Bloomberg tells police to go on strike

Good day all, in the wake of the criminal act that occurred in Aurora Colorado last week, the usual suspects in the gun banning community have put in an appearance. Mayor Michael Bloomberg led off with some really stupid remarks.

Bloomberg is a notorious statist totalitarian and has hated the thought of his peons and serfs actually having a way to defend themselves. I’ve written before on his attempts to ban the Second Amendment by fiat and how he keeps getting slapped down in the attempts. Now the idiot has really gone off the deep end.

Here’s some details from Human Events:

NYC Mayor Bloomberg suggests cops go on strike until gun control laws are passed

The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, actually suggested during a CNN interview on Monday that police officers should abandon their duties and go on strike, nationwide, until gun control laws are passed.

“I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up, collectively, and say: ‘We’re gonna go on strike. We’re not gonna protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.’ After all, police officers want to go home to their families, and we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult – and more importantly, more dangerous – by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and letting people who have those guns, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets,” Bloomberg complained.

Shall I explain it to you? Most law enforcement officers, at least on the local and state level know that armed citizens aren’t a threat to them and in some cases have saved the lives of officers. They also know it won’t stop criminals from getting guns in any case. After all, they could always ask for some from the Eric Holder Gunwalking Emporium.

Now the other issue is that it is illegal for police to go on strike. It’s grounds for summery termination from the job. Mayor Fumblebutt probably forgot that. He’s also not helping his case at all with calls for the po9lice to go on strike. Why? Because it shows people that they really can’t depend on the police to protect them and that they must protect themselves.

The author of the Human Events column, John Hayward, continues:

So it’s either submission to Bloomberg’s agenda, or national anarchy? One of the many reasons I find the arguments of gun-control zealots unpersuasive is that they slip so easily into lunacy, idiocy, and hypocrisy. Rest assured that Mayor Bloomberg’s personal security detail would not be joining that massive police strike. How many innocent people would be killed if every cop in the country walked off the beat?

I did some digging and the statistic I found was 16,272 people murdered in 2008 ((Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Crimes and Crime Rates)). I think that number would skyrocket of Bloomberg got his way and the police throughout the country walked out. Bloomberg and others of his ilk, (Rich, Elitist, Statist, Totalitarians), don’t care. As far as they are concerned, as long as they can dictate their world view, a high body count of innocent people is not a big deal. It’s not like Bloomberg has to worry about it.

Mayors typically are protected by a five- or six-person team of plainclothes detectives, including one who often goes ahead to secure the destination. There are generally three teams that rotate for the 24-hour job. When mayors travel, the costs of the security team are paid by the city. Bloomberg has taken the unusual step of covering their expenses when he takes personal trips ((How NYC Mayors Are Protected CBS News)).

So Bloomers, when are you going to disarm YOUR personal bodyguard? Oh wait! You’re better than us peons and it is vitally important that you are safe and sound. We don’t matter to you, so long as we do your bidding, we will be fine…except from thieves, rapists and murderers of course.

Bloomberg isn’t the only idiot out there using this horror for their own purposes. Emperor Misha I of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler went on a deep recon of enemy territory, (CNN) and found another fool spewing his stupidity. In this case it’s that all American Boy David Frum who is not an American. He’s a moose molesting Canadian. He’s also related to that “Massive Intellect and all around Economic Expert Paul Krugman.” That should give you an idea of how he thinks, or pretends to think that is.

The short story is that Frum hates guns. He hates people having guns. He hates the fact that people will use guns to protect themselves against criminals. He believes, like all good Statists that guns should be taken away from the “Common People” and he wouldn’t be opposed to Federal Agents kicking in doors and confiscating them.

I’m not going to dig into beaver vomit that passes for his writing. Emperor Misha did another one of his excellent fisking jobs and I see no reason to try and improve on perfection.

Frum, Bloomberg and all the other “Progressives” are terrified that the American People will wake up and decided to do something about the monstrosity that they have created. It’s already starting, in a non-violent manner, with the Tea Party. People want their rights back and they want the government, at all levels, off their backs. The lie that Bloomberg, Frum and others on the hard left love to repeat is that police will protect the people. Nope, they won’t and aren’t required to. Think I’m joking?

From Fox News regarding the 2005 decision case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, where the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. :

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Later court decisions have concurred.

Losers: anti-domestic violence advocates and women’s groups, such as the National Association of Women Lawyers, failed to establish that restraining orders were constitutional entitlements. If they had succeeded, the enforcement of such orders would have been guaranteed by due process. Failure to enforce them would have been grounds for a lawsuit against the police, a precedent that local officials feared would flood them with expensive litigation.

As the old saying goes, when seconds count, police are minutes away….if they show up at all.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)

Loading...