More on “Guns for Me, but Not For Thee”

Clayton Cramer reports (as did an anonymous commenter) that Ft. Wayne, Indiana Journal-Gazette editor Tracey Warner wrote an editorial on why he has a concealed-carry permit. Here are the hypocritical parts:

Position A:

On the other hand, the experience has provided insight into why people have weapons. The police are not 24-hour armed guards, and few of us can afford our own. Having a gun reduces one’s sense of vulnerability. Indiana’s constitution and state law expressly allow me to carry one for my protection. After having long rejected the idea, I have decided to at least have the option.

Position B:

Over the years, The Journal Gazette’s editorial page has long called for strict control of guns and opposed state efforts to allow citizens to carry handguns in public. I agree with gun control. Having a gun permit, by definition, is gun control.

Yet the editorial, written by Tracey Warner, that spawned all of this was against OHIO IMPLEMENTING PERMITTED CONCEALED-CARRY.

But “having a permit, by definition, is gun control.”

As I said: “Guns for me, but not for thee.”

Something Mr. Warner shares with Diane Feinstein, and others enthusiastic about “gun control.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *