Does the right to keep and bear arms protect the right to keep and bear armor?

A better question would be, does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to regulate personal protective equipment like body armor? The answer is pretty clearly no.

The Constitution grants the federal government enumerated powers. It also goes out of its way to give specific examples of limitations on the Governments Power (Most of the bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment). Too many people confuse the fact that there is no enumerated restriction as meaning it is an authority the government can take. For example "The Constitution doesn't say the Government can't dictate what kind of light bulb I use, so I guess they can." This is wrong. The proper interpretation would be "The Constitution doesn't say the Federal Government can't dictate what kind of light bulb I use, and it does not say I am free to use whatever light bulb I want, so I guess that's up to the States to decide."

In short, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to limit what you purchase for personal protection. There could be an argument that the State's might be able to, depending if you consider body armor "Arms". Don't expect this to stop them though. If history is any judge, the government will due whatever it feels it can get away with, and we let them get away with a lot.

The question needs to be asked: Who does the government not want to have protection from being shot and killed?
Criminals? Because criminals would totally follow this law, only to break others. Right.
Terrorists? Because terrorists haven't figured out how to get the tools they need. Oh, and they have a death wish anyway.
Law-abiding citizens? Because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the people above?

Thought-provoking, when you consider it for a moment.

As an inalienable right to protect oneself, there should be no law against owning body armor. Also, there should not be a need for another law to protect yourself.

I have seen some of the post here on this subject. I think if you where prior service that the right to muster would fall on us before the civilian. If something happened, say invaded by (insert country) and if the Military couldn't stop the advance, like in the movie Red Dawn, then it would fall to the Vets to form the militia. Therefore needing of the gear that is mentioned in a couple of the posts. Plate carrier, rifle of choice, mags, mag pouches, plates, helmets and so on.

I presuppose that any legislation banning personally owned body-armor would be to prevent a would-be terrorist from being able to acquire body armor in order to resist counter attack from law enforcement's fire-arms. Most of us don't wear body armor in our daily lives (police excepted, of course). Those expecting to be shot might just want to buy a protective vest --before they need it. Unfortunately, this seems like a wild clash between the letter and the spirit of the law... where neither can be preserved.

What if that is the way I express myself, by wearing protective gear? There are those who use all sort of disgusting and tasteless body piercing ornaments, and no one has an issue with it. If I have the right to own an armored car, where is the difference on having an armored suit?

Wow! Maybe they should outlaw bicycle helmets next.

When I see proposed legislation like this two questions come to mind 1.) who proposed it (Rep. Michael Honda D-CA) and 2.) who has contributed to their campaign to allow them to have the ear of the Representative for them to propose such a bill. I did not dive too deep into Rep. Honda's campaign finance history to make an educated guess on the answer to number 2. I think more often than not "We the People" fail to realize who is "in bed" with our elected officials, and who has their ear. Yes on the campaign trail we are all schmoozed’ beyond belief, but has anyone ever tried to meet with their elected official once in office? There is no way every elected official can know everything there is to know about a proposed or recommendation for proposing a law and I do not expect them to. This is why there are committees and subcommittees, even then those on the committee often rely on their constituents, constituents within the professional field and in my opinion unfortunately lobbyists for their education into the subject for advice. With often the ones who provide money allowing to have the ear of the representative whether that lobbyist is a true representation of what their constituents view is or not. Last year I wrote a paper towards my associate degree for a state government class I took, in which the Professor lectured me because he said my paper was “graduate” level and if he received more papers like mine he would not be able to grade as many as he did, I did get an A+ on that paper so “graduate” level or not I will take it. What was interesting is I came across some research by Paul Waldman who wrote for the American Prospect using data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance database that contains 43 variables on 172 countries to find what limitations if any, 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) have on campaign finance. He used the nations of OECD as they are most similar to the United States, with the removal of Mexico and Portugal as candidates do not take individual contributions. While there are variables and loop holes in every country there is only one other country that limits campaign contributions but has no limit on spending, Finland. The remaining have a combination of spending and or contribution limits. This seems entirely backwards to me. For those who do not know lobbying is a system that entertains a legislature to the views and interests of the individuals and groups paying the bills of the lobbyists. So if legislature propose and vote on laws who are they truly listening to the constituent that wrote them an e-mail with their view, or the lobbyist who took them to dinner? This has worked when in Texas it was proposed that bicyclist when traveling as a pack had to travel single file, and that legislature heard it from his bicyclist constituents and the proposal was reversed. Has anyone ever tried to meet with their elected official in Washington D.C., it is next to impossible so much in fact there is a company in D.C. that has the sole mission of setting up constituents with their elected official with meeting. I wrote that to identify that “We the People” need to understand our elected officials better and understand what they are or not proposing and or supporting. After all they are the ones who can declare War, and I am sure I will be called out but 1942 was the last time a joint resolution stating that a state of war existed, despite our war on Terror. Isn’t politics fun and confusing? I am neither a Republican or Democrat what I am is an American. People came to America to avoid the persecution in their home country. Is the persecution of religion that much different than persecution from wanting to own a body armor, or a metal door? Body armor does not stop a bullet to the forehead, and a metal door doesn’t stop it from being blown of the hinges by C4. To quote Commissioner Jim Gordon In Batman, “We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds.” What I did not see and I’m sure I missed it, but is limiting the sale of body armor being tied to interstate commerce on the justification of why Congress can regulate it? My Final question is this.
If the Bill of Rights were to be written today without any knowledge of the current Bill of Rights and the current system of the Department of Defense, Justice Department and Police and Fire Departments has been established is Amendment II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed included in the Bill of Rights?

I don't think this is an issue necessarily related to the 2nd Amendment, at least from the "letter of the law" perspective. There is more of a point to be made if looking at the "spirit of the law." Regardless, I fail to see any reason why private citizens should be unable to purchase body armor.

Well, there goes the price of body armor!