Bloomberg: If I Had It My Way I’d Dump Half Of NYC’s Teachers [2011]

Stop and frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment; you accept it because YOU aren’t being stopped and frisked. In other states they wouldn’t even try it; it is blatantly illegal.

I really don't like it when the Constitution is used to prop up thugs.

I was stopped one time while I was out walking at night in a city in which a white guy was recently lynched. I followed protocol, just as I was trained in CCW class. The officer removed the Glock from my back holster. Had kind of a smart attitude, and IMHO he was showing off to the female officer, who complimented my almost new weapon. Not a big deal. I followed the law for CCW in the city I was in. I was simply prepared to defend myself.

Would you care to visit inner city Baltimore, a city that has never employed stop and frisk?

Also, stop and frisk is one reason NYC is pretty safe today. It pains me to see Republicans criticize stop and frisk.

Sure, it works, but that doesn't make it any more Constitutional. It pains me to see posters here fully support major violations of the Fourth Amendment.

So, what is the big deal about stop and frisk? It has saved countless black lives in NYC. I would not have wanted to visit NYC prior to what Giulianni and Bloomberg did to clean it up and make it more safe, and now it is one of my favorite places to visit.

What's the big deal about Gov registering and banning your firearms?

What's the big deal about the government not allowing you to join the religion you follow?

What's the big deal if the government decides to try you for a crime you've already been acquitted on?

What's the big deal if the government just throws you in jail for a year after that, since they don't think you really need counsel?

What's the big deal about the government looking at whatever files they wish to on your computer? Entering your house whenever they want to to see if you might have drugs or kiddie porn or an empty 64oz soda cup?

As I pointed out earlier, the end is being used to justify the means - and there is no shortage of people who believe we’d all be much safer if NOBODY owned guns. When they start seizing privately-owned guns, they are going to use your logic against you; they are already trying it in courts across the country.

You are changing the subject. What about ism.

I don't know what "ism" even is?

And no, I am not changing the subject, at all. I simply took your argument, and applied the same logic to other parts of the Constitution. Does that work? Or is NY's stop and frisk the only violation of those you support?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.