Bloomberg and Gun Control

It wasn't long after the Aurora shooting that politicians jumped at the chance to speak out in favor of more gun control laws.  Bloomberg was praised by some in the media as having the fortitude to speak out in favor of more gun control.  However, just because Bloomberg was speaking out in favor of such measures doesn't make the man right.  I've put out the idea that even if guns were not available to the shooter, that he could have easily killed many people, and probably more people if he had chosen a different weapon (say the many explosives that were found at his apartment). Getting back to Mayor Bloomberg and his view on gun control though, according to this article, he was brazen enough today to say these remarks:

"I would take it one step further. I don't understand why 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 you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'"

While I agree that we should do all we can for our law enforcement officers, abridging the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights should not even be in consideration.  The right to bear arms is there so individual people can defend themselves not only from criminals, but from tyrannical government. After tragedies, such as 9/11, we are urged to give up our civil liberties in order to attain more security, and the politicians succeed.  We have already had compromises of the First and Fourth Amendment, and now they are going to go after the Second Amendment once again.  We now live in a society where any citizen can be spied on if they are 'suspected' to be a terrorist, where they can be on the President's kill list, where we are searched in order to get on an airplane, where we can even be indefinitely detained without charges brought against us.

Getting back to the Second Amendment though, the right to bear arms is meant for personal self defense and prevention of tyranny.  What Bloomberg suggests is that we need to give up this right in order for our police to be safe.  Now think about this;  who will protect us against the police in those situations where the police are in the wrong?  I am not saying that this happens often, but it does happen.

Take this account recently in Florida.  Police shot a man in the early hours of the morning after knocking on his door.  Police were searching for a suspect at the wrong home.  They proceeded to knock on his door without announcing themselves, and the resident answered with a firearm drawn.  The police then shot the resident, who had nothing to do with the suspect they were looking for.

Here is another account from Bloomberg's home state of New York.  I watched the entire youtube video, and I would encourage everyone to do the same. The story had me in tears, but is a good example of police misconduct which ended in a tragic fatality.

Police are not perfect, and we shouldn't expect them to be. If I need to defend myself, I would much rather have a firearm than a police officer 5 minutes away.  However, Bloomberg is the same politician who wants to ban large sugary drinks from his city, so I understand his political philosophy.  You can depend on the government to protect your health from sugary drinks, just like you can depend on the government for your personal safety. 

Think about this though;  when the government fails in its duties (in some cases it does pretty often), who is left to protect the individual?