Enemy of the people, NY mayor Bloomberg claims the Constitution has to change.

Stand aside, privacy-rights protectionists. The bombings in Boston prove the nation needs to change how it interprets the Constitution to give government greater power to protect citizens, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a Tuesday press conference reported by the Politicker. “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.”

Specifically, Mr. Bloomberg said the nation needed more surveillance and the likes of more magnetometers in schools.

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he continued.

“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” Bloomberg added.

He then pointed to the gun debate and said the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons, but the fact is that the courts have yet to really rule on that. That is indeed pending in his own state as legislation such as the NY SAFE Act is being challenged and even nullified in several counties in New York.

“Clearly 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 … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, referencing the use of magnetometers to detect weapons in schools.

The problem with this claim is that there was an intention in the Second Amendment and so it does not allow for “different interpretations of the Second Amendment.” Are we to believe there are “different interpretations” to the remarks that Bloomberg himself has made about the Second Amendment? If so, how would we ever be able to understand exactly what he was saying? Or anyone for that matter.

“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.”

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg also feels the bombing in Boston justifies extensive surveillance in New York City... or more than it already has.

"The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this past week. He added the network now has the ability to "alert police to abnormalities it detects on the street, such as an abandoned package that is left on a corner."

Personally, I could do without the "terrible reminders" and the "investments." Bloomberg claims the tragedy justifies the surveillance, but there's very little effort being made to curtail either sides of this false equation. New York law enforcement seems to spend most of its time hanging out in mosques or shoving non-white male youths up against the nearest wall for a little of the old stop-and-frisk.

There's a chicken-and-egg thing going on here. Apparently, we "need" to increase surveillance because awful things happen. But when awful things fail to happen, no one in the surveillance "community" takes the time to wonder if perhaps the current surveillance efforts might be excessive. Surveillance, like any other vehicle of government control, only expands over time. Various government agencies will once again be asking you to trade privacy for security. The problem is these agencies can't promise security. The only thing they can truly guarantee is "taking" your privacy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/ny-mayor-michael-bloomberg-constitution-must-chang/
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/michael-bloomberg-constitution-will-have-to-change-for-greater-security_042013
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130421/18080722793/rep-peter-king-mayor-bloomberg-agree-boston-bombing-shows-we-desperately-need-more-surveillance.shtml