Bloomberg Softens Comments on Police Strike
Mayor Bloomberg appeared to distance himself Tuesday from comments he made on a talk show suggesting that the nation’s police officers should “go on strike” to demand tougher gun laws.Bloomberg, who has been pushing for stronger gun legislation in the wake of last week’s movie theater shooting in Colorado, told CNN’s Piers Morgan on Monday that he doesn’t understand why officers “don’t stand up collectively and say, we’re going to go on strike.”
When I first heard his comments, my first thought was, isn't this the guy who was bragging about having the "seventh largest army" when talking about NYPD? The one who wants to outfit police helicopters with machine guns? And yet he thinks police should go on strike because... Americans can own firearms?
With all due respect Mayor Bloomberg - and you merit precious little from me - please just shut the hell up. Your police force isn't exactly covered in glory - the name Amadou Diallo ring any bells - and around the country, there's not a heckuva lot better kicking around. Florida deputies knock on the wrong door and gun down the homeowner who responds. Police in Arizona shoot an Iraq war veteran 60 times during a drug raid that netted no drugs. Las Vegas police killed a man who had committed no crime because he couldn't decide which of their orders to follow first. And we won't even get into what Tam says the IMPD stands for...
A cynical blogger could make a rather cogent argument that the citizenry would far safer with the police on strike...
And now Bloomin'idiot is backpedalling from his comments so fast it looks like he's trying to start a new Olympic event. First off, his own police force would be violating the Taylor Law should they go on strike. Secondly, he doesn't offer any specifics on what, exactly, the cops should strike for. A repeal of the Second Amendment? All American citizens to turn in their firearms? What rules would Bloomie like to see in place that aren't already in place that would head off this mythical strike?
No assault weapons? There's been talk among the anti-freedom brigade about bringing back that steaming pile of horseshit - as though a law against bayonet lugs will stop someone hellbent on gaining fame through tragedy. There's a hell of a lot of chatter about the fact that he ordered ammunition through the internet - are we about to see 1968 played out all over again, only towards ammo? Here's a tip: In all but a small handful of states, *anyone* can buy ammunition. Even here in Massachusetts they passed a law requiring all ammo sales be documented - and it quietly died after not much time because it brought ammunition sales to a standstill.
I know it's tough, guys. In this case, there is very little that could have been done to prevent this shooting. The shooter was not a prohibited person. He exhibited no signs of mental illness, committed no crime that would have rendered him ineligible to own firearms. In the wake of such a tragedy, it's natural to want to do something - but in this case, every single thing that has been suggested will not stop or even slow down someone intent on committing such a crime. Online ammo sales are forbidden? Fine, get the ammo at a gun show. Or Dick's Sporting Goods. Or Walmart. Can't buy that much ammo at one time? Fine, pick it up over the course of a year.
There is no law that can be passed, no object that can be banned, no "magic bullet" (sorry, couldn't resist) to prevent all mass shootings. As much as we'd like to wave the magic wand and make it so that no one could ever cause this kind of heartbreak again, it is simply not feasible. Even were it possible to remove firearms from the equation completely, there's still many ways to achieve infamy through tragedy. You can't stop a determined lunatic with laws; laws are set up to punish people after the fact. Someone who wants their 15 minutes of fame for the highest body count isn't going to care what happens to themselves after it's all over.
Banning "assault weapons" or online ammunition sales or high capacity magazines; all of this is just window dressing. I think deep down they know it won't fix the issue; the big question is whether they're doing this because they honestly want to do something, or if they're simply not letting the crisis go to waste. Bloomberg fits into the second category, clearly. NYC has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, yet there are several hundred homicides committed there every year, the vast majority committed with firearms. If laws could stop people from killing other people with guns, NYC would be the safest place in America.
Instead, it's one of the most dangerous - imagine if Bloomberg's security detail decided to go on strike?
That is all.