I don’t see why. 
It’s never been a requirement in our glorious two party democratic system that a politician should understand anything he or she votes on, as long as they toe the party line. Which has more to with where allegiances lie and donations come from than anyone being informed about anything, or much caring. :evil:
Yes, ever since the early 90’s, I’ve wished for a relevant third party. The government seems to be getting too inflexible. There needs to be a lot more bi-partisanship to get things done. Maybe with a third party there would be more co-operation?
We’ve had various third parties here, of small but crucial numbers and usually in the upper (= our and your Senate federally) house which decides the ultimate fate of bills.
Sometimes they stand true to their principles, but on major issues they have too often sold out in one way or another which has disappointed or even alienated their supporters. Because, in the end, they’re all fucking politicians who would sell their mother for political advantage on an issue of sufficient importance to them.
And I might say I offer my cynical opinion on politicians after spending a couple of decades watching them come through the junior ranks of both major parties and achieving anything up to ministerial status. They all started out as corrupt cunts and none of them has changed, apart from having even less shame and fewer principles, and that was coming off a low base. And the women are often worse than the men, despite the feminist dogma that when women run the world all will be sweetness and light. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
In here there are almost 10 political parties, but the quality of those is still very low. :rolleyes:
I find it very comprimising that State laws have different views of federal laws when it comes to the right to bear arms…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-06-07-court-guns_N.htm
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — One year after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns, the justices have before them a new test of that right.
The National Rifle Association has appealed a ruling from a U.S. appeals court in Chicago that said the right to bear arms cannot be invoked by gun owners challenging state and local firearm regulations. It said the high court’s groundbreaking decision last term in a case from Washington, D.C., allows the Second Amendment to cover only regulations by the federal government — at least until the high court weighs in again.
If the justices decide to take up the appeal, it would probably be heard next fall by a bench that could include Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who is now on a federal appeals court in New York. She was part of a court panel in January that similarly held that the 2008 gun decision did not apply to state regulations.
A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco, however, ruled this year that the Second Amendment indeed covers state gun restrictions.
“Because of the split in opinions (on the breadth of the 2008 ruling), it seems likely that the court would take it,” says Daniel Vice, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He says a ruling could affect gun laws nationwide.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Ronald Reagan | National Rifle Association | Antonin Scalia | Sonia Sotomayor | Gun Owners of America | Frank H. Easterbrook
The June 2008 decision, decided by a 5-4 vote, said for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep handguns at home for self-protection. A 1939 high court decision had led lower courts and many legal analysts to believe the Second Amendment covered firearm rights only for state militias such as National Guard units.
The new decision in National Rifle Association v. Chicago by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, written by conservative Ronald Reagan appointee Frank Easterbrook, echoes the closely scrutinized decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. appeals court for the 2nd Circuit that included Sotomayor.
She joined an opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York ban on certain weapons used in martial arts and emphasized that the high court has never specifically ruled that the Second Amendment can be applied to state regulations. That 2nd Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, provoked some gun rights groups to protest Sotomayor’s nomination. The Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called her “an anti-gun radical.”
Last Tuesday’s decision by the 7th Circuit undercuts criticism that the Sotomayor panel decision was extreme. As Easterbrook wrote, specifically agreeing with the 2nd Circuit, the Supreme Court said in the 2008 case involving a District of Columbia handgun ban that it was not deciding whether the Second Amendment covered state or local regulations.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the high court decision, noted that the case arose from the federal enclave of Washington, D.C., and that past cases said the Second Amendment covers only the federal government. With a new case from a state or municipality, the court could extend the reach of the Second Amendment.
Until then, Easterbrook wrote in the case involving handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, an appeals court may not “strike off on its own.” He said that would undermine the uniformity of the nation’s laws.
The NRA’s Stephen Halbrook, representing Chicago and Oak Park residents who want to keep handguns at home, urged the justices to take up the 7th Circuit case to resolve the reach of last term’s ruling.
Halbrook said the right to guns “allows one to protect life itself.”
“You don’t take a gun to a snowball fight!”…unbievable!
“Among other evils that being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised.” Niccolo Machiavelli
More: An AZ woman shot a mugger 6 times and was put on trial. When the prosecutor asked her why she shot the guy 6 times she said “Because when I pulled the trigger the seventh time it only went click”.
More on expending all your ammunition.
After police shot a cop killer dead in Florida, hitting him with 68 of 110 rounds fired at him, the sheriff was asked by reporters why the man was shot 68 times. The sheriff replied “That’s all the bullets we had or we would have shot him more.” http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp
OK, the right to bear arms… But what about the right to bear bear?
A few years ago in Los Angeles, CA, a bunch of cops, armed with 9 mm handguns and shotguns, had a great deal of trouble stopping two bank robbers wearing body armor.
The was much turmoil and the Police Dept. wanted to put M-16’s in every patrol car.
Since in every shoot-out most rounds do not hit their intended target (like combat), giving street cops full auto, high velocity, weapons to use in a highly populated city, seemed to me to be a bad idea.
I don’t remember what the final determination was but maybe instead of M-16’s the cops could have used some better marksmanship training and non auto high powered rifles.
