Rand Paul

Rand Paul Points Out Hypocrisy of Rich and Powerful People with Armed Guards Trying to Restrict Gun Ownership for the Rest of Us

Self-defense is a right for all, not a privilege for few


a right, not a privilege
Neil Krug/foter.com

Dianne Feinstein's ill-fated assault weapons ban included an exemption for government officials, law enforcement and former law enforcement. Few (if any) gun control advocates support getting guns out of the hand of government, and no anti-gun celebrity that I know of has publicly eschewed armed guards. Gun control laws are almost always discriminatory; in New Jersey, where I live, a grocery store can hire an armed guard who can open-carry to protect the store, but I'm not allowed to open-carry to protect my family at the store, or anywhere else for that matter. These kind of laws arguably transform the right to bear arms into a privilege.  Those who advocate gun control but believe in a well-armed government (most of them) and those who push to restrict private gun ownership while enjoying private armed security themselves (like Jim Carrey or Piers Morgan) are promoting a profoundly unequal system, one that subordinates the autonomy and rights of the people in favor of the whims of an elite.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul hit the nail on the head last night on Fox News' Hannity show. Via Politico:

Sen. Rand Paul says there's "a certain amount of hypocrisy" that the same Hollywood celebrities and prominent politicians — including President Barack Obama and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — who are calling for gun control are also benefiting from armed protection themselves.

"I don't begrudge any famous person like Mayor Bloomberg, or the president or the president's family for having protection — I think they all should. There's enough crazy people out there that would attack on the right or the left. But I think when you are being protected by people who have weapons by responsible people, I can't see why you would be opposed to that for other people," Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said Thursday on Fox News's "Hannity" to guest-host Eric Bolling.

He continued: "Many rich Hollywood celebrities have armed guards with them at all times and many regular people who live in a poor neighborhood, who have a business in a poor neighborhood and a neighborhood that may have higher crime — those people have to suffer the vicissitudes of violent crime without protection sometimes because of gun control laws. So, yes, I think there is a certain amount of hypocrisy."

Opposing for other people what you enjoy yourself is elitism and anathema to American principles of equality under the law, something the left tries at least to pay lip service to on other issues.

NEXT: Federal Sequestration Furloughs Not Spread Evenly

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rand speaks way too plainly for a politician.

    1. It’s amazed me that this particular hypocrisy doesn’t resonate more than it does. Special people get special rights?

      1. Some animals are more equal than others.

        1. Leftists are perfectly happy with their leaders having special rights and privileges. They are leading the fight for the poor and underprivileged, so they need their mansions and jets and servants and armed guards.

  2. Opposing for other people what you enjoy yourself is elitism and anathema to American principles of equality under the law, something the left tries at least to pay lip service to on other issues.

    Actually, no they don’t. Hypocrisy and elitism are part and parcel of being a statist. The BAN BONER crowd wants to take guns away from people they don’t like, it’s that simple. Since the people they do like don’t want guns in the first place–unless carried by an armed guard or policeman–this causes little conflict in their tiny minds. It’s all about KULTUR WAR and hate. They have no room for anything else.

    1. It’s not hypocrisy. They don’t have a principle on which to be hypocritical — they deserve protection because they’re the Good People; we don’t. That is their thought process. What’s hypocritical about that?

    2. It’s not hypocrisy if you and your fellow elites feel you deserve privileges, such as the right to armed protection, that the proles don’t get to enjoy, unless you specifically claim solidarity with said masses.

      It’s not hypocritical to be openly elitist, just reprehensible.

      1. Exactly.

    3. You are of course partially right, but there is the huge portion of the libruhs that falsely believe that putting a set of new restrictions on firearms will somehow reduce gun crime. I know many.

  3. Has anyone talked about government control?

  4. I am increasingly of the opinion that progressivism is rooted in a fear of having to cope with members other cultures. They deal with this fear by attempting in a variety of ways, one of which is by attempting to limit the damage these others can do to them. In my debates with progressives here in MA on the subject of self defense is their unswerving emotionally arrived at conviction that people who think differently than them are dangerously unpredictable and a threat to them. It’s an infantile approach to the world, and we are very fortunate to live in an era where the engineering arts and commerce has made it possible for infantile people to thrive rather than starve.

    1. very fortunate

      Are we though? Really? They are; I’m not convinced we’re better off.

    2. No, tarran. It’s all projection. These people do not trust themselves with a gun, therefore we are all as pathetically weak as them and also cannot be trusted with a gun. Simple. The other motivation is KULTUR WAR. Dirty redneck hicks like guns for huntin’, and the bien pensants do not, so let’s take away something our cultural enemies like to spite them.

