imported post
Wrong subforum.
As far as I can tell, this is a case of too many laws.
Everyone understand, I am in no way attempting to defend the character of the perp. I don't know the first thing about him.
But, can the police prove that the guns, and not the laws against guns, were responsible for this? Can Mayor Bloomberg prove that this man would have opened fire on police had they not committed an initiatory act of aggression against his person in trying to enforce immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, wrong, and generally stupid gun laws?
Not that illegal laws provide a justification to shoot cops who try to enforce them (that's a whole 'nother discussion). It's just that, if we're going to blame guns, it seems to me that we first have to prove that the laws against them aren't what's actually to blame.
And that's a tall damn order.
People ignore aggression as though humans are born with morality defined by the rule of law (that's a nice fantasy :quirky). The reality is that every human understands when he is aggressed against, including those humans we treat as de facto criminals for having arbitrarily violated the law (though they may not be actually guilty of an act of initiatory force). This is why the principle of nonaggression is important, and works even in a society where many are lawless.
Also, was this guy actually a panhandler? Seems like a strange activity for a gun seller. "Gimme a dollar! No? Then how about you buy this Jennings .22?"
