In another "Let them eat cake" moment, Michael Bloomberg declares we need to change our interpretation of the Constitution.
“What we (sic) cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
Here's another case of someone speaking, but not listening to what they are saying. Practice your Creator-given right to your choice of religion, but don't practice your Creator-given right to keep and bear arms. Moron.
“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”
Says something bad about you, sir, for sure. The "we" you mention, law enforcement, who are supposed to protect us have no legal responsibility to protect us as individuals, only society as a whole. I could be safe to walk down the street or go to a park if I am armed or if there is a possibility I am armed. Would not a criminal or terrorist think twice about committing a crime against another if the victim may be armed? Let the people decide on their own how they choose to defend themselves when law enforcement won't or can't protect them. How's that for an interpretation?
