Should body armor be regulated?
August 30, 2014 at 11:04 am
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2014 at 11:05 am by Endo.)
HR 5344 is a recently introduced bill that attempts to prohibit civilian possession of body armor that is Level III or higher.
From Wikipedia:
"Type 3: Conditioned armor protects against 9.6 g (148 gr) 7.62×51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA]."
For those of you that aren't quite up on your firearms specs, 7.62X51mm is also commonly referred to as .308. .308 is some serious firepower, and is used commonly in hunting rifles and occasionally in "sporting rifles".
So, I know the rough position of this (pretty Liberal) group on guns, but what is your position on body armor? Do you think that a civilian has a "legitimate reason" to wear armor that can stop high-caliber rifle ammo?
Edit: Well, this is one way to make a loaded 150th post, eh?
From Wikipedia:
"Type 3: Conditioned armor protects against 9.6 g (148 gr) 7.62×51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA]."
For those of you that aren't quite up on your firearms specs, 7.62X51mm is also commonly referred to as .308. .308 is some serious firepower, and is used commonly in hunting rifles and occasionally in "sporting rifles".
So, I know the rough position of this (pretty Liberal) group on guns, but what is your position on body armor? Do you think that a civilian has a "legitimate reason" to wear armor that can stop high-caliber rifle ammo?
Edit: Well, this is one way to make a loaded 150th post, eh?
