Skip to comments.
California Dem moves to outlaw some civilian body armor
Hot Air ^
| August 30, 2014
| Jazz Shaw
Posted on 08/30/2014 2:39:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Does he want us to tattoo little targets on the best places to hit us.
It's like Mason said to Dixon, "You gotta' draw the line somewhere".
To: Lazamataz
“Look. Its time. Mexico wants California. Let them have it.”
Why? Look at our history. We can dust off the 1867 Reconstruction Act. Reconstruction allows us to send in a military governor to take over California. The military governor has the congressional power to fire the governor, the California state legislature and ban the California congressional delegation from taking their seats in Congress.
We gotta think outa the box and use legal tools that have proven effective in the past.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
***Were talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions. ***
Time to dig up my stash of black tipped ammo.
23
posted on
08/30/2014 4:04:45 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(SOUL BROTHER! This house is not armed! (Signs people thought would protect them in the 1960s))
To: 2ndDivisionVet
24
posted on
08/30/2014 4:10:05 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(SOUL BROTHER! This house is not armed! (Signs people thought would protect them in the 1960s))
To: 2ndDivisionVet
25
posted on
08/30/2014 4:14:27 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(SOUL BROTHER! This house is not armed! (Signs people thought would protect them in the 1960s))
To: BunnySlippers
That was 30 years ago or so. LAPD has been “up gunned” since that mess.
26
posted on
08/30/2014 4:19:13 PM PDT
by
TaMoDee
(Go Pack Go! The Pack will be back in 2014!)
To: Ajnin
After Newtown, the ahole sheriff of poverty-stricken Washington County, Maine, equated the citizen ownership of semi-automatic rifles to citizens owning nukes.
27
posted on
08/30/2014 4:27:13 PM PDT
by
july4thfreedomfoundation
(Politicians and diapers must be changed often for the same reason)
To: Lazamataz
I would like a law that prohibited politicians from having locks on their doors.
28
posted on
08/30/2014 4:43:54 PM PDT
by
MtnClimber
(Just doing laps around the sun and shaking my head that progressives can believe what they do!)
To: TaMoDee
It wasn’t thirty years ago.
29
posted on
08/30/2014 4:45:45 PM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: TaMoDee
Not true.
First, it was February 1997, 17 years ago ... not close to 30.
And we just recently had another incident.
30
posted on
08/30/2014 4:48:31 PM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: BunnySlippers
The police should be able to protect themselves from criminals. I won't argue that point.
But the topic is whether law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves.
Do you have a problem with that? Do you want to take body armor away? I mean, if protection is such an important concept ...
31
posted on
08/30/2014 4:50:16 PM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
("Harvey Dent, can we trust him?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsdV--kLoQ)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
If body armor are outlawed, only outlaws will have body armor.
32
posted on
08/30/2014 4:52:48 PM PDT
by
ExCTCitizen
(I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
To: ClearCase_guy
No, I do not want to take body armor away.
33
posted on
08/30/2014 4:52:58 PM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: MtnClimber
Why do politicians have doors to begin with? What are they hiding? Besides, cops can always be called if someone walks through the archway.
34
posted on
08/30/2014 5:12:23 PM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
COME AND TAKE IT!
35
posted on
08/30/2014 5:27:42 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(SOUL BROTHER! This house is not armed! (Signs people thought would protect them in the 1960s))
To: chulaivn66
'assuming Honda can even get it to a vote"
California allows AUTOMOBILES to vote? :-)
36
posted on
08/30/2014 6:04:43 PM PDT
by
ExCTCitizen
(I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
To: BunnySlippers
Time goes by too fast! (I watched it on TV!)
37
posted on
08/30/2014 6:17:08 PM PDT
by
TaMoDee
(Go Pack Go! The Pack will be back in 2014!)
To: BunnySlippers
I don’t have a problem with the police protecting them selves from the bad guys, but don’t I have the same right to protect myself?
38
posted on
08/30/2014 6:17:45 PM PDT
by
5th MEB
(Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
To: BunnySlippers
Oh; just to remind you of the facts, California has had only one incident of this type of fire fight in it’s history, the Hollywood shoot out.
39
posted on
08/30/2014 6:20:20 PM PDT
by
5th MEB
(Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
To: Repeal The 17th
I can not think of any reason why law enforcement should be allowed to have any equipment that is forbidden to a regular citizen. So they don't have any trouble murdering you when they want to?
40
posted on
08/30/2014 6:22:29 PM PDT
by
kiryandil
(making the jests that some FReepers aren't allowed to...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson