Wednesday, May 26, 2010

New York Liberals Try To Disarm Cops

One of the great mysterious of our time is whether liberals try to implement insane ideas because to accept common sense would prove them to be...well, simply common..or because they are certifiably less intelligent than your average American citizen.

This story, out of New York, seems to strengthen the latter explanation:

An assemblywoman under fire for sponsoring a bill that asks cops to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arms and legs brushed off the outrage yesterday -- although she admitted she is no expert on police work.

Asked about her critics' contention that the proposed legislation will put police lives at risk, Annette Robinson (D-Brooklyn) told The Post: "I understand that."

She insisted that cops use too much force, but acknowledged she is unqualified to assess the issue.

"Not being a police officer, I would not be able to discuss the instance or the time that happens, but I do know that it happens, most often in the communities that I represent, and it happens too often," she said.

The "shoot to wound" bill would require cops to aim for a suspect's arms or legs instead of their midsection, where wounds would more likely be fatal.

Robinson has the support of Assemblyman Darryl Towns (D-Brooklyn)...

State Senates are a bastion of liberalism and idiocy, and perhaps Exhibit A above should cease all argument. But what's interesting is that this is not the first time such an unrealistic law has been proposed in the State Senate. It was previously introduced in 2000 by a State Senator named...David Paterson. Yup, New York's current governor. Selected, not elected, but maybe we ought to keep an eye on these crackpots from State Senates that are on the ballot for higher office?

And speaking of which...didn't Barack Obama rise to the presidency just two years out of an Illinois State Senate gig? Come to think of it, doesn't Robinson's admission that she know nothing of police work, yet feels fully qualified to pass laws to regulate it, remind you of a certain president who feels free to comment on and legislation on a myriad of issues of which he is knowingly and proudly ignorant? Say, Arizona immigration law, for instance

Explains a lot, methinks. And it certainly makes any claims by the pundits that Obama is a "centrist" politician laughable, as does the supposition that he will move in that direction to save his presidency. He'll move to the center as quick as Annette Robinson will. That is to say, never.

And if they both have their way, honest and brave American citizens will die. Especially New York cops, who, while trying to aim at a palm sixty yards away during a shootout, will get their heads blown off by a criminal who has no such restrictions on his actions....

No comments: