Bloomberg thinks we’re going to have to change what we think of the Constitution after Boston. I think right now the Constitution is more important than ever.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,†Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.â€
Our greater level of security that we had back in the “olden days,” is due to the fact that it was a society where people looked out after each other and their own. Today, especially in places like Boston and New York, citizens expect the government to do everything for them, and the more government does, the less it does anything particularly well. Even Boston is illustrative of the utter failure of government. It wasn’t until the lockdown was lifted that an observant citizen decided to take a look in his boat, and sure enough… terrorist in his boat. Again, just like 9/11, it was citizens that caught him, even with all the Forth Amendment violations the police were using. Police work better with an engaged citizenry than a bunch of passive sheep.
What if instead of doing house to house searches they asked everyone to go and inspect their yards, sheds, and yes, boats (as I think most of us would have wanted to do if this had been going on in our neighborhood)? Well, we can’t have that. Someone might get hurt. But having the King’s men spraying bullets all over a suburban neighborhood and pointing guns at the good citizenry while they go door to door searching? Well, you can trust us, we’re professionals, from the government, and here to help.
The government is the last bunch of clowns I’d trust, at this point.
When a politician says we don’t need the 2A, that’s when we REALLY need the 2A. Keep your guns, and keep your powder dry.
“Government does only two things well: nothing, and overreact.” — Former Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL)
What I miss about “the olden days” was that fascists like Bloomberg had to at least try at little harder to conceal their craving to rule over their fellow citizens.
Its not going to get any better with the upcoming generations either. We had a long discussion in class Monday about this very topic and most 11 out of the 12 college freshmen in the class were generally okay with the way things were handled.
I keep seeing this crap out of Boston and all I hear in my ears is the constant repetition of police officers on 2nd Amendment Boards and blogs who claim they would never participate in firearms confiscations. Such an order would be highly unconstitutional, they say, and they would never violate their oaths. And then we see these videos, which dovetail nicely with the videos from Katrina where confiscations did take place. And suddenly the police officers with guns are doing extra-constitutional things and not thinking twice about it. And nothing gets done about it. We are truly lost already.
When words like ‘bomb’ and ‘terrorist’ come around, brains get dropped on the floor. Some people are in favor of that.
I’ve been looking for a transcript to get exact wording and context, but Cheney mentioned in the recent Bipartisan Advice to the New Administration conference that military “should have a wider role in handling natural disasters and other threats.” I had heard over the radio that this was in relation to Boston, but I want a transcript to be sure. Anyway, it wouldn’t surprise me that more than a few would be happy if the infantry was the one kicking in the doors. After all, they’ve had the experience in Iraq.
Forgot my references:
http://www.southerncenter.org/Announcement_SOD16_GA_Tech.pdf
http://www.gpb.org/news/2013/04/23/former-defense-chiefs-speak-on-threats
We know Bloomberg thinks it, but I can’t believe he is willing to say it so bluntly, especially on the record. He is truly one of the worst people for freedom in America. I accept that there will be a multitude of interpretations of the constitution, but look closely at what he said. He said we should deliberately reinterpret it to meet a need. If we can do that, does it really have any teeth at all? It exposes the mindset that so many of these people have. Start with a need, then interpret the law or constitution in a way that meets the need. Just like with the Second Amendment.
I’m actually shocked by that statement.
I’m not surprised in the least that he said it on the record. I heard an author say she didn’t see why people looked at the Bill of Rights “as if it were scripture”. That was live on BookTV LA Festival of the Book this past weekend. I wish I had the video of it. TS
Well, Heaven forbid we should not be profitably employed, I guess. :-)