Only police will have them

All this fuss for 16 cases a year

(NaturalNews) Not only do congressional Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to own a firearm , they also want to extinguish all methods of protecting yourself from, even if it's the police doing the shooting.In case you missed it, a little more than a year ago Rep. Michael "Mike" Honda, D-Calif., introduced the inappropriately titled "Responsible Body Armor Possession Act," which, of course,personal possession of body armor because, you know, that's "responsible" (in the eyes of an authoritarian, maybe).A Congressional Research Service summary of the bill says:As reported by, the legislation caused some uproar when it was introduced in January 2015, but has since died down, and is now no longer top-of-mind for most people. But you can bet that the bill's sponsors and co-sponsors (there are six as of April 20) haven't forgotten about it.Asnotes, obviously the Act reverberates among gun-rights groups and Second Amendment supporters in the electorate, but it also goes to the heart of the issue of self-defense, as in,: When only police have guns and body armor, well, perhaps they won't need as much of the latter. But the point is, they don't, so why shouldn't citizens be allowed to have the added protection?You could also label this piece of legislation as the latest provision of a wider, "We Don't Want A Fair Fight In Case There Is A Rebellion Act," because that's what Honda and his fellow Stalin wannabes aregetting at. Lawmakers with this same kind of authoritarian mentality also want to ban guns outright, heap big taxes on guns and – in aappoint a new Supreme Court justice. And who would vote to reverse the high court's most important recent firearms decision – that the Second Amendment conveys anright to own guns, not a government-grantedright (think "militia").Now, as to the language of this legislation, it refers specifically to Level III body armor , which is designed to stop rifle rounds, primarily. Some Americans – maybe even most – would find this type of body armor cumbersome and even overkill (pardon the pun). But that really isn't the point, or shouldn't be:law-abiding citizensfind it useful, we are supposed to be living in "the land of the free," and there's that question about why Honda wants to strip Americans of this valuable protective gear, anyway.From a press release he put out at the time:But wait – aren't, primarily, the ones who are critical of "law enforcement" having too much military-grade equipment as it is? Wasn't that one of the arguments after police responded to rioting and raucous protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, among other cities?Then there is this: Just how may "active shooter situations" do police respond to in the U.S. that would necessitate this law? Well, according to the FBI in 2014 – in a nation of about 310 million people.No, this legislation, which we wanted to remind you of, is not aimed at anything other than depriving Americans of yet another way to protect themselves from bodily harm and abuse from the powers that be.