Today’s New York Times features an op-ed entitled The Mayor on Stop-and-Frisk. The Gray Lady takes the short Mayor [Bloomberg] to task for his relentless support for “Stop ‘N Frisk” policing. Obviously, the paper’s pissed at the idea because A) it doesn’t reduce crime and B) it “targets” blacks and hispanics. But here’s the shocker. Not only is the paper against stop and frisk, it’s also pro gun! No really. Here’s the money shot: “No one is opposed to using effective, constitutional means of fighting crime.” And there you have it.
Yeah, I’m not convinced.
It is a bit of a stretch, but from the New York Times, I guess we’ll take whatever we can get. :/
B— S— just because you say its so doesn’t make it so. Prove It!
And then you woke up…..
Hey Campbell, did you take the time to actually read the op-ed? I did, and it really smacks Nanny Bloomie on the gun detection/confiscation rate as a percentage of stops. In a word: Trivial.
You’re welcome!
Not the Gray Lady. The Gray Birdcage Liner.
What, are they going to good cop bad cop us now? very funny, Randy
It looks and quaks like a duck but Im still thinking its a wiffle ball.
Whew, had me going for a moment…
I gotta remember which site I’m reading!
So the Times Editorial Board is apparently (collectively) smarter than its opinion columnists.
Doesn’t mean they’re ever going to get off the gun control wagon, but at least it’s good to see them actually defending a constitutional right.
We’ll see how they feel about middle class white folk being stopped and frisked for guns and the number of rounds in magazines being counted out.
Something tells me that the NYT definition of “constitutional” is slightly different than mine.
Time for another leftist dictionary excerpt:
Constitutional – Using a document one loathes to further one’s personal or political agenda, and denying said document’s protection for opposition.
I just read the article and yes it validates Constitutional means to fight crime but doesn’t mention at all using guns to do so. Just by the mention of “constitutional means” it could construed or extrapolated to include legal armed defense but the entire focus of the article was the trampling of the Fourth Amendment by Bloomberg and the NYPD.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department caught a ton of shit just for simply asking immigration status during, and ONLY during, the course of a legitimate stop for traffic violations and got hammered by the DOJ and the media but NYPD can do what they’ve been doing and the DOJ is completely silent on that one? Everyone loves to brand Arizona as racist when Bloomberg’s NYPD wins first prize for racist policies. If Arizona cops tried this ‘stop and frisk’ nonsense on ANY race let alone the majority being blacks or latinos the ensuing shitstorm within our state would be biblical.
Being a lifelong Arizonan I’m well and truly stupefied at the utterly ridiculous crap NYC’ers have not only allowed to happen but continue to put up with. I think Bloomberg views NYC as his own personal social experiment.
The vast majority of police are dirt bags any way, a very high percentage have bad credit, hi rate of divorce, mooch off business owners and are thieves. They enjoy there power and abuse it. If the gun grab ever goes door to door, the police will jump right in with pleasure. Never mind the New York State police that say they are pro second and ask for citizens not to shoot them, they are just being proactive in saving there asses. They think all people are bad and there are just a few good ones, namely them. The police department is a fraternity against the people. THIS INFORMATION STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH. I’VE DONE MY HOMEWORK. SO GO AHEAD AND BE ON THEIR SIDE ALL YOU SHEEPLE. YOU WILL FIND OUT THE HARD WAY.
Comments are closed.