Wow, thats pretty harsh considering nobody but himself was hurt. Someone was looking for a scapegoat.

plus the New York gun laws are Unconstitutional !

1. Burress broke the law, and could have gotten 3 1/2 years. Agreed, it is lucky he hurt only himself. However, that hardly means he shouldn't be punished. If he was fearful for his life, hire a bodyguard. It never ceases to amaze me that millionaire players are caught doing DUI, rather than hiring a driver.

2. If the New York gun laws are unconsitutional, then the NRA should find someone to challenge these laws in court, and get them overthrown by the Supreme Court.

I remember the Mayor saying he will serve time for this shortly after the arrest. I guess he wants it known that unregistered guns won't be tolerated.

Is breaking the law supposed to have some special significance? I mean, in principle? Anne Frank broke the law.

You know, in real politik, I believe in social democracies. Philosophically, I'm a radical - that is, I believe in going to the root of the question. Politically, I don't have much time for anyone, but if forced to make a choice, I would tend to fall closer to liberals than anyone else, in beliefs rather than in parties or people. Generally speaking, the last people I'd want as bedfellows are the NRA types and such.

But for having said all that, I have to agree with 66_Ray. Granted, selling automatic weapons to the public is a little nuts; and gun training should be as common as drivers Ed in school.

One shouldn't have to go to the incredible effort to challenge unconstitutional laws in court. The constitution is pretty clear on guns. I'd say the opposite - if people or the powers that be want to design a new system and sell the idea to the rest of us, fine. But on a practical level, regardless of the various hypocrisies of the second amendment believers when it comes to other matters constitutional (gun advocates are hardly notorious for their fanatical support of, say, for instance, civil liberties), the constitution and bill of rights is what we have, period.

Like I said, 66_Ray is right.

Since this has devolved into a political/philosophical discussion that has only peripheral impact on sports and/or football, I'd prefer to take this to the PM level. Let me know if you would like to discuss this non-emotionally and logically, I'd be glad to hear your opinion and respond to it. However, I think this discussion has reached the limits of Packerchatters.

Let me know if you would like to discuss this issue- you PM me, and I'll respond.

You're right, Ricky.

I've said what I have to say, albeit much simplified. However, if you wish to debate any of it with me, I'll be glad to oblige - but I think the ball's in your court, so if you want to discuss it, feel free to PM me.

Yes this is a pretty harsh punishment, considering in some states it is legal to carry a firearm, though not concealed.

This is more about the difference in viewpoints across America.

"THUG LIFE!" He deserves more IMO.

Although it is nice to see a professional athlete being treated as a regular civilian,with no double standard for a change.

Its nice but I think thats a harsh punishment for anyone considering the outcome of the event.

I bet Plax's plight has caused more than a few star atheletes to run to their cubboards and confirm their gun permits are in good order.

I'm unclear why the NY gun laws are deemed unconstitional......
The 2nd Amendment may give us the right to bear arms:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

.....but there are a a whole host of state gun laws in place dictating where, how and in what manner you can "bear" them (as there should be). Plax got nailed cause he was wandering around outside his home with his "unlicensed" handgun and causing jeopardy to those around him. If his unintentional shot had taken out a bartender or waitress....he'd be gone till old age was creeping up.

I've not checked, but I bet Vegas is laying better odds that the place he's going to will win next years "Correctional Championship."

He was lucky, that bullet could have easily killed an innocent person. When you look at crimes that involve putting human life in jeopardy, they usually include prison.

I get all that and Im glad that nothing worse happened I just dont agree that the punishment fit the crime.

The punishment fit the law - not the crime.
He's not going being bars because he was stupid enough to shoot himself - he broke the NY State laws governing the use of handguns and endangering innocent people.

What did he plead guilty too! If it was endangering the public, discharging a firearm in city limits, yep guilty.
If it was possessing a firearm in New York and not registering a firearm in New York. Read the Heller decision. There is no debate SCOTUS has ruled. The New York gun laws are unconstitutional, this goes to the root of the discussion from the OP as too the harshness. It doesn't matter if I'm a Lifetime NRA member or not. The ultimate law in the Land is the Constitution his punishment goes beyond harsh. Justice is suppose to be blind to the fact the guy is an idiot.
ricky I hope you teach math not civics

Note Yes I know Heller was about the DC gun laws, The ruling does not just apply to DC but to NY Chicago or any other Government who choose to ignore the Constitution and pass laws that conflict with the Second Amendment in (the Constitution) Bill of Rights which is the first ten Amendments to the Constitution

Since you seem to be the resident gun law expert you are probably the best person to ask. Do you know if the Second Amendment has been incorporated against New York, especially after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision?

Right now the NRA is taking on Chicago's gun laws. Judging by the ruling from Seventh Circuit, NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments. Which is absurd

I disagree......
States have been issuing laws that while not reversing the Constituion amend the application of its terms/conditions to the "local" level. I'm fine with that.

The 2nd Amendment was written in an entirely different age and dont believe its untethered application and "broad scope" interpetation to todays circumstance is beneficial to society.

The other day a person was outside a Presidential event with an automatic weapon slung over his shoulder. Local / State law allowed him to do so legally - ok fine - but if you ask me, its a ridiculous situation. If that persons mental state wasnt "tip top" that day...alot of people could die very, very quickly. Somehow, this doesnt jive with the concept that an armed populace is the best means to prevent an invasion from the British or French. The capacities and capabilities of todays guns far exceed anything possibly conceived of when the 2nd Amendment was written.

I dont have a problem with you getting/having a gun - no problem - but feel strongly that there should be gun laws restricting (qualifying) your purchase and its use.

There are already many laws in place, but more are dreamed up every day. How many laws are needed?

I dont propose to have an answer to your question, but neither do I believe that gun laws are overly abundent to the point of being burdensome or resulting in a potential gun owner not fullfilling his/her wish to get one...nor I believe they are "ever changing."

Without contesting the overall agreement that ownership of guns is acceptable to society, surely it only makes sense that ownership of such a deadly item be regulated. The level of that regulation is subject to the local political process - so the laws are reflective of the local wish - not some quaint notions devined back in the long ago's and far aways of gun technology.

Believe whatever you want, but there is a daily push by those with an agenda to further restrict the ability to purchase firearms to create more laws. Join the NRA, then you will get the daily alerts as I do via email.

I think it's the pharma principle: if one drug is causing problems, keep taking that drug but add two more to solve the problems created by the first. Then of course, the 2nd and 3rd will cause problems, so you must add three more on top of the first three to solve those problems. And so on.

I can't imagine any good arising from daily alerts by the NRA.

Hell, even Wyatt Earp regulated the wearing of guns within town borders.

Even as the Pony Express was delivering daily alerts from the NRA!

Closing thread as his is nowhere remotely close to discussing football or the NFL.
If you wish to continue the discussion, please carry on via PMs.