Body Armor For The Police But Not For You!

Growing up in Texas, going hunting was a rite of passage for most young boys and became a way of socializing as we became adults as well as a way to stock our freezers with low-cost meat and sometimes even make money helping rid farmland of invasive species of wild pig. It is estimated that between 80-90 hunters are fatally shot during hunting season each year by rifle fire.

I bring this up because more and more hunters are turning to hard body armor as a way to lessen their chances of being accidentally killed while hunting on public land. Aside from the extra warmth of the armor, hard armor is the only type of body armor to stop rifle rounds. In fact, companies like EnGarde Body Armor out of the Netherlands have taken to making civilian hard armor. They have developed lighter, more comfortable and cost-effective armor for civilians.

Soft Armor

Most people are unfamiliar with the difference between hard armor and soft armor.

The main difference between hard body armor and soft body armor is the ability of stopping different types of ballistics. To keep it simple and without getting too technical, soft armor is intended to stop handgun fire while hard armor is intended to stop ballistics fired from rifles.

You can generally tell the difference when you look at the armor because soft armor is lighter and generally smaller. While hard armor is bulkier.

Hard Armor

The reason it is important to distinguish the difference between the two types of armor is because there has been new legislation introduced that would push to ban civilian ownership of hard body armor.

H.R 378 seeks to make it illegal for civilians to buy, own or possess hard body armor. They call it the responsible body armor possession act.

The audacity of the name alone made me literally laugh out loud at my desk. The reasoning that they are toting behind this tripe, is that it will help to make sure that police officers are protected from being involved in a firefight with an armored criminal.

It is this line of thinking that government continues to use to further restrict rights of the civilian to protect its own interests. Body armor is a defensive item; you can’t kill someone with body armor unless you take it off and beat them repeatedly until they die of bludgeoning. And let’s face it if you were to do that well then you aren’t using the product as intended anyways.

I know that to the average American the idea of hard body armor is best seen as having its place in action movies, on military soldiers and on swat or special police teams. It does not seem to have a place in civilian life, right?

Let me ask you this, what makes a police officer’s life more important than your own? There are perfectly legitimate uses for body armor for civilians that have nothing to do with criminal intent. Having family members and friends that are teachers, I worry about the gun free zones that have become targets to mass shooters who are seeking their fifteen minutes of fame and recognition.

If my sister is teaching and wishes to have a ballistic vest capable of protecting her against a rampage shooter, then why shouldn’t she? She is not a criminal; she is a civilian that works in a gun free zone that has recently had increased attention from rampage shooters.

What if an intruder enters your home, maybe even a no-knock raid on the wrong house? Having hard armor protection from rifle-wielding militarized police doesn’t seem like such a bad idea now does it?

How about if you want to exercise your right to protest and the police response is akin to what we saw in Ferguson? Protection from an ever-increasing aggressive police force seems like something I would personally like to have. Why do heavily armed police with mine-resistant vehicles need such heavy protection during protests but unarmed civilians do not?

If a hunter feels more warmth and security knowing they have a better degree of protection from rifle fire while they are out hunting, then why should they be deprived of the ability to own armor?

But more importantly why is legislation that stops law-abiding citizens from owning a defensive item that literally causes zero harm to another person, even being considered?

Fear mongering of what criminals might do is a tactic always being pushed to lessen the rights of law-abiding citizens. I know it may seem like radical thinking but bear with me here:

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

We already have many laws on the books that make it a felony or add years to a sentence if a criminal uses body armor in the commission of a crime. We do not need legislation depriving free citizens of the right to protect themselves or their loved ones.

Regardless if you personally would own or buy body armor, part of being in a free society means that you need to protect the rights of others to do what makes them feel safe, especially when they are not endangering or hurting others. The right to protect yourself is a fundamental right of all Americans. Some do it by reviewing safety ratings on their vehicles, some do it by investing in security systems and some do it by investing in protective clothing.

You can read the bill here.

By Emmanuel Goldstein – DontComply.com