Bloomberg tells cops to go on strike for expanded gun-control laws

[Cowboy]

Talk about clueless.




Every once in a while, politicians provide examples of cluelessness so compelling that it’s incumbent on us to point it out. Last night, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went on CNN’s Piers Morgan show to discuss the need for expanded gun control in the wake of the massacre in Aurora, Colorado last week. Bloomberg suggested that police across the country go on strike to demand greater gun control legislation (via NewsAlert):

“I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.
“Police officers want to go home to their families. And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor piercing bullets.’’

Where to start with this nonsensical idea? First, we have laws in most jurisdictions that prevent first responders such as police and fire agencies from going on strike at all, because of the public safety consequences. Bloomberg is literally calling for anarchy in the streets as a way to extort unconstitutional infringements on liberty — by the police.

Perhaps Bloomberg missed a couple of civics lessons in school (which would explain more than a few of his initiatives), but police don’t get to write their own laws and impose them by force on the populace. Neither do they get to decide whether and when they will enforce the law or let criminals run rampant in order to terrorize our communities into complying with their idea of what the law should be. In America, the people create the law, and the police uphold and enforce it. If individual police officers don’t like the law, they can work through the democratic process to change those laws, or they can find another line of work.

Finally, though, Bloomberg’s proposal would only reinforce the truth that citizens have to defend themselves from crime. Only in rare cases do police directly “protect” a citizen or keep a crime from occurring. They respond to crimes in progress or crimes already committed in order to investigate and arrest those suspected of committing crimes. One key reason for the Second Amendment is to prevent the need for the kind of police state necessary to protect people who refuse to defend themselves properly. The founders understood that the local constabulary could hardly be expected to prevent thugs, ruffians, thieves, and murderers from committing crimes in the very moment, and knew that an armed citizen would at least have the ability to defend himself. If police around the nation walked out on strike, that truth would suddenly become acutely apparent — and people would demand access to firearms to properly defend themselves, and not just during the strike, either.

We’ve seen a lot of foolish commentary in the wake of the Aurora shooting, but this may be the most irresponsible yet — and from an official in high office, no less.http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/2...-control-laws/

[Melensdad]

Seems to me that if police officers actually did go on strike then MORE CITIZENS would actually see the value of personal protection and take up concealed carry of handguns.

[AAUTOFAB1]

maybe its just me but isn't calling the police usually after some thing happens?so if they go on strike it will it make no difference on how i plan to protect my self.

[FrancSevin]

Crazy anti gun libs sell more weapons than any other advertising possibly could.

Wish I owned a gun store today.

[Cowboy]

Both good points but this is the part that pisses me off. I could understand Jackson or Sharpton getting away with pulling this crap, but Bloomberg.

police don’t get to write their own laws and impose them by force on the populace. Neither do they get to decide whether and when they will enforce the law or let criminals run rampant in order to terrorize our communities into complying with their idea of what the law should be. In America, the people create the law, and the police uphold and enforce it.

[Big Dog]

Where I live (in the boonies) LE is a non-issue when it comes to protection. When I go to town, knowing what I have on my person relieves me of depending on LE.

[squerly]

Originally Posted by AAUTOFAB1

maybe its just me but isn't calling the police usually after some thing happens?so if they go on strike it will it make no difference on how i plan to protect my self.

Exactly.

[300 H and H]

I have no idea how this man got so wealthy and the mayor of a major city to boot....When clearly his hed is so far up his ass that he cann't possibly see the real America. All this A hole see's is a slowly rotting city from his penthouse...

He is as relevent only because he has wealth and a puny little elected office, of our biggest city. I just with the media would not even take the time to hear and air his rediculous thouths and babble. Out side his own city and the national media who is fixated on him, his is irrelevent....

Regards, Kirk

[Catavenger]

I wish Bloomberg would "go on strike"

[Danang Sailor]

Perhaps he just missed reading, or reading about, the Supreme Court's ruling in DeShaney vs Winnebago County (1989) where
the court ruled that law enforcement agencies have no Constitutional duty to protect anyone. He must also have
missed the follow-on case of Castle Rock vs Gonzales (2005) which reaffirmed and strengthened this ruling.

Or, maybe, he's just a psycho-ceramic*, cranioanal-retentive**.























*a crack pot, ** shit-head

[joec]

Originally Posted by Melensdad

Seems to me that if police officers actually did go on strike then MORE CITIZENS would actually see the value of personal protection and take up concealed carry of handguns.

Sorry Mel some times the obvious strikes me funny and I absolutely agree. Besides Bloomberg is an idot period regardless of the party he says he is.

[CityGirl]

Not only has Bloomberg encouraged a strike but he is directing the gun control debate toward the 2012 presidential candidates. That will be interesting. Romney is the only candidate to have actually signed a gun ban into law. He obviously has no compunctions about gun bans and if Obama is reelected, I guess it is possible he might figure Romney would have done it so he will.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-2...-gun-ownership

[Catavenger]

Romney is a politician and Mass. is an anti-gun state so he went the way the political wind was blowing that does not surprise me.

[CityGirl]

Originally Posted by Catavenger

Romney is a politician and Mass. is an anti-gun state so he went the way the political wind was blowing that does not surprise me.

Exactly, and right now, which way are the winds blowing?