There Is No 2nd Amendment for Body Armor

From Slate comes this observation:

 

[Holmes] wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.

O.K.

So will the political left and the political right now come together to ban the public acquisition of ballistic vests, helmets, face shields, leggings, etc.?

One can argue as to whether there is a right to an AR-15, and whether there is a public use for an AR-15, but clearly, the only purpose of a citizen owning a ballistic vest, leggings, and face shield is to make it easy to do public mayhem with impunity. As Slate notes:

Essentially, Holmes has called the NRA’s bluff. It may be true that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But the best way to stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with body armor. And judging from Holmes' vest receipt, he wasn't even buying the serious stuff.

. .