Blagnet.net

Plaxico Burress shouldn’t be imprisoned

I am appalled and depressed at the nonchalance with which everyone on the TV and the radio reports the Plaxico Burress plea-bargain to accept two years in prison for shooting himself in the leg. How anyone can become so confused about rights and morals and crime and government that they don’t even think twice about the justice of laws that lock a man away for two years for neither harming nor threatening anyone? It isn’t the night club that’s suing him in a tort case; their bouncers are the ones who let him in knowing he had a gun, which was forbidden in there. None of the club’s patrons sued Burress for threating or terrorizing or endangering them, nor did they sue the club, that I’m aware of. This is because Burress did nothing to them to warrant a tort case. If he had, or if the patrons thought he had, then let them sue him and play it out in a court of actual justice. What we have instead is a crime (against the State), a violation of laws, despite no one’s person or property being harmed nor their liberty being restricted in any way. Accept Plaxico Burress’s.

Did you notice how everyone just calls the crimes “gun charges”? Or “weapons charges”? They just glide right past the “unregistered” and “illegal” handgun part with nary a word on the absurdity of jackbooted thugs and professional criminals with heavily armed bodyguards declaring other people’s guns to be illegal because they didn’t register them.

I like the Statist’s typical response to the audacious notion that people (well, most people, anyway) should be allowed to carry a gun wherever property owners permit them: “We have laws forbidding everyone from carrying a gun anywhere they like to protect the general populace from mass-murdering madmen! Unless you have a piece of paper signed by certain government bureaucrats, your gun is dangerous and could be used to threaten, terrorize, hurt, or kill defenseless people!” Oh, you mean, like terrorizing and threatening peaceful, non-aggressing homeowners and business owners, on their own property, to make them submit and obey to everything the State demands of them? You mean like kidnapping and enslaving a (relatively) peaceful man for two years because he did something to himself on someone else’s property that the professional criminal class disapproved of?

These are typical policies of a police state: restrict gun ownership and take away the guns and the freedoms of people who dare defy the glorious and beneficent State. Obviously no one else was harmed by Plaxico Burress’s actions, and obviously Burress and millions of others are harmed by the restrictions of freedoms implemented by governments, so the State of New York is the only party that appears to be in the wrong in this case (an aggressor) and looks mighty hypocritical to boot.

Posted in Gun control