Bloomberg becomes a laughingstock

“Soothing words are nice,” Bloomberg said of Romney and Obama expressing their regrets about the shooting, “but maybe it’s time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

Last I checked, the president of the United States couldn’t, with a wave of his hand, bring new gun laws into existence. Passing the Draconian, restrictive gun laws that will probably send Bloomberg into swoons of ecstasy is the job of the Congress, not the president. Bloomberg was talking to the wrong guys.

Presidents only get to sign the laws Congress passes. Somebody needs to send Bloomberg a civics book.

Later, Bloomberg took on a Texas congressman who dared suggest that if more people in that Aurora theater had been armed, then the outcome might have been different. Bloomberg scoffed at the notion, claiming armed citizens would have made the theater more dangerous.

Then came Bloomberg’s piece de resistance: Police across the country, he suggested, should go on strike until more gun control laws are passed.

Let’s all roll the dice with our sanity and delve deeply into Bloomberg’s psyche, and what the man probably thinks are his reasoning powers.

Armed citizens that can defend themselves against gun-toting madmen on shooting sprees create an unsafe environment for everyone.

And a police strike does not create an unsafe environment?

If the cops go on strike, citizens are without police protection. That makes it more imperative, not less, to arm themselves for their own defense.

Bloomberg’s “cops should go on strike” is loose cannon talk, coming from the mouth of an elected official who’s rich enough to hire bodyguards until the striking police return to work.

So it would be protection for Bloomberg, while the rest of us poor schmoes would have to fend for ourselves. Don’t you just love rich elected officials that thumb their noses at common folks?

With his suggestion that cops go on strike, that makes three times in the span of two short weeks that Bloomberg has been hopelessly, utterly wrong.

He suggested that the two men who have absolutely no power to pass gun control laws tell us what they’re going to do about gun control. He claimed that armed, law-abiding citizens pose a threat to public safety, and would be of no use in stopping madmen like the one that shot up the Aurora movie theater.

I don’t know if that’s the case or not. But supporters of right-to-carry laws and Second Amendment rights have brought a curious point to my attention: How come maniacs that go on shooting sprees aiming to kill large numbers of people never, NEVER attack a police station?

Because there are people with guns there, that’s why. And they’re trained in how to use them.

Armed citizens not trained in how to safely and properly use firearms might pose a problem. But even the much-maligned — by liberals — National Rifle Association has always advocated that armed citizens receive training in the use of firearms.

Bloomberg, while on his gun control rant, responded to the fatal shooting of a little boy in New York by saying that we have to get guns off the street.

Heaven spare us from elected officials who want guns, and not the criminals that misuse them, off the streets.

Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.