PDA

View Full Version : ROFL Brady Center now wants to regulate Body Armor. Yeah, you read that right...


sb_pete
05-11-2009, 11:09 PM
Sorry if this is a dupe from somewhere but it was just too derned funny.

In another mind-boggling oh-my-god-the-irony move, Daniel Vice, "Senior attorney" of the Brady Center has now come on record to state that since guns are dangerous, we should regulate body armor, because protecting yourself from guns means you could use more guns. Wait, sorry, my head just exploded :rolleyes:

With no further ado, here is the article in Parade Magazine (http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/why-criminals-are-buying-body-armor.html). They even have a poll with the readers over at that rag baa-Aaa-Aaa-Aaa-ing in to the tune of 80% clamoring for regulation of body armor sales as of this posting. Credit where credit is due, this brought to us by the blog A Keyboard and a .45 (http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2009/05/body-armor-poll.html)

Why Criminals Are Buying Body Armor
In April, 16 people, including three police officers, were murdered in separate incidents in Binghamton, N.Y., and Pittsburgh. In both cases, the killers wore bulletproof vests. Federal law bans violent felons from owning body armor, and many jurisdictions have laws that criminalize its use in the commission of crimes. But while there are no hard numbers on how often criminals employ body armor, police increasingly find themselves facing down commando-style killers.

"There are no background checks, no federal regulations unless you are a violent offender—a nd even then you can buy them at gun shows or online," says Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence.

"Why do you need it if you're not going to commit a crime?" asks New York State Assemblyman David Koon, the sponsor of legislation to restrict the sale of body armor.

Nick Taylor, manager of a store that sells bulletproof vests online, says body armor provides potentially lifesaving protection for civilians—everyone from judges to journalists.

— J. Scott Orr

lioneaglegriffin
05-12-2009, 12:22 AM
i liked how the managed to still make gunshows the devil's circus even when it comes to body armor.

Maestro Pistolero
05-12-2009, 12:41 AM
Helmke: "We want to prevent firearms deaths. No more body armor for anyone!"

CnCFunFactory
05-12-2009, 12:44 AM
It never ends....

cousinkix1953
05-12-2009, 1:14 AM
ROFLMAO...

KWA-S
05-12-2009, 1:46 AM
Why can't the Brady's just move to England or something? Everyone would be much happier. (Well, maybe the Brady's will miss whining after they ban fists)

thefinger
05-12-2009, 1:49 AM
In another mind-boggling oh-my-god-the-irony move, Daniel Vice, "Senior attorney" of the Brady Center has now come on record to state that since guns are dangerous, we should regulate body armor, because protecting yourself from guns means you could use more guns. Wait, sorry, my head just exploded :rolleyes:


This post is an epic win. good show.

nick
05-12-2009, 1:52 AM
Well, you have to give it to them, they're consistent in their fight against self-defense :)

nick
05-12-2009, 1:53 AM
Why can't the Brady's just move to England or something? Everyone would be much happier. (Well, maybe the Brady's will miss whining after they ban fists)

She can't, she won't be able to have her guns there :)

xxG3xx
05-12-2009, 6:00 AM
but body armor doesn't even work with all of those cop killing bullets on the market today:rolleyes:

RomanDad
05-12-2009, 6:02 AM
These people are pathological.

Pvt. Cowboy
05-12-2009, 9:52 AM
That body armor selling guy at the Cow Palace & Big Reno Show is probably doing cartwheels of joy right now.

$1 says that he's already laminated the Brady Campaign's webpage and placed it next to his autographed photo of Dianne Feinswine on his show table.

spyderco monkey
05-12-2009, 9:58 AM
Sounds like the Brady's are making a bulletproof argument not to ban the 5-7 lol.

Next time the whole "armor piercing" scare tactic is used, we should refer to this article :rolleyes:

Untamed1972
05-12-2009, 10:09 AM
""Why do you need it if you're not going to commit a crime?" asks New York State Assemblyman David Koon, the sponsor of legislation to restrict the sale of body armor."

uhhhh.....maybe to protect one's body from the bullets of criminal or crazy nut job who walks into an immigration office and starts shooting people, blah, blah, blah......what an idiot!

domokun
05-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Semi-Dupe!

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=182973

God Bless The Mauser
05-12-2009, 10:37 AM
So to protect ourselves from gunfire we need to ban body armor which is designed to protect us from gunfire, now that's using your brain.:nuts:

Legasat
05-12-2009, 10:38 AM
What would you expect from a pig but a grunt?

CCWFacts
05-12-2009, 10:45 AM
Why don't they just install "heart plugs" in all of us, as Baron Harkonnen did in Dune?

madmike
05-12-2009, 12:15 PM
Ow my sides! Stop, you're killing me!!!!:smilielol5:

N6ATF
05-12-2009, 1:23 PM
Semi-Dupe!

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=182973

Seconded.

dexter9659
05-12-2009, 5:45 PM
LOL let ban the one thing that can stop the "evil" of guns. Brady gets a body armor ban EPIC FAIL!

Liberty1
05-12-2009, 5:48 PM
has the "run" on body armor started yet I just bought stock in "2nd Chance" :D

Kid Stanislaus
05-12-2009, 9:12 PM
Hey, if its "for the children" I'm behind it 100%! (YUK, YUK!!)

sb_pete
05-12-2009, 9:57 PM
Semi-Dupe!

