Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Has to Change

In an attempt to score points in his ongoing wars against the Second and Fourth Amendments, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg argued that the terror bombings at the Boston Marathon in May illustrate the need for a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to “protect citizens.”

At an April 22 press conference, Bloomberg stated, “The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. … But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

According to a New York Observer article, the anti-gun Bloomberg remarked that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible. “The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws,” Bloomberg said, suggesting that Americans should give up freedom in exchange for a promise of security.

Bloomberg went on to say, “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. … 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.”

Thankfully, the public doesn’t share Bloomberg’s anti-rights views. In the aftermath of the manhunt for the Boston bombing suspects, a Fox News poll found that 69 percent of respondents favored having a gun in their household during such an event, illustrating strong support for the individual right to self-defense.

If Bloomberg is intent on changing the constitutional protections afforded to Americans, we would remind him that the document’s own Article v offers him a legitimate way to do so. Further, Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject in 1775: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”