« | »

Bloomberg: Cops Should Strike Until Guns Banned

From the New York Post:

Bloomberg’s gun-control idea: Cops go on strike

By GERRY SHIELDS and BETH DEFALCO | Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg ramped up his gun-control rhetoric to a whole new level last night, saying he’s surprised cops don’t walk off their jobs until the public forces lawmakers to get guns off the streets.

“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.’’

How responsible is it to talk like that if you are the mayor of a large city? Does anyone remember what happened when the police walked off the job during the Rodney King riots?

And, lest we forget, it has been illegal to own a handgun in New York City since the Sullivan Act law went into effect on August 31, 1911. Unless you are rich, a celebrity or well connected to the Democrat Party machine in New York, you cannot get a handgun permit from the city.

And yet crime seems to have increased in New York City in the 101 years since the Sullivan Law went into effect. So perhaps there are other factors involved.

Earlier in the day, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie snidely suggested that Hizzoner has been using the victims of the Colorado movie massacre as “political pawns.” …

Lest we forget, Mr. Bloomberg also used the Trayvon Martin shooting as an excuse to call for banning guns. Even though it is starting to look like a handgun saved George Zimmerman’s life. But why let details like that get in the way of your agenda?

“During the next presidential term, there will be 48,000 Americans killed with illegal guns. It seems to me, not unreasonable, whoever wants to be president should tell us what they’re going to do about it before we go to the ballot box,” Bloomberg told MSNBC, echoing statements he’s made since Friday’s shooting, which killed 12…

“There will be 48,000 Americans killed with illegal guns.” Obviously the current laws are not working. So why give us more of them? Besides, criminals and lunatics tend to ignore laws, anyway. All gun control laws do is hurt the law abiding.

Mr. Bloomberg is not running for reelection after he finishes his current illegal third term. So he’s safe in ruling against the will of the people.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 24th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Bloomberg: Cops Should Strike Until Guns Banned”

  1. AcornsRNutz says:

    Ok, lets break this down dummy style so folks like the despicable Mr. Bloomberg can understand. Laws do not prevent crime and cannot prevent crime. Laws provide societies with a set of rules granting them authority to punish people for doing or not doing certain things agreed upon by that society. The punishment of crime sis the deterrent to further crimes, not the laws making the action criminal. Adding gun restriction laws is simply providing the authority to punish people for doing certain things that are part and parcel of gun ownership. That is unconstitutional at the federal level and just plain wrong at any level. All gun laws cn do is punish people for attempting to own guns, nothing more. Murder, Armed Robbery, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Attempted murder, reckless discharge of a firearm etc etc etc are already crimes. No more laws are needed.

    I resent most of the laws already in place, I definetly despise the attempt to add to them. People hurt themselves and others with chainsaws, lawn mowers, fireworks, baseball bats, tire irons, knives and countless other items, none of which requires one to register as an owner, certify their competence to use them, or explain their motivations for purchase. The background check I approve of on the conditions that it is accessible to private citizens through law enforcement or FFL holders, never used to register or track gun purchases, and not shared with any agencies not responsible for maintaining the records. At this time I can be held accountable if I conduct a private sale of a firearm to a felon, but I have no way to verify if the inidividual is in fact a felon since I don’t have an FFL. Why can’t a private citizen go into a gun store or the local PD, say “I want to sell a firearm to Bob Smith of 123 lane anytown USA. Can he purchase or own a firearm”? A simple yes or no does not require any of his private information to be disclosed in order to assure the seller that he is in compliance with the law. What more do we need? Length of a shotgun barrell? Pointless. Capacity restrictions? Pointless. Full auto restriction? Pointless. A full auto rifle, never mind a true machine gun, would cost (even without the tax stamps) well beyond what some gang banger nutjob could afford legally. Caliber restrictions? Pointless. Who robs a liquor store or conducts a B&E with a 30 pound, 5 foot long M82A1? All of these laws are simply restrictions on the owner of a firearm who has committed no crime other than those specifc infractions, which in and of themselves cannot harm anyone.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Says Bloomberg, the Nanny with a armed 24/7 escort.

    Tell you what, Nanny … you first.

    • JohnMG says:

      If someone was going to shoot Bloomberg in the head, they’d have to aim for his ass.

      I guess this “republican” mayor will soon endorse Obama for a second term………it’s the only way he’ll (Bloomberg)get re-elected. Most of the buffoons in NYC will vote for the genuine article (liberal democrat) unless there’s not a nickle’s worth of difference in the candidates who are running.

      What a venal little dweeb he is. Like Obama, he’s in love with the sound of his own voice.

  3. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Why not, look how much easier/safer an out right ban on drugs has made being a police officer.

  4. Right of the People says:

    Is he bucking for replacing Bite Me Joe as Veep?

    This moron is delusional!

  5. canary says:

    I am serious. I think Bloomberg has violated the laws and should step down awaiting charges.

    A this is aside govt official Bloomberg’s calling on violence during the month of Ramadan.

  6. wirenut says:

    This is B.as in B. an S. as in S. BS. Our creator made it well known, in order to survive, at times you must kill.
    Our founders put this to words from their faith, Hence, The 2nd amendment. Only you and your God determines self-preservation. Our incontinent progressives forget natural laws. Gun free zones = Killing fields. The blood of all of these masscre’s comes from their own pen, and decree.
    God help us!

  7. Enthalpy says:

    Bloomberg is no doubt skillful in his own business, but he’s a blathering fool when it comes to a number of practical issues-like our lives, for instance.

  8. AcornsRNutz says:

    At least this article is a testament to journalistic integrity. I mean, when a whackjob does something horrible in Colorado, we must immediately run to get comment from the mayor of New York City. This is only to cover all the bases on the story, mind you. It has nothing to do with bloomberg’s widely known beliefs on gun control.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »