p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #454545}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #454545; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 2.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px Helvetica; color: #454545}

Is there such a thing as Overprotection?

When considering how precious and delicate life can be,
one is often confronted with questions like, do I feel safe?
Am I being prepared? Is there such a thing as
"too prepared?"

The most common conclusions tends to be that
no matter how protected you are, you are not bulletproof.
And nowhere less is that the case than in states like
Connecticut, where state laws have been passed that
directly confront the second amendment. These laws
severely criminalize the buying and selling of protective
body armor by any means that is not a person-to-person
transactions. As a direct consequence, Public Act 98-127
not only restricts civiliansaccess of life-saving protection
but also directly affects law enforcement and military
personnel, who depend on catalog or online bulk
transactions, from acquiring an indispensable part of their
gear. W hy does that matter in Florida, or any other of the
49 states, you may ask. With New York following
Connecticut's footsteps and queuing up a few body armor
restrictions this year the picture could not be clearer since
some other anti-gun states are expected to jump on the
bandwagon against self-protection for all the wrong
reasons. The main drive behind these attempts to forcefully
restrict the American people of their constitution given
right is the general disarming of America with school
shootings bearing the burden of being the excuse.

"The people intent on committing these
atrocities outfit themselves with the macabre
tools of their trade ... and the defensive gear
to ensure they do the most damage," says
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the
Violence Policy Center. A D.C.-based gun
control research organization.

Although Mr. Sugarmann attempts to make a solid point about how the use of protective gear can, in some
situations, hinder police's attempts at controlling a situation
since the criminal can be better protected against police
force. To stop the main concern, criminals being better
protected from law enforcement, some states have made it
illegal for a person with a criminal record ranging from a
simple misdemeanor to anyone that has been incarcerated
from ever attempting to own any type of body armor or
weapon. While this might put a dent in most former
criminals attempts at acquiring protection there are still a
wide variety of known ways you can acquire bulletproof
protection illegal through the internet. So are these laws
really helping the public (which should be their sole
intention) or are they inadvertently just making it harder for
the common law-abiding citizen American to take their
safety into their own hands.

Should these restrictions continue to spread across
the states we could inevitably find ourselves at a point
where choosing protection based on your personal needs
will be a thing of the past and only an option for certain law
officers and active military personnel; confining citizens to
a very limited and compromising number of options for
self-preservation. In a country built on the foundation of
freedom, having limited options for protections seems to
directly interfere with that fundamental right. So does body
armor hurt people? Of course not, their invention came
from the need to preserve life and minimize injuries. And
taking into account that police scanners, radar detectors and
night vision binoculars are still 100% legal, we can only
ask ourselves; Are we focusing on the problem at hand? Or
just demonizing an important life-preserving tool in order
to feel a little

Use the Promo Code
for $25
off any Vest.