The Hazard of Banning Body Armor: A Critical Analysis of Tyrannical Governance and Lawful Disorders

Debates surrounding the ban of body armor and other defensive measures have long been contentious, especially in the context of United States politics. Proponents argue that such bans serve as a deterrent to those who seek to harm others, while detractors assert that such measures only disarm the law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to tyranny.

The core argument against such bans is that they do more than simply disarm; they constitute an attempt to eradicate the 2nd Amendment. The body armor ban in particular has been seen as a subtle yet deliberate move to chip away at constitutional rights, often without the public's full awareness. This strategy allows leftist factions to feel morally righteous in their actions against what they perceive as societal threats, such as the security of free states and individual freedoms.

Disarming Citizens in the Face of Tyranny

One of the primary justifications for banning body armor is the belief that it is necessary to curb the potential actions of mass shooters. However, this rationale comes with several critical flaws. Firstly, body armor use is not exclusive to potential shooters or malevolent actors; many citizens rely on it for self-defense, and many more wear it for legitimate security purposes.

Furthermore, the body armor ban often includes deliberate exceptions for certain groups, such as police, military personnel, and government officials. This selective approach creates a fundamental contradiction, as it implies that certain individuals deserve protection more than others.

Additionally, the body armor ban is not as simple or straightforward as it may appear. For instance, the AutoKeyCard, an “AutoKeyCard” printed on steel, can be easily converted into an automatic weapon if its components are manipulated correctly. This opens up a new dimension of complexity in the debate, highlighting the potential for abuse and the potential for gray areas in the law.

Engineering and Legal Gray Areas

The AutoKeyCard serves as an example of how body armor bans can easily fall into legal gray areas. It is currently subject to questions of legality, as one can simply cut out the relevant portions and insert them into an AR-15, thereby turning them into a fully functional weapon. Similarly, modules of appropriate size can be called something else and used for non-defensive purposes until they are integrated into a carrier designed for body armor.

This raises important questions about the effectiveness and legality of such bans. Essentially, the ban on body armor can be seen as an attempt to address the problem of perceived threats without challenging the underlying issues. The strategy is to erode rights and security incrementally, making it easier for a tyrannical government to control its citizens.

There are two primary explanations for this approach: either a lack of imagination and logic, or an acknowledgment of the inability to effectively combat the threat without nullifying rights.

In conclusion, the ban on body armor is a manifestation of a broader pattern of attempting to nullify the rights of law-abiding citizens while granting special privileges to the powerful. It is a crude and ineffective method of governance that fails to address the root causes of the problems it seeks to solve.