New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on TV the other day answering a question about why the public doesn’t demand the enactment of gun control after the Colorado theater shooting: “Well, I would take it one step further. I don’t understand why the 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 new restraints are enacted].” James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal‘s “Best of the Web” calls out the Gotham mayor:
A police strike, as Bloomberg figured out a day late, is illegal in itself. Bloomberg’s strike would be for the purpose of curtailing the citizenry’s constitutional rights. The mayor urged an unlawful rebellion by government employees against their employers, the people.
Taranto also notes:
And whether Bloomberg meant to suggest a real strike threat or an empty one, it seems obvious that such a move would be counterproductive. The prospect of police shirking their duty to protect the citizenry strengthens, not weakens, the case for private ownership of firearms and other tools of self-defense.
It’s enough to make you wonder whether Bloomberg is secretly a passionate admirer of the Second Amendment and keeps saying things this outrageous from a covert intent to sabotage the case for gun control. [cross-posted from Cato at Liberty. As usual, Ken White is funnier; & Daily Caller, Mike Riggs, Scott Greenfield, New York Sun ("It is a scandal that this most basic article of the Bill of Rights is not in force now in the leading city in America because the mayor, among others, refuses to bow to the Constitution that he is bound by oath to support.")]