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=182973

Fair enough, you got me. Still, this idiocy is ironic enough for two threads I guess :shrug:

MP301
05-13-2009, 12:03 AM
Semi-Dupe!

:dupe:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=182973

Now, did the need to post the "DUPE" message accomplish anything? Its not a dupe for me or anyone else that has not read it, NOW IS IT? You know what, I think you should be banned from using the dupe icon buddy! Thats it, now we must have "DUPE" control! Hey Brady bunch, you wanna wiegh in on this?

MP301
05-13-2009, 12:06 AM
What would you expect from a pig but a grunt?

Ah.....What?

MP301
05-13-2009, 12:07 AM
Seconded.

Tou too pal! I just got off the phone with the Brady Bunch...there comin for you...

6172crew
05-13-2009, 4:44 AM
If it's a dupe then we can merge the 2, no need to get fired up over it.

No cutting and pasting with me iPhone so I can't do it right now.

mofugly13
05-13-2009, 4:53 AM
I'm against house fires and drowning, so I should start a movement to ban fire extinguishers and life vests.

spyderco monkey
05-13-2009, 6:40 AM
I'm against house fires and drowning, so I should start a movement to ban fire extinguishers and life vests.

That's funny, will remember that :thumbsup:

vandal
05-13-2009, 9:24 AM
If you have no body armor then you will want guns banned and you'll need the Bradys.

derwiking
05-13-2009, 10:14 AM
This never ceases to surprise me. You now, it is as if these folks spat out double speak concearning these issues, they want to attempt to make society safer yet end up always making it more dangerous. God forbid some one in their family falls victim to a violent crime involving firearms. Might they then wish they had easy access to armor. I know I would feel that way. Just another erosion of property rights.

TwitchALot
05-13-2009, 10:27 AM
But while there are no hard numbers on how often criminals employ body armor, police increasingly find themselves facing down commando-style killers.

Heh.

nicki
05-13-2009, 10:36 AM
Well, if criminals are wearing body armor, I guess I need to spend alot more time at the range so that I can consistently hit head shots.:43:

Now, the question is how many criminals does body armor allow criminals to kill or injure versus how many people are saved by wearing body armor.

The good thing for us though is this could be a public relations disaster for the brady bunch if we were smart.

How many store clerks may wear body armor in high crime neighborhoods, how about cab drivers in urban areas?

Nicki

Psy Crow
05-13-2009, 2:15 PM
Why do you need it if you're not going to commit a crime?" asks New York State Assemblyman David Koon, the sponsor of legislation to restrict the sale of body armor.

Nice straw man ya got there Mr. Koon.

These arguments are always made on the false premise of NEED.

Who gave Mr. Koon the authority to decide what his constituents NEED?

IMO they NEED to unelect Mr. Koon.

sb_pete
05-13-2009, 5:00 PM
Well, if criminals are wearing body armor, I guess I need to spend alot more time at the range so that I can consistently hit head shots.:43:

Now, the question is how many criminals does body armor allow criminals to kill or injure versus how many people are saved by wearing body armor.

The good thing for us though is this could be a public relations disaster for the brady bunch if we were smart.

How many store clerks may wear body armor in high crime neighborhoods, how about cab drivers in urban areas?

Nicki

Hell, if you wanna really have fun with it, how about this one:

Gang bangers and other such criminals need access to body armor because in the dangerous neighborhoods in which they live, they are exposed to elevated dangers from "gun violence." "Even if they aren't commiting a crime, by the nature of who they are, they are the targets of often random violence stemming from other criminals," said officer Toolshed of the Bleeding Heart Township Sheriff's Dept. After all isn't the loss of any life, even a known criminal's life, one life too many? [queue crying minority mother stock footage]
:rolleyes:

Sam
05-13-2009, 5:10 PM
These people just keep raising the bar.

sb_pete
05-13-2009, 7:27 PM
You know where the "Brady" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady) in Brady Center comes from right? This is about a brain-damaged ex-government official and his doting wife trying to exact revenge on the public for their loss, which they unfortunately blame on a handgun. Neither of them had any interest in gun control before he was shot. It's a sad story but unfortunately their emotional and mental problems prevent them from contemplating the issue logically.

An irrational and uneducated reaction to a personal event seems to be the common theme amongst most such activists and politicians.

Carolyn McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy) (of "the-shoulder-thing-that-goes-up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U)" fame) is reacting to the Colin Ferguson
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_(convict)) killings of which her husband was a victim.

Diane Feinstein is on record as having a CCW and carrying a .38 revolver out of fear for her life. Of course she did not do this for the logical reason of warding off or defeating the attackers she fears, but rather for the more fatalistic determination to "take em with her." She is on record as saying, "I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." Of course the logic of this escapes me. How she would do the same if her attackers had knives or other weapons and she did not have a gun is besides the point. The gun is still evil and dangerous. Or maybe she just knows she would still be able to get that ccw?

These people seem to be united only in two things. One - irrational fear of inanimate objects. Two - complete failure to understand the mechanics, history, or capabilities of those objects.

*sigh*