      1. That’s it right there. These people would indeed shoot someone who cuts them off if they had a gun in the car. They’d shoot the radio if it got stuck on Rush Limbaugh. They’d shoot their children for talking back. They are emotional loose cannons, and they know it.
        Then they assume everyone else is as much a slave to their emotions as they are.

        1. These people would indeed shoot someone who cuts them off if they had a gun in the car. They’d shoot the radio if it got stuck on Rush Limbaugh. They’d shoot their children for talking back.

          Wait…that’s not normative behavior?

          I’m gonna go reassess some things.

        2. Fry: So you’re saying these aren’t the decaying ruins of New York in the year 4000?
          Farnsworth: You wish! You’re in Los Angeles!
          Fry: But there was this gang of 10-year-olds with guns.
          Leela: Exactly, you’re in L.A.
          Fry: But everyone is driving around in cars shooting at each other.
          Bender: That’s L.A. for you.
          Fry: But the air is green and there’s no sign of civilisation whatsoever.
          Bender: He just won’t stop with the social commentary.
          Fry: And the people are all phoneys. No one reads. Everything has cilantro on it.

          1. That’s hilarious — where’s that from?

            1. Third season of Futurama.

          2. And they still have In-n-Out Burger!

      2. Oh please! This makes as much sense as your opinion on the Big Bang Theory sucking.

        It’s projection that makes them want to keep blacks from smoking marijuana when they smoke it too? It’s projection when they seek to outlaw Walmart from opening stores in their town while welcoming Target?

        Sure, some engage in projection, but too many of them are insular people who are actually quite capable and even rational in the space they occupy, but nevertheless are terrified of people who don’t come from that space.

        1. You know what? I think you’re projecting, you big jerk.

        2. Your examples are all of the culture war facet of their mentality. As episiarch said, its a combination. I have definitely seen the projection facet come out, especially in debates about guns. The main thing I see however is naked paternalism. Anecdote: a very smart and very “liberal” friend of mine who is a heavy pot smoker actually voted against amendment 64 in colorado. Why? Because he couldn’t stand the idea of poor helpless minorities being subjected to advertisements for pot in their neighborhoods ala menthol cigarettes. “Liberals” seem to me to be chiefly about displaying fake concern which they never see for what it is: contempt.

          1. … a very smart and very “liberal” friend …

            ox?y?mo?ron noun \??k-s?-?mo?r-??n\
            plural ox?y?mo?ra
            : a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

            1. Fair enough… I don’t know though. It’s not stupidity that causes people to hold positions like that. IMO it is something more insidious.

              1. It’s the presumption of their own superiority. It stems, in the males, as a means of offsetting the beta status they achieved in their youth. In the females, it’s more purely a status thing.

          2. LOL, as if anyone selling pot, legal or otherwise, needs billboards.

  5. A question for Tony: if you could kill a politician who opposed meaningful gun control legislation and by doing so you knew that you would save thousands of gun victims in the future would you kill that politician?

    1. there is no such thing as “meaningful gun control legislation”

      1. I think he means “gun control legislation that isn’t symbolic and toothless, that actually disarms people”

        1. while were at it, why not put the real dangerous tecnology back into the box.

          Please ban fire.

          It be dangerous.

          1. It also causes global warming.

            So, yeah, it is to be restricted to authorized users only.

  6. These kind of laws arguably transform the right to bear arms into a privilege.

    Arguably? They absolutely dude. Of course, the argument the people who wants to ban them might make it, “Oh, well we don’t want to ban ALL guns!”

    Fuck them, bans on guns are as despicable as bans on speech.

    1. Absolutely *do… I think anonbot is rubbing off on me.

    2. They absolutely dude abide.

      1. I see what you did there

      2. Do you mean “doed”?

  7. When Jim Carrey filmed Me Myself and Irene in Vermont, he had armed guards 24/7.

    1. Yeah, but since he didn’t have to do the arms bearing, his atrophied celebrity brain got to continue with the pretension that he was a civilized, cultured non-“gun nut.”

      1. Yes-this is a major flaw in their thinking. They pretend that they don’t use guns for self-defense because they can use hirelings to do the dirty work for them. They think this makes them morally superior to those of us who carry our own guns. They’re full of shit.

