search
top

King Bloomberg: NYCLU as Bad as NRA

We documented here that King Bloomberg is no fan of American Constitutional liberties, since they get in the way of his being able to run his kingdom as he sees fit. Now he’s suggesting that the New York Civil Liberties Union is as bad as the NRA:

One group views the Second Amendment in absolutist terms; the other group views the Fourth Amendment in absolutist terms. Both groups, I think, are dangerously wrong on the Constitution,” he added. “The right to bear arms and the right to privacy do not trump the right of citizens to walk down their own street, or walk down their own hallway, without getting blown away.

I must have missed that part in my pocket constitution, where there’s a constitutional right to be absolutely free of crime. The Bill of Rights absolutely trumps rights that King Bloomberg makes up. Whether he likes it or not, New York is still part of the United States, and we will be soon teaching him that lesson in federal court.

9 Responses to “King Bloomberg: NYCLU as Bad as NRA”

  1. Oranje Mike says:

    Scary man that Bloomberg.

  2. JayF says:

    That has long been an argument of anti-gunowner activists: “Your RKBA is trumped by our right not to get shot.”

    I always wondered when that principle would be applied to other constitutional rights.

    • Bitter says:

      The sad part is that I know of too many people who would just smile and nod at the phrase, “Your right to not be searched and felt up by a government employee is trumped by our right to feel a smidgen safer.”

    • Publius says:

      The problem is not the right not to get shot. Anyone who uses that argument presupposes that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to shoot people, and it is unspoken but “without provocation/justification” is in the mix too.

      Firstly, that’s not what the 2nd amendment does–it guarantees a preexisting right to own and carry weapons. Actually using them is another matter (the 2A does not address when that might be appropriate), but even so it is well established in the courts and in common sense that a person’s right not to get shot ends when that person initiates aggressive action that puts someone else in mortal danger.

      • Alpheus says:

        What, are you saying that I don’t have the right to get a couple of my friends together, and go wallop some guy with a gun (and using lethal force in the process), without any of us getting shot?

        How am I supposed to terrorize my fellow neighbors without fear? Fear is bad, and we need to get rid of it!

  3. Andy B. says:

    “I always wondered when that principle would be applied to other constitutional rights.”

    In my opinion, it’s applied all the time. It begins with the premise that “No constitutional right is absolute.” People will usually nod in agreement to that, but essentially what that says is “Pragmatic reasons for violating the constitution exist and are acceptable.” From that point on we are just quibbling over the subjective utility of each violation of the constitution someone chooses to advocate; but we have already accepted the fundamental premise that the constitution can be violated once a good excuse is found.

    I think we can all come up with examples when we’ve said “I wish the Second Amendment was interpreted as literally and pristinely as (e.g.) the First Amendment.”

    • Publius says:

      You mean like how a certain type of person likes to talk about “limiting” whatever they deem to be “offensive” or speech? No, thank you.

  4. James says:

    Bloomberg’s comments are very remarkably offending. Someone needs a swift kick in the crotch.

  5. TS says:

    But you don’t have a right to walk down your own street without getting searched for no reason?

top