New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday that the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word 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.”
“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.