on november 28 of this year, NFL wide receiver plaxico burress accidentally shot himself in the leg with a handgun he was carrying in a new york city nightclub. the story has been a headline in the media for the last few days for its many interesting aspects. the story should have been one of those "haha! moron..." type stories that give you a little joke fodder for the water cooler that day. but this is the u.s.a. where every aspect of our lives is controlled by the largest and most intrusive state in the history of the world - a state hell-bent on destroying as many lives as possible in the never-ending quest to assert its illegitimate power over others.
the government loves to find unpopular individuals with a history of personal issues to use as "examples" of what happens if one should subvert the arbitrary dictates that the state has laughably labeled as "the law". michael bloomberg, the power-mongering, totalitarian nutcase mayor of the authoritarian police-state strong hold, new york city, has stated that it would be a "mockery of the law" if burress is not kidnapped by the state and imprisoned for less than 3 1/2 years (!!!) for carrying a piece of his own property around and accidentally hurting no one but himself with it. burress has already posted $100 thousand bail.
this is truly insane. burress has the right to carry a gun (and no, that right doesn't come from some silly constitution). regardless of what "the law" says, no one has the right to force him to pay them or ask their permission for him to own a gun, a car, a house nor anything else he pleases. if one man, like michael "nanny state" bloomberg, has the right to stop burress from owning a gun, does burress have the right to stop bloomberg from owning a knife? if not, why not? aren't they both men? do men have equal rights? one might argue that because of bloomberg's elected position that he has been given rights above and beyond those of ordinary citizens. but this assumes that electors, who are merely ordinary people, can get together and give others rights that they themselves don't have in the first place and that those people in the majority somehow have the right to force their preferences on the minority. even worse, because many do not vote (thankfully), it is often a minority that elects people to office, making the rule of that elected individual forced on a majority (non-voters plus the losing side of the electorate) by a minority! well, if that's the way it works, i'm going to get my best friends together and have them vote me dictator of the earth!
the fact is that burress has the right to blow himself to smithereens if he wants to, as long as he doesn't hurt the person or property of anyone else and he has the right to own and carry a gun. in reality, he has committed no crime (the violation of another's person or property). his actions are merely falsely labeled as "crimes" by the state. the real criminals here, as usual, are the state agents actively encroaching on burress' rights to his self and property. so this case is definitiely a criminal case, but burress is the victim and, unfortunately, is likely to suffer further at the hands of a criminal gang (the new york government). this is the result of having no true justice system. strongmen like bloomberg will always rise to power and dominate the vulnerable as long as the state exists. the state in itself is the accomplishment of warlords and strongmen and flourishes on injustice.
burress, because of his less than virtuous lifestyle, is a generally unpopular individual. this makes him an easy target for a power-mad state to make an example of - not to mention he's a black athlete. barry bonds, marion jones, michael vick and other innocent state victims can tell you about that. don't be caught off-guard by the rhetoric. burress is innocent. the state is the aggressor. the sooner that we let go of the notion that the state is anything more than a criminal gang, the sooner we'll be able to overcome its injustices.
free plaxico burress!