Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce body armor bill

[blues]

There is hope. At the old NTI, I was in a squad one year that consisted of 4 Jewish behavioral science PhDs. Folks like Killer Mike on the Bill Maher show made the clear case for guns in populations outside of that usually associated with firearms. You seem some rabbis speaking to the need after recent tragedies. Chuck would serve us well to realize that passivity is a failed mantra.

My cousin's father was on one of the trains like this one used by the French rail system to transport the doomed...that's all the reminder I ever need. He was rounded up by French police after being reported, having come out of hiding to visit his wife and two young sons. (One of whom later made a career in the U.S. Army like his future American step-father.)

[Guerrero]

You know. It has to be considered....if someone doesn’t want you to wear body armor, it may be because they plan to try and shoot at you someday.

Unliked, just so I could like it again.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My mother told me that we had cousins in Austria. My family wrote them to get out. They said they were safe as they acculturated into society. Then they wrote that things were getting bad but they will stick it out. Then, they wrote for help to get out. That was last communication ever.

My mother had a job and her boss liked to listen to the American Nazi sympathizer, Father Coughlin (here's a quote - "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."). When her boss told the office that he supported such, my mother had a righteous incident of outrage and quit.

During the Depression, she had to lie on a job application to say she was a Christian to get a job at a bank. Those were the good old days. Of course, now the King of Jews will protect us. Or maybe Chuck Schumer.

[JRB]

Nope. False analogy.

Basic firearms technology (obviously it was less refined than it is today) existed at the time and is part and parcel of the framer's intentions (for the Second Amendment). Lasers, flashlights, computers and their programming (malware, etc.), and night-vision technology, are not part of the same technology (that is, they are not firearms; devices that actually launch projectiles) and were not conceived of by the framers. As such, these things could never be part of their original intent in writing the Second Amendment.

Same goes for the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The technology that we use to communicate with is not the focus of the First Amendment, but rather the rights enumerated within 1A. If someone runs afoul of that (by prohibiting free speech where it is generally protected based upon only the device that is being used), the right to free speech still applies as it exists independently of the medium of communication.

If it's covered by ITAR, it is an implement of war and thereby falls into the general usage of 'Arms' in the 17th-18th Century which covered all mateirel and the equipment necessary to effectively wage war. 'Bearing arms' was preparing for conflict, which isn't just a rifle with some ammo - it's all of the common contemporary equipment found in making war.

Armor was (obviously) a clearly understood and developed concept by the 18th century, but the technology involved clearly didn't catch up with firearms until the 20th century. So blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc would all be covered by the 2A. Thus, their contemporary equivalents would be covered too.

The revolutionary war saw night fighting, nighttime recon, and stealthy attacks on vulnerable enemy personnel and equipment. Pretty easy to justify that the founders would have sought to defend contemporary equipment for such actions in their definition of 'arms' which would include supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods same as the 1A applies to the internet. To suggest that the Founders would have included firearms in the 2A, but would have excluded military equipment that would have been outstandingly effective in their own war against the British occupation is fairly ridiculous, in my opinion.

[Totem Polar]

Getting back to bullet-resistant armor for a sec, fact-check me on this line of thinking, if you would:

For joe and jane q civvy, in typical America, It seems to me that having a shield around might make more sense than a vest. Unless my lifestyle changes in profound ways, I’m probably not going to work with a IIIA vest under my $12 gap T-shirt any time soon. So I’m really looking at emergent situations around the house, and it seems like a TRR-8 with WML, and a big shield like these

https://bulletsafe.com/collections/b...etproof-shield

might make more sense for myself and Mrs Sidheshooter. Am I missing anything in my reasoning?

[blues]

Damn you fuckers make the future look bleak...


ETA: I should talk...

[Totem Polar]

Damn you fuckers make the future look bleak...


ETA: I should talk...

The hordes will come to eat the free-range Americans first, brother. Leaner meat.

[blues]

The hordes will come to eat the free-range Americans first, brother. Leaner meat.

[DMF13]

Since 2002, it has been illegal under federal law for convicted felons to possess body armor of any sort.

That is not true, and the folks at guns.com should check the facts before spouting off about the law.

Only felons convicted of violent crimes, as defined in 18USC16, are prohibited from possessing body armor. Even then there is a specific exception of the armor is needed for lawful employment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931

[the Schwartz]

If it's covered by ITAR, it is an implement of war and thereby falls into the general usage of 'Arms' in the 17th-18th Century which covered all mateirel and the equipment necessary to effectively wage war. 'Bearing arms' was preparing for conflict, which isn't just a rifle with some ammo - it's all of the common contemporary equipment found in making war.

Armor was (obviously) a clearly understood and developed concept by the 18th century, but the technology involved clearly didn't catch up with firearms until the 20th century. So blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc would all be covered by the 2A. Thus, their contemporary equivalents would be covered too.

The revolutionary war saw night fighting, nighttime recon, and stealthy attacks on vulnerable enemy personnel and equipment. Pretty easy to justify that the founders would have sought to defend contemporary equipment for such actions in their definition of 'arms' which would include supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods same as the 1A applies to the internet. To suggest that the Founders would have included firearms in the 2A, but would have excluded military equipment that would have been outstandingly effective in their own war against the British occupation is fairly ridiculous, in my opinion.

Easy to justify? Perhaps. However that does not mean that it'll be a "slam dunk". In any event, the present interpretation of the 2A is pretty damned narrow. Good luck getting anything other than what can be shown demonstrably to be a "firearm" covered/incorporated under the 2A.

While the technology that you mentioned first (blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc.) did indeed exist the state of its advancement (a point that I made) is not the issue. That it existed is the point. As for the other technology you mentioned (supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods), the technology was non-existent and there is no way that the framers knew of, or more importantly, anticipated its emergence. Assumptions that the framers might have extended the meaning of "arms" to the 2A for accessories (like NVGs, etc.) not presently in existence at that time is also equally faulty.