    2. Jim Carrey made a movie of you & Irene? Oh, well, Damon Lindelof filmed me. Twice. But I didn’t have Irene with me.

    3. In fucking Vermont?

  8. Gun control comes from fear. It’s not rational. It’s emotional. And as such it cannot be reasoned with.

    1. Listen, and understand! That Assault Weapons Ban is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

      1. From one possible future…I DON’T KNOW TECH STUFF

    2. That’s exactly why the NRA’s outreach programs have been such a wild success. Most people don’t arrive at gun control from a factual basis; when people learn how to use firearms and how safe they are when operating under common sense rules of gun safety (the real gun control), they tend to abandon that position in short order.

      That has worked very well in our favor: we’re a much better country for gun rights today than we were in the 80s or even the 50s and 60s. If only someone would learn how to do the same for economic and other liberties.

      1. This is true.

    3. On the local CBS affiliate they were doing a short story highlighting a protest / counterprotest up in Newtown outside NSSF headquarters. The control advocate they interviewed was a blubbering, emotional mess, barely holding back tears while emoting her position. The opponent was a cold and rational person arguing for freedom. It said in 20 seconds all you need to know about the entire debate.

      1. Pretty much.

      2. That gun control advocates are compassionate, good, caring people, while gun rights supporters are cold, heartless bastards who don’t care about teh childruns?

  9. Anybody know what law makes it legal for an armed bodyguard in LA to fly to New York City with his handgun?

      1. Beat me to it, Randian. That Buckeyes game was sweet. 🙂

        1. It was sweet, but I hope they’re not planning on winning every game with a buzzer beater. I will be swallowing my pride and rooting for Michigan tonight ’cause I do not want to have to play Kansas should we make it there.

          1. He’s on our side.

    1. The Law of FYTW.

      1. There has got to be some form of statutory authority. New York City is crawling with celebutards, uber wealthy, politicals and diplomats.

        1. A lot of body guard work is done by off duty cops, who can concealed carry in all 50 states.

        2. Could be the celebs contract with an agency, which supplies locally-licensed guards wherever they travel.

      2. Probably the same law used by David Gregory to get his gun on TV. Don’t concern yourself with such thing, peasant.

  10. Even people who want a total gun ban still want the government to be armed. The idea is that, by banning all guns, you keep guns out of the hands of bad or crazy people who might run around and murder people. Granted, this represents a pretty low percentage of humanity, but the mere possibility is enough to justify a ban. Besides, regular people are dumb and mean, so they’re probably a little more likely to do bad things.

    Of course, what happens if one of those bad or crazy people is a cop? Oh, well, most cops aren’t going to do that sort of thing, and, when the rare exceptions arise, other cops will stop that outlier. And, even so, it’s worth it to prevent the shooty percentage of regular people from having access to a gun.

    So, essentially, it’s worth allowing people with badges the ability to commit murder with a firearm in order to reduce the chance that a civilian might commit murder with a firearm.

    These cats talk a lot about logic and common sense, but when they actually come face to face with it, they retreat to their core argument, which is basically just an emotional, gut rejection of cultures they don’t accept. Guns are for rednecks and dumb people, and Southerners, and you will no more see a Progressive advocate for gun rights than you will see one propose subsidies for NASCAR, for the very same reasons.

    1. Basically, it’s fine for “the better sort” to have guns, especially if they hire professional gun handlers, i.e. bodyguards, to trail them around, because they’re too rich and too leftist to commit violent crimes. However, if you have a bunch of non-rich, non-famous people who AREN’T part of the Prog set walking around with guns, well, that’s a MILITIA, and we can’t have that sort of vigilante, rampant lawlessness in this country, no sir.

      1. I think it is also a function of the fact that progressives consider politicians and celebrities to be “naturally” more important than mere regular people.

        So if Al Gore and Barack Obama produce vast amounts of carbon jetting around the world to talk about global warming, it’s “childish” to point it out, because “leaders have to do the people’s business”.

        And if celebrities have armed bodyguards, that’s OK because they “really” need protection, but you’re just childish and paranoid if you assert the same right to self-defense. You’re just a lowly normie, you should call 911 if you have a problem.

        1. All true. But then they also tell themselves they are for “equality” whatever that is.

          1. It means stripping the common folk of the petty delusions they use to strive to establish superiority (race, gender, wealth, ability, character, etc.) over one another and establishing that they are equally as ants in the eyes of the State, its court, and its aristocracy.

      2. Progressives view self defense by the average person as vigilante justice.
        I mean, what’s the difference between shooting a guy in the face while he’s trying to commit a rape, and shooting him in the back of the head a week after he commits a rape? No difference at all. A gun was used against a criminal by someone not from government. That’s vigilante justice. Period.

        1. I ended up getting dragged into some argument a few weeks earlier with a friend of a friend who was a visiting Australian whose house had apparently been broken into when he was a a child and he was present, and they just snatched some valuables and left without disturbing him. He reasoned that therefore, anyone, anywhere, who had even the slightest concerns about home invaders raping, injuring, kidnapping or killing in addition to property theft were paranoid lunatics.

        2. And yet they don’t view a president just starting up a war without Congress’s blessing as a vigilante. Hell, they probably wouldn’t even view a cop who went around blowing away gangbangers as a vigilante.

          Their definition of “vigilante” has nothing to do with lawful or legitimate authority, and more to do with class hierarchy — the uniformed vigilante and the ordinary vigilante are both acting outside of the law, but only one of them is acting above their station in life.

          A cynical person might think their adoption of Marxist class language is a ruse to blind people to the actual, traditional class system arising in our society, from which they benefit.

          1. Adoption? Sorry to break this to you, but it always has been. Capitalist societies, while having major wealth and income differentials, come the closest to “classless societies” as you can find. Free people don’t tend to gravitate to differences of birth or status. By and large, socialism appeals to those who fancy themselves “the elite”, who feel short-changed by the fact that free enterprise elevates “mere moneygrubbers” over them in the social hierarchy. The laboring classes never really took to Marxism. They’re more likely to adopt the values and outlook of the bourgeoisie.

    2. Re: wwhorton,

      Of course, what happens if one of those bad or crazy people is a cop?

      Let them eat cake, w. That is what the gun-grabbers will say.

    3. But don’t they understand that the armed forces are still staffed by…people? Do they really think the cream of the crop go into the armed forces? Or join the police?

  11. I guess it comes down to a question of which do you trust more, society or the government, your neighbors or the cops.

    Progressives view society and their neighbors with contempt and scorn, while government makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.

    The rest of us would trust each other before we trust the government.

  12. Props for using the word “vicissitudes” without sounding pretentious.

  13. OT: Kurt Cobain’s daughter got way to many of her mom’s genes. Poor girl.


    1. Dude, her boyfriend looks just like Kurt.


    2. She doesn’t look that bad. I really wish she wasn’t a socialite and that she had a bit more of her dad’s artistic drive. All I’ve heard from her are her bitch fights with Courtney and Billy Corgan.

  14. I’ve been thinking recently, particularly when reading reports of just how much the latest hilariously expensive Obama family vacations have cost, of the alienating effects such an incredibly comprehensive security cocoon must have on a person. At least Carrey’s expenditures are private.

  15. How dare you accuse them of hypocrisy! They need trained, armed guards to defend their safety from crazed gun nuts.

  16. and today on the Rand Paul blog called “Hit and Run”….

  17. “….promoting a profoundly unequal system, one that subordinates the autonomy and rights of the people in favor of the whims of an elite.”

    I think that is the point.

    Related: I may soon have a chance to enter into a debate about gun control with Mary Landrieu, possibly televised. That should be interesting.

      1. Put it on Reason TV… if you win. Just joking- Good luck.

  18. And if celebrities have armed bodyguards, that’s OK because they “really” need protection

    Obviously, if somebody crawls through Jim Carey’s window and bashes his skull in while stealing the pocket money off his dresser, it’s infinitely more tragic than the same thing happening to me, because more people know who Jim Carey is.

  19. I may soon have a chance to enter into a debate about gun control with Mary Landrieu, possibly televised.

    If you point your finger at her and go, “Pewpewpew!” I’ll pay you a nickel.

    1. I will do worse. I intend to attack her on the ‘sensible’ aspect of their argument and then accuse them of mendacity.

      That is worth a dime at least, wouldnt you say?

  20. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/k…..-religious

    Time Magazine, on holy Thursday no less, tells us that being too religious can mean you are mentally ill. Of course we all know that owning a gun and being skeptical of government are also signs of mental illness.

    1. I believe that a desire to go into politics is a form of mental illness… at the least, a major character flaw.

      1. I think a desire to “change the world” or engage in “social justice” is a sign of mental illness.

    2. Is religious fundamentalism considered a mental illness? In its most extreme cases, I believe so….but only if it literally inhibits someone from producing rational thoughts.

      and I ate chicken today….sue me

      1. It is only Catholics who do that. Protestants reject all of that. I ate chicken too.

        What do you mean extreme cases? Trying kill people? Sure. But in that case the problem is the mental illness not the religious belief. It is like saying since crazy people were shoes, wearing shoes is a sign of mental illness.