Which is why civilians can’t legally buy body armour here.
We have gun control laws, but it’s a lot easier to buy a gun than to buy body armour legally.
Possessing body armour risks up to two years of inactivity as an involuntary guest in one of Her Majesty’s recreation centres.
I believe that only some, specially trained LAPD cops (patrol commanders, etc.) carry M-16s and other assault rifles. The NYPD also have specially trained response teams armed with rifles, but I forget what they’re called…
I see (besides our constitutional right) reasons to keep and bear arms - but it is hard for me to justify private citizens owning body armor.
That illustrates the difficulty some of us outside America have with the notion of an unlimited right to bear arms.
If you’re against body armour because it puts law enforcement officers at greater risk in protecting the community, why not be against weapons which outgun law enforcement officers which puts law enforcement officers at greater risk in protecting the community?
I had my first real gun, a .22 , as a fairly young child and a few other guns later, but they were all for game shooting. It never occurred to me or anyone else that our guns were for any other purpose.
We didn’t and don’t have any notion of a right to bear arms for a militia or related purposes which underpins the American consitutional right to bear arms, which in turn flows from America’s revolutionary history.
If there is a right to bear arms to protect oneself, why shouldn’t there be a right to purchase body armour to protect oneself from the same threats?
I didn’t actually say I was against owning body armor, I said I found it hard to justify. Just as I find it hard to justify unlimited owning of true assault weapons and large capacity magazines in most weapons.
We don’t have an “unlimited right to bear arms” in the US. The private citizen has not been able to own (without license) an automatic weapon for many years, there are many areas and cities where handguns are banned and even more where owning firearms is limited and/or licensed. There are restrictions everywhere when purchasing firearms (especially handguns) and most ammunition.
Yes there are “loop holes”, such as gun shows, but I think that the time of these activities (as we currently know them ) is limited. A few years ago, prior to some recent Supreme Court decisions, I would have said that time is limited for us to own handguns as well.
There is still a strong anti gun movement here. Recently our Secretary of State enabled a ban of importation of 60-70 year old M-1 Garand rifles on the grounds that they were “assault rifles”.
It is truly asinine that a returning combat veteran cannot buy a handgun in most states if he is under 21 years of age (they can’t drink alcohol or smoke either).
Body armor isn’t a complete protection - as thousands of war casualties going back decades show. We wore it in Viet Nam and occasionally it is effective. It can give one a false sense of security and it is passive. I suppose you could take the armor off and beat an adversary with it - but personally if the situation was that extreme I would prefer a firearm.
As to protecting Law Enforcement officers, I agree, to a point. The situation here is not new and officers should know what they are getting into when they take the job. After all they (like Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen) take their chances. I’m certainly not downplaying a cops situation, their job is extremely tough and I wouldn’t want to attempt it, but they don’t have to do it.
There are over 800,000 full time Law Enforcement Officers in the US (local and Federal). Since 2000 the average is about 50 officers a year killed by firearms. Few, if any, were killed by people who legally owned their firearms. That averages out to one in 16,000. More are killed and injured in auto accidents than by firearms.
Locally a City Police Officer was recently killed by a cow while directing traffic (and not in the country-in a city of over 100,000)! Just like owning firearms there are limits to any protections.
Do we “protect” the Police Officers by not allowing the private citizen to protect themselves? We elect people to decide these things for us, unfortunately they, more often that not, advocate their responsibilities to their desire to be re-elected.
I didn’t know that the purchase and the possession of body armour is illegal in Australia. Here in Italy, despite the many limitations we have concerning the world of weapons, we haven’t any limitations about them. I own three body armour fragmentation protective vests. The first (left in the picture) is original from Vietnam era. The second is German from 1988 (right in the picture). The third is from US Ground Troops, woodland camo, from 1981.
Anyway, concerning the weapons there are many incomprehensible aspects related to the laws that control the purchase and the possession of weapons in different Countries.
For example, here in Italy the simple the detention of a sound suppressor is considered highly illegal, to the point that they kick you in jail and they throw the key in a river… In France, neighbouring Country and Member of the European Community as well as Italy, the Authorities encourage and promote the use of sound suppressors, by hunters and shooters. Infact, in France, you can easily buy a sound suppressor in every Armoury and Gunshop. Any comments?
There was a time in the U.S. (maybe other countries as well)when There was the danger of stray bullets from drive by shootings. I have done some looking but cant retrieve specifics, but some body armor company(s) were producing a line of children’s outerwear with Kevlar panels built into them to protect the kids from stray rounds. They were expensive, but parents did buy the jackets, coats etc. I dont know if these items are yet offered, but when soft armor came to the market all sorts of folks wanted to buy it. Those who did the bank drop after closing, or worked in a business that had a higher than average incidence of robbery.Jewelry stores, pawn shops, liquor stores etc. Even those who just lived in places that were dodgy, and unsafe. I wore a Point blank vest for years at my gun shop, and sold them to military people, some post carriers, and a few bus drivers, even a crossing guard. (body armor can lessen the trauma of being struck by a car ) If I would sell a person a firearm, I would generally sell them a vest if they wanted one. Dont know about now, but at the time, there was no regulation prohibiting the practice.
