deadbolt shut when the locksmith drilled the cylinder. The head sheriff, Sheriff Chubdog, huffed and puffed but the guy would not relent. Eventually the SWAT team was called in by the friggin ejit Sheriff, but they could not break down his door cause it was a civil matter. So they called me.

    I saw Sheriff Chubdog on an eviction the week before we were to go out to Mr. Occupy. I asked him if they could loan me a vest he was wearing one and I was gonna be the first in the line of fire. He laughed at me. Fucking asshole. My dad tried to convince me to buy one and I looked into it, but the expense was a bit high. Another locksmith had gotten killed 70 miles away that month, but I thought the chances were in my favor. But if John and Mr Honda had their way I would not even have had the choice.

  50. The eviction itself was a fucking shitshow. The guy had police tape, orange traffic cones and screeds about sovereign citizens on his doorstep. The orange cones somehow scared me the most. There were 12 sheriffs, two animal control officers for the punt bull inside, and three people from the bank all backed up behind me on the approach to the door. I ended up having to sledge hammer the door while the guy was pressed against it screaming bloody murder about sovereign citizen crap and illegal use of force. It was insane. He was poking a one wood out the holes I was making in the door. Finally the whole thing caved in on him and he had about 9 cops pile on top of the door on top of him.

    I never did buy that body armor.

    1. Well, shit. And here I thought locksmiths just helped me out when I lost my keys.

    2. “I ended up having to sledge hammer the door”

      jesus.

      Locksmithing is hardcore in California. i hesitate to ask why you were there at all if that was the case

      i assume its ‘required by law’ or something… which, naturally, would make for some awkwardness if civilian body armor were then banned by law. Good-Government at Work. Maybe cops

      1. “Locksmithing is hardcore in California.”

        Evictions are hardcore in SF.
        It’s interesting (sort of) that the guy was mouthing what would be libertarian views, at the same time (I assume) ducking his contract to pay what he owed.
        I could hope this was commie-kid (who inhabits the bay area, bailed on his mortgage, and claims to be ‘libertarian’), but that’s asking too much.

        1. I don’t know how they run evictions in other states, but in CA the local sheriffs show up and usually a locksmith. It is kind of a weird thing that this dude thought he found a loophole out of, that the sheriffs cannot break down the door. They must have a clear entry into the domicile. That is where I come in, as a private citizen I can open a locked door. In only one other case have I had to actually break down a door, I usually operate in a more subtle manner.

          The dude was far from libertarian. He copped the sovereign citizen shtick, but he had tons of Occupy shit all over his messy ass abode. “stop the evictions” and all that.

          1. “The dude was far from libertarian. He copped the sovereign citizen shtick, but he had tons of Occupy shit all over his messy ass abode. “stop the evictions” and all that.”

            Kinda the reason I was HOPING, HOPING, HOPING it was commie-kid.
            BTW, I live in SF and love to patronize those who have some inkling of liberty.
            If you can suggest a way to find your company without giving up your privacy, you’d prolly have my business.

          2. May I assume that just as the sheriff wouldn’t let you borrow body armor, he wouldn’t let you use their battering ram?

            1. On that job they would not. Another time different ones let me borrow theirs. That one featured massive amounts of hoarder animal feces.

  51. Privacy? What’s that? Yeah, I almost went to the reason gig you guys had here downtown with Nick, and met you and the fellow Ess Eff resonoids, but got back from camping and had to deal with the kids. Look up Cassidy and you will find the libertarian locksmith. Would love to help you out if you ever needed it.

    1. Next time I need it, you get the call. Thx.

  52. I actually had a bit of a moral quandary over that particular job. The fact that a number of armed and armored agents of the state were counting on me to bang down a door was not easy on my conscience. But ultimately dude was refusing to pay his bills and someone I liked was paying me well to do it.

  53. Basically just about everyone I tell that our masters are debating prohibiting we common nothings from, if we choose to do so for any reason, owning or sporting bullet resistant garments is taken aback for a moment. Of course, after that brief moment the sheeple region of their brains kick in and they admit they can see why it would be prohibited due to the fact “police won’t be able to kill people doing bad things.”

    All the evidence presently points to the reality that the biggest threat to us is our own general idiocy coupled with the drive to comply.

    1. …coupled with the drive to comply.

      This is relatively new. When I was in HS and college we laughed at and ridiculed those that tried to control us. If someone told us we had some obligation to comply, we’d take great pleasure in doing exactly the opposite. Not sure when and why this changed?

      1. I couldn’t say exactly when it changed, but it did change. Where we made a firm statement of non-compliance, today’s humizens, not so much so.

  54. And the issue that finally shows that giving John the benefit of the doubt is pointless. A headshot ends all his fears about armor and the governemnt has no business banning anything that doesn’t impose on the rights of others

    1. Maybe if we could DE-INVENT body armor, yah? Maybe then it wouldn’t matter?

      John EXPRESSLY wants cops (fuck the criminal aspect of his “argument”) to have access to equipment that citizens are forbidden to own.

      THAT. IS. WRONG. PERIOD.

      Swear to God, I almost think it was a sockpuppet. Didn’t think John could be that fucking retarded. Maybe he was on something… absolutely fucking retarded “argument”…

  55. It’s interesting that this comes from the people who claim that NRA members have no regard for human life.

  56. my neighbor’s ex-wife makes $62 every hour on the computer . She has been out of work for five months but last month her paycheck was $18411 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this site……..
    ?????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

  57. Bet Rep. Mike Honda has investments in or contributors from body armor manufactures because he is promoting the hell out of body armor. Cause now people concerned this stupid bill could pass are running out to buy body armor.

  58. Hello! I loved this article. People usually associate bulletproof vests or body armor in general to the police. In reality, anyone can own one if they want to. Even though they are not cheap, i’ve seen a lot of companies that offer great prices and even discounts. The one I recommend is gorillaarmor.com, which has a big selection of bulletproof vests. They are not only high quality vests, but they are also at reasonable prices. If anyone is interested you should check their website, and if anyone wants a promo code you can email me at bodyarmorgville@gmail.com.

    Thank you,
    Keep it up!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.