But Not for You

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 is 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)