Dear gun lovers,
Choose another posterboy for your cause. Citing Burress, Plaxico is not going to win any hearts or minds. You don’t see pro-lifers putting the Spears sisters on any posters.
Lots of people in the UK play Poker on the net. Online Poker sites in the UK are made up of some of the biggest high street brands like Sky, Virgin & Ladbrokes Poker.
Choose another posterboy for your cause. Citing Burress, Plaxico is not going to win any hearts or minds. You don’t see pro-lifers putting the Spears sisters on any posters.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
T.I. on the RKBA
December 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
That’s ALOT of initials.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
He makes a valid point though.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Even stupid people have rights. Except in NYC.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
It seems only celebrities and politicians have rights in NYC. He’s an idiot, but I still hope the case goes to the Supreme Court.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Even stupid people have rights. Except in NYC.
Beat me to it. Yes, a rich idiot is the first person that’s going to be prosecuted by that law. But, if the rich idiot’s lawyers can take down the law, then the rest of the New Yorkers won’t have to deal with legal stupidity.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Yeah, those poor stupid New Yorkers and their gun control. They should be so lucky to live in a free state like Arizona, where 8-year olds shoot their dads and neighbors.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Perhaps if his father and neighbors had been armed they wouldn’t have been shot. Ever consider that, Sarah Brady?
December 8th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Fair enough. It was foolish of me not to have realized that the solution to intra-family massacres is to make sure that all members of the family are armed.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Sure, Pearatty, because constitutional rights only apply to abortion and poll taxes. It’s only incorporated if we say it is!
December 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Eric:
Whether or not there’s a Constitutional right to bear arms as defined by the gun lobbies — everybody getting to personally own as many of whatever weapon they want — is one question, which is widely debated.
Whether that’s a good idea is another question.
My statement above was directed to the second issue: that unrestricted access to guns is a bad idea that leads to unnecessary gun violence.
Your response did not address that argument, but addressed an argument I didn’t make regarding the constitutionality of the right to have guns.
Please stay on topic.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Pearatty, nice little bit of bob and weave there. The subject of the post is whether or not Plaxico Burgess is a good poster boy for reasserting the constitution regarding gun rights. As stupid as it is to stuff a loaded gun down your shorts, the guy is having the book thrown at him for possessing a loaded gun in a country with a constitutional right to bear arms. So that makes it a constitutional issue. So please, try to stay on topic.
But on the policy question, don’t you see a little bit of air between “unrestricted access to guns” and NYC’s draconian gun control statutes? Notwithstanding the fact there isn’t any place in the US with “unrestricted access to guns”.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Yes, it’s widely debated among people who don’t know anything the Bill of Rights, i.e. individuals such as yourself. I suggest you read the 2nd Amendment. No divination of penumbras or emanations by scholarly, robed seers are necessary.
Tell me, how much freedom of speech do you think is the correct amount?
I think three comments is an excessive number of posts in this context.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Plaxico was arrested and chsrged because he shot himself in the leg in such a manner that he could have shot someone else — another goes to the club or a worker. ask yourself this: if plaxico had done everything the same that night –except shoot himself—would we be having this discussion?
December 8th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
if plaxico had done everything the same that night –except shoot himself—would we be having this discussion?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say there. That you can exercise your constitutional rights as long as the cops don’t know?
December 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Gerard:
1. I know a little bit about the U.S.Constitution.
2. I think freedom of speech is an apt comparison. We do not have unlimited freedom of speech, nor do I think we should have. For example, the government can regulate dangerous speech, defamatory speech and commercial speech.
3. You’d better not start suggesting people limit their comments on this blog, or Dawn is going to be pissed.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Eric:
I think what Dawn is saying is that bad facts make bad law — if you want to get a right overturned, either by the courts or by follow-up legislation, the best way is to make your poster boy be someone who did something everyone thinks is stupid or egregious. People start saying “why are we protecting that kind of behavior? If that’s the law, how can we change the law so it isn’t protected behavior?”
December 9th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
My point, Eric, is that no constitutional right is absolute. I cannot assemble with whoever I want in your living room. I am not free to make a speech calling for the death of elected officials. Each right can be curtailed by laws designed to prevent harms. Whatever you may think of the second amendment, you’d have to be a complete nutjob to think you should be free to keep a gun in your pants while dancing and drinking at a NYC night club with the safety off.