In a twist of irony, Kamala Harris was recently denied an armed security detail by the federal government. Yet, in a move supported by California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, the City of Los Angeles has decided to foot the bill and provide her with security, despite the federal government’s denial. What does this say about the hypocrisy of gun control politicians?
For years now, we’ve watched politicians like Kamala Harris passionately advocate for restricting your ability to defend yourself with firearms, all while ensuring they remain surrounded by armed protection. They want to keep guns away from the average citizen, but they don’t hesitate to have access to whatever firearms they want, often at taxpayer expense.
The hypocrisy is glaring. Not only do they want to strip you of your rights to own firearms, but they also demand top-tier security protection, often long after their tenure ends. And let’s be honest, they make sure these costs don’t come out of their own pockets, but yours.
Kamala Harris has shown her true stance on firearms time and time again. Let’s rewind to the not-so-distant past, when she pushed for an “assault weapons” ban with a vengeance. Yet, when it comes to her own safety, she’s been clear that guns are fine, as long as she has them.
Remember when Harris said she owned a Glock “for personal safety” as a “career prosecutor?” Interesting, isn’t it? Guns are fine for those in power, but for you? Not so much.
This double standard extends beyond Harris herself. California politicians like Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass have made it crystal clear that they see firearms as essential for their protection, but not for yours. If they truly believed that firearms were a root cause of violence, why are they personally arming up while simultaneously doing everything they can to prevent you from defending yourself and your family?
As for gaining support for these unfair and dangerous policies, Democratic politicians have cleverly conditioned a segment of society to believe that individuals like Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom are entitled to armed security, but the average citizen should remain unarmed. For their own protection, of course. You should just rely on “common sense gun laws”—the ones that take your rights away and leave you vulnerable.
And it’s not just an ideological divide; it’s a strategic one. The Democratic establishment continues to pour resources into campaigns that push fear-based rhetoric about firearms. The message? Guns are dangerous, and you shouldn’t have them.
In a recent memo from President Trump, he directed the Secret Service to revoke Kamala Harris’ security detail as of September 1, 2025. Trump’s move was aimed at curbing the extended security privileges that were given to Harris, something that isn’t typically offered to former Vice Presidents for extended periods of time. In a move that underlines the double standards, the protection was extended to her under Biden’s watch, despite Harris’ role in pushing for tighter gun laws.
It’s worth noting that the cost of protecting a former Vice President is estimated to be around $4 million every six months. However, in his final days in office, Joe Biden extended Secret Service protection for Harris from 6 months to 18 months. These kinds of cost overruns aren’t just a waste; they highlight a bigger issue with government overspending and misuse of taxpayer dollars. But why worry about the bill when it’s not your money on the line?
But the hypocrisy doesn’t end with Harris or Biden. The real kicker comes when you see how these policies are sold to the public. If you’ve ever talked to a neighbor or even a family member who insists that Harris deserves extended security protection, it’s clear that this propaganda has sunk in. The message? Kamala and her allies are entitled to personal safety, but your right to protect your family should be subjected to strict regulations.
It’s a sophisticated game of power and control, one that thrives on misinformation and confusion. The politicians who are pushing for gun control aren’t really trying to eliminate guns; they’re just trying to make sure you don’t have them while they stay well-armed. And you, the taxpayer, are paying for their protection.
So, the next time you hear a politician like Kamala Harris talk about the dangers of guns, remember, they aren’t talking about disarming themselves. They’re talking about disarming you.
At the end of the day, it’s about maintaining a grip on power, and they’re willing to exploit your money, your rights, and your trust to do it. We need to ask ourselves a question. Why are they allowed to be armed, while we are told we should not be? Why are we forced to defend ourselves with our hands tied by bureaucracy and fear-mongering, while they sit comfortably behind layers of armed protection?
The real question is, how long will we allow it?
