Dec 02 2008
Bill Clinton’s Third Term? Plaxico Buriss and Guns
New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burris is facing a 3 year prison term for carrying a handgun; 3 years. The guy shot himself in the leg, harmed nobody and now could go away for 3 years. Does anyone else see the idiocy in this law? This is another prime example of a law having unintended consequences with freedom as the victim.
Is anyone else beginning to wonder if Hillary Clinton actually won the presidency? I am stunned at the number of former
Clinton people being appointed to Barack Obama’s administration; I thought the President-Elect promised change? Perhaps he meant change back to the way it once was. It is interesting how Obama is going about the process. Unlike Bush who awarded loyalty, Obama seems to be going with experience. Let’s hope these former Clintonites are the ones that made the right decisions, making Bill a very successful president.
The economy is officially in recession, which means we are actually 4-6 months into it and should be coming out in about 5 months. If you are an investor start looking for alternative news sources, to get a jump on the deals on Wall Street.
2 Responses to “Bill Clinton’s Third Term? Plaxico Buriss and Guns”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
Yeah, it’s a travesty to convict someone of possession and discharge of an illegal handgun in a public place. What on earth are people thinking trying to keep someone from shooting themselves/others? I mean, that’s just a no brainer.
If you actually think Plaxico Buress will get more than probation, you need to loosen the tin-foil hat and step away from the microwave. Bloomberg is seeking re-election, otherwise this wouldn’t be a big deal at all. It’s pure posturing.
No matter who Obama picked for his cabinet, someone would have a problem with the choices. Who was he supposed to pick? Would you have been happy if he kept everyone from BushCo around?
Everyone in the Cabinet serves at the will of the President. He sets policy, they implement it. This “Clinton III” argument is one of the more ridiculous ones coming out. Give me a break.
Bloomberg is looking to make an example of Burress, so down he goes for what? Carring a gun (which are legal to buy and own) and not committing a crime. I love these laws that turn otherwise legal abiding people (yes he walks a fine line) into hard core criminals. How many hard core folks do we have locked up for pot? How many cars, homes and other personal assets are siezed for $500 of drugs found? We pass laws for one crime committed and create and entire new segment of criminals!
As for this being Clinton III, I pray that it is…But I can see where libs are very concerned about that option.