Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Policy & Issues

Illinois Democrat congressional candidate wants to ban body armor

See also

Two Illinois Democrats who hope to replace U.S. Representative Randy Hultgren (R), whose record on gun rights is reasonably good, to represent Illinois' 14th Congressional District (located west of Chicago), offer gun owners two distinct options--openly, rabidly anti-gun, and slightly less openly, rabidly anti-gun. We'll start with our slightly less virulent candidate.

John Hosta, according to the Daily Herald, is the "more conservative" candidate, who told the Herald's editorial board that he was "pro-gun." How "pro-gun" is he? Let's see:

"I don't want to see a lot of legislation against handguns and guns," Hosta said. "I do believe in the Second Amendment. That right should not be infringed upon, but I do believe those guns should be made in this country. You have to have legislation to encourage that."

So what kind of legislation would "encourage" a lack of foreign-made firearms? Import bans? Punitive tariffs? Oh, yeah--this guy is "pro-gun," alright. But he's not done:

I know that a lot of people are very nervous about assault weapons. I want to make sure that the people who have these types of weapons are sportsmen. I do think those people should be given that right.

Well, a lot of ignorant, chronically fearful people are "very nervous" about them. Are our rights trumped by their irrational fears? And what in the world does he mean by wanting "to make sure that the people who own ['assault weapons'] are sportsmen"? What do we have to do--throw an 85-mile-an-hour fastball? Run a five-second 40-yard dash? Um . . . no. And people "should be given" the right to own effective fighting arms? And he of course supports "universal background checks."

And remember--this is the "pro-gun" choice. Now get a load of the other guy.

Dennis Anderson disagrees with Hosta about whether or not "assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and body armor are rights guaranteed by the Constitution."

"I'm not sure why people need body armor unless they are planning something untoward," Anderson said. "And I'm not sure why an individual citizen would require a .50-caliber rifle. They may be fun to shoot, but I think that can be accommodated in ways other than private ownership."

People don't "need body armor unless they are planning something untoward"? Is surviving a shooting "untoward," then? And just how would this "accommodation" work, Dennis? Will the military just lend us their .50 caliber rifles when we want to have "fun" with them?

If Anderson wins the primary, and then the general election, he will join Democrat Senator Dick Durbin (assuming Durbin also wins in November) as at least the second Illinois congressman to go on record supporting a body armor ban.

As contemptible as the people are who push laws restricting who can own a firearm, what kind of firearm it is, where it can be taken, how much ammunition it can hold, etc., those who would ban purely defensive measures like body armor, who would demand that we the people be perforated by every bullet that comes our way, occupy a level of loathsomeness all their own.

See also:

  • U.K. disarmament groups are also 'anti-body armor'
  • 'Cop-killer' bullets, body armor, and state-mandated defenselessness
  • Combating the scourge of . . . bullet resistance?
  • California police demand helpless targets
  • California 'authorities' continue to push for body armor ban
  • Federal court upholds felon body armor ban
  • When evil is armored: Armor-piercing ammo bans kill
  • If ammo needs a 'sporting purpose,' slaying aspiring tyrants must be a 'sport'
  • Parents buying body armor for children, Sen. Durbin wants that outlawed
  • 'Walking while armored (and black)' apparently grounds for suspicion in New York
Advertisement