On crime.. not ony is Bloomie adamantly opposed to the general public carrying firearms for self-defense, he's committed a number of felonies with his crew travelling the nation to "prove" how "bad" gun laws are elsewhere. His "proofs" fall far short of anything valid. He's also used considerable city funds to promote his illegal mayors against guns schtick. Meanwhile his coppers are stopping people at random searching for guns.
Consider for a moment how much less crime New York would experience if the "bad guys" had no idea whether any given target for their crime might not just happen to be in lawful possession of, and know well how to use, the one thing criminals MOST FEAR out "on the job"... a handgun. Statistics prove over and over, all round the world, that where defensive weapons are common, crime is not; where they are forbidden, crime is common. Thus, rather than incite the ire of New Yorkers, political activist groups, and that well meaning judge, let New Yorkers provide their own anti-crime protection. It will come at NO public expense, will reduce violent crime significantly, and end the need for stop and frisk.
New York is so paranoid about those other than "the Only Ones" in possession of personal firearms some 350 out of state travellers are arrested annually at New York's airports for the "crime" of travelling through that sick place with their lawfully possessed arms in checked luggage. New York seems to think the Federal Firearms Owner's Protection Act suddenly nullifies itself on their turf. Personally I will not even take a flight connecting through New York.
I have not seen any information on Di Blasio's stance on New Yorkers actually being able to EXERCISE their rights as guaranteed under the Second Article of Ammendment to the US Constitution. Somehow I doubt he favours recognising that right. Most socialists tend to prefer their subjects disarmed. They are easier to control and/or ignore that way.
It seems to me that -- sooner rather than later -- the financial juggernaut institutions still located in NYC will figure out that in today's electronic world, the financial markets and mavens can be located elsewhere. Almost ANYWHERE else will offer superior regulatory, cost and tax environments.
When (not if) this epiphany strikes, NYC will quickly degenerate into Detroit II. Bankruptcy will will likely be the LEAST of its woes.
So be it. The closest I'll ever again get to visiting NYC is during a change of planes at the airport.
Is there a contradiction between opposition to "stop and frisk" and second amendment rights ?
If citizens are to be protected from being frisked for weapons, shouldn't they also be allowed, on a level playing field to carry weapons to protect themselves ?
Has this occurred to the judge, or is the idea to disarm law abiding citizens, while protecting others who carry weapons ?
My take on post-Bloomberg if that means de Blasio as Mayor of New York!
Bill de Blasio: Caveat Emptor New York City! (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2013/10/bill-de-blasio-caveat-emptor-new-york.html)
Bill de Blasio appears set to run away with the election and become the next Mayor of New York City.
This article examines the potential reasons why so many New Yorkers would choose to vote for a socialist who will bring in higher taxes, an increase in crime and a likely hit to the quality of life in the City.
Gee---what a cautious disclaimer. De Blasio "might well" perpetuate the worst and abandon the best. He's vowed to abandon stop-question-frisk. Crime rates will inevitably go up as a result of that. Whether they go up enough to turn NYC into Detroit before the tide turns and policing once again becomes legal is beyond the reach of my crystal ball, but it's an outside possibility.