Parents buying body armor for children, Sen. Durbin wants that outlawed

Whose side is Durbin on, any way? Just what kind of deranged mind opposes a parent’s decision to buy protective gear for their kids? I don’t believe I would buy body armor for my kids but what’s wrong with it?



From The Examiner:

Firms selling bullet-proof children’s gear – including Disney Princess and Avengers backpacks lined with Kevlar-type sheeting – are reporting a massive surge in sales in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Salt Lake City-based Amendment II is among several firms being accused of callously cashing-in on the tragedy [an odd accusation, given the fact that these firms have been marketing this gear since long before the Sandy Hook rampage] in which 26 people were gunned down including 23 children [sic].

The firm is currently promoting a range of $300 bulletproof backpacks, alongside body armour in children’s sizes, and say they have sold as many in a week as they usually sell in three months.”

Durbin’s response?

I want to protect their right to hunt, for sporting purposes use guns, to even have guns in self defense, but that doesn’t include high capacity ammo clips, military assault weapons and body armor…for goodness sakes that is way beyond any second amendment right.

Durbin said average citizens don’t need access to the kind of military-style equipment used by the gunman in Newtown, CT.

“I’m told that he was wearing body armor at the time [perhaps true, perhaps not–some rumors suggest that just like the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter (also initially reported as wearing armor), he was merely wearing a “tactical vest,” with lots of pockets for magazines, but no bullet resistant properties]. A question I have to ask: Why in the world does anyone need to buy body armor? I can see where the military would. I can see where the police would,” Durbin said.

“But when an average citizen buys body armor, you think, what kind of things are you protecting yourself against here?”

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Parents buying body armor for children, Sen. Durbin wants that outlawed

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    “I can see where the police would,” Durbin said. “But when an average citizen buys body armor, you think, what kind of things are you protecting yourself against here?””

    Sure. Police need to be protected when they are shot at. When civilians are shot at, however, they have a duty to just take the round and die in place. Police have a right to live and protect their own lives. You don’t.

    Durbin, you are a fucking idiot. I don’t know what else to say. I have outrage fatigue.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    By the way…

    Newtown shooter Adam Lanza was not wearing body armor during massacre

    Adam Lanza went into the Sandy Hook Elementary School wearing a utility vest, not a bullet proof vest, state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said Thursday.

    “It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets; it was not a bullet-proof vest,” Vance said.

    On Dec. 14, Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, then went to the Newtown school, where he opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults.

  3. sortahwitte says:

    Does “dick” have a bodyguard?
    Did or does “dick’s” kids or grandkids go to a private school?
    Does “dick” have a grip on reality?
    Does “dick” think armor has a removable clip?

    I wouldn’t suit up one of mine in body armor. If the neighborhood or school demanded it, I would have moved last summer. To a farm down the road from RD or Nota.

  4. Uke says:

    This has to be some kind of leftist disease. They can’t seem to grasp the concept of causation.

    If we apply his twisted logic, then:
    -rain causes clouds
    -flowers blooming causes the sun to shine
    -babies make people have sex
    -urinating makes me drink more beer
    -the sun orbits the earth
    -guns influence the user to commit murder

    It’s all so primitive, in a way. Like the caveman that thought the birds flying south brought on the winter cold, or something.

    Wait a second… is it really as simple as that? Can ALL leftist thought simply be summed up by simply understanding it’s all backwards?

  5. notamobster says:

    Yeah, I’m not putting my kids in body armor. 🙂

    I’m not getting them level IIIA bullet resistant inserts for the backpacks which they leave in their lockers, either. If the risk were that great for this type of attack, I would simply begin homeschooling.

    While I find it to be a stupid, knee-jerk reaction, I wholly support their right to own defensive/protective equipment.

  6. R.D. Walker says:

    I’m not putting my kid in body armor either. The point is that it should be my choice.

  7. Rockheim says:

    I can think of any number of civilian occupations that could benefit from Body armor, mine, the lowly field engineer, included. All of it location and time dependent. But that’s not a “one size fits all” argument. And unless EVERY person needs it.. then NO ONE does.

  8. R.D. Walker says:

    Durbin, no doubt, is a proponent of mandatory helmet laws.

    Seriously, guys, I have dumb ass fatigue. These people exhaust me.

  9. Matt says:

    So selling body armor is “callously cashing-in” on Sandy Hook? Where is the outrage against Raytheon for cashing in our collective desire to protect the homeland? Or Ernst & Young for cashing in on Sarbanes-Oxley? Or those money-grubbing farmers for cashing in on my desire to eat?

  10. BigJimTX says:

    I graduated from college recently and if the level 3 inserts for backpacks would have been available, I’d have gotten one. Instead, I had to settle on a less acceptable option (but way more effective) for self defense.

    I can’t wait for the day we march these sumbitches out into the streets.

  11. PhoneGuy says:

    Career politicians benefiting from uninformed voters or simply those that vote for the “lesser of two evils”. Sooner of later they believe that their opinions no matter how idiotic should be the law of the land.