I thought about using the headline, “Okay For Me But Not For Thee”
for this, but I've used it before, and I don't want to wear it out by
overusing it. This story is about a politician thinking he's better
than everybody else. This is a REPUBLICAN, fergawdsakes! And he
thinks he's better than the rest of city employees, many of whom
actually come in contact
with
people who violate city ordinances, and are far more likely to NEED
to be armed, but to whom he wants to deny that right. There's a new
ordinance up for a vote in Fresno, California, to allow city
employees involved in ENFORCING city ordinances to be armed, just in
case. The mayor is opposed. This wouldn't be as much of a problem
except the MAYOR is armed, and carries his gun all the time, saying
he is “more exposed.” I don't know how “more exposed” he is
than people who are daily face-to-face with violators, but this is a
good example of how certain politicians reserve such rights for
themselves, while denying them to others. This happens regularly
involving anti-gun fools, who want to deny this right to EVERYBODY,
while carrying guns themselves, or hiring gun-toting “security.”
Such a one if Sen. Diane Feinstein, who is one of the most notorious
anti-gun fools, but carries her own gun, AND has an armed detail
surrounding her at all times. (Breitbart)
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment