Bloomberg: Police shouldn't protect citizens until stricter gun laws are passed

Uh, don't we pay taxes so police can protect us? Are you forgetting that, you out-of-touch c***?

This guy's nuttier than the king-sized Snickers bars he used to hand out to kids on Halloween.

It's only a matter of time until guns are banned or severely restricted in New York City. Tax payers might want to invest in Louisville Sluggers.

His talk is actually about the danger the police has too face and how worrisome that is.

And he is not totally wrong there is he?

I don't think you've been to NYC lately.

It's not uncommon to walk down the street and pass a police officer with a dog and an automatic weapon. At Penn Station, you'll find both police with dogs and military personnel with automatic weapons. I don't think you could walk a block, either, without running into a police officer. It's not as if they're scarce and ill-equipped or unprotected. This is the police department that covered a peaceful protest by deploying SWAT vehicles, vans, and x amount of officers.

And the main issue is that Bloomberg's making a half-witted remark like this and not taking into consideration the tax payers who fund the police. Not to mention it's their duty to "protect and serve". The idea of holding our security hostage is insane.

Bloomberg is an idiot and a Dictator.

At least one of his proposed laws is getting blocked for now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0

If you don't think Bloomberg is a Dictator, read this other Law passed by his administration:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/03/latch-on-nyc-breastfeeding-initiative-takes-effect/

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/ms/initiative-description.pdf