        1. that reasoning never crossed my mind. Makes sense, considering that Bronyism wasn’t invented by My Little Ponies, but the autists that thought it would be cool to idolize a little girls show

          1. Are some crazy people super religious? Sure. But not every super religious person is crazy. The problem is the crazy not the religion.

    3. They only way Time can sell copies, nowadays, is by trolling.

  21. By the way, I believe that the metric for civilian right-to-bear-arms is simple: If law enforcement can use it, so can we.

    It stops all arguments about nukes and stinger missiles in their tracks.

    1. It should. But it won’t. Leftists actually believe that cops are good shots, and well trained in the use of firearms. Actually, to be fair, most people believe this, not just leftists.

      I guarantee you most of our resident gunnies could outshoot the average cop. Cops, like all government employees, are not held to strict performance standards.

      1. Actually, to be fair, most people believe this, not just leftists.

        See Scalia, Antonin.

        But he fat, he is Italian and he went to a better school that us. So he must be right.

      2. Leftists actually believe that cops are good shots, and well trained in the use of firearms. Actually, to be fair, most people believe this, not just leftists.

        I used to be on the Board of Directors at a local gun club here in NH. We used to let our local PD use the range for their qualifications, but we insisted on using our range safety officers due to our liability insurance requirements.

        At one of their qual shoots I was the RSO. To call them well-trained or good shots is laughable. Maybe 20% of them were what I would consider capable. The rest of them looked like their annual qual shoot was their only range time.

        Unsafe gun handling, painting their fellow cops with their barrels, not listening to RSO orders, you name it, they did it.

      3. This doesn’t comport with my experience, which is that “left”ists have less respect for police, as individuals or a collective, than the avg. person does. In most cases it’s the farther “right” you go, the more cop-friendly they get, to the point where at the extremes, “right” wingers tend to think the cops are always right (unless they have personal knowledge otherwise) and “left” wingers that the cops are always wrong (likewise). At least in the USA; other countries too, anyone?

        No, I think there’s another factor operating: “left”ists dislike the appearance or reminders of violence, while “right”ists like those things. Most of these “left” elites with armed guards would like to disarm the general police too, leaving themselves and their hirelings as the only ones allowed to be armed in the popul’n.

        1. The extreme right and the extreme left both hate cops. The middle 2/3rds are serious badge fluffers.

  22. Thought of the day

    A civilized society is not a society without guns but a society armed with guns that don’t need to be used.

  23. Leftists actually believe that cops are good shots, and well trained in the use of firearms.

    The people randomly shot by cops in the immediate aftermath of the “Empire State Building shooting” might like to offer their views.

    1. Don’t forget the LAPD’s recent brilliant plan to bring in a rogue cop by ramming and shooting EVERY FUCKING HUMAN BEING THEY CAME ACROSS.


  25. Would it be sufficiently antagonistic to the left to for the gun rights community to call itself the gun equality community?

    They just want to be allowed to carry weapons suitable for defending themselves and their communities, like civilian police or the Department of Education are routinely trusted with. They want to serve as their own bodyguard, since they can’t afford to hire one like ElBloombito or random Hollywood celebrity or be given one for free like POTUS. They want to be free to join a militia, to be more equal to the sort of man who claims to have his own personal army. They want to be able carry various sized magazines without fear of prosecution, like beltway journalists. Etc. etc.

  26. By this logic then the good and the just should have assault weapons along with the bad and the criminal and the insane. Why do we restrict machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, and mines to the military? We make a judgement for each weapon as to what is reasonable. We make that judgement every time we try to keep North Korea and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. No hypocrisy there.

    1. If a citizen pays the tax, he can own all of the items you listed. They are restricted to the rich so that the poor don’t decide to start hanging bankers.

  27. I’ve often thought people in high crime (or medium crime) neighborhoods should beat the gun control laws by hiring each other as armed security guards. Whatever procedures there are for becoming one would probably be affordable if the people in the neighborhood shared it. You know, like take turns. A local militia. I’m sure they could afford the bond requirements better than they could the crime.

    Only thing is, last time I checked this for some state — maybe Ill. or Md. — there was a kind of grandfathering or guild arrangment whereby the security company had to have a history of hiring guards, and the guards had to have a history of working for security companies. I’m sure there’s a legal way of bootstrapping it, though.

  28. uptil I looked at the check which was of $4584, I be certain that my brothers friend woz like they say actualy bringing home money part time from there pretty old laptop.. there moms best frend haz done this for only about 10 months and resantly took care of the dept on there home and bourt a great new Acura. I went here, and go to home tab for more detail— http://goo.gl/XjdQI

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.