I’ve written before how gun-ban advocates are the scariest when they stop lying and actually tell the truth—a phenomenon that doesn’t happen often.
Yet as anti-gun politicians continue their relentless push for more federal restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, one congressman has accidentally admitted what we’ve known all along that many in politics believe—the lives of these elitist gun-banners are far more important than yours or mine.
That wouldn’t be a hard conclusion to come to, even if Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., hadn’t piped up last week. Simply consider the spoiled Democrat lawmakers who staged a toddler-like “sit-in” on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives last week (they were oh so serious, but had to quit because they ironically didn’t want to miss their vacation) while they were protected by layer upon layer of armed security—and at the same time pushed for laws that would make it harder for you and me to protect ourselves!
The hypocrisy is amazing. For those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, this hypocrisy is easy to see simply by looking at the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and any of the other gun-banners on Capitol Hill.
But nobody has admitted it as brazenly as Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., did last Tuesday in an interview with The Daily Caller.
It all started when Rangel was asked about his thoughts on how tough it is for law-abiding citizens to get a concealed carry permit in New York City.
“I think we deserve—I think we need to be protected down here.” — Anti-gun U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel“I’m glad to hear you say that very few people get it,” Rangel replied. “We don’t need that many guns. I didn’t know that briberies were involved in getting a gun, and that is wrong, but overall, if it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.”
Rangel went on to say, “Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction.”
So far, so good—he actually just sounds like any of hundreds of other freedom-hating politician who don’t want Americans to have the means to protect themselves. But when it was pointed out to Rangel that he, at that very time, was being protected by heavily armed security guards, Rangel dropped the bomb.
“Well that’s a little different,” Rangel replied. “I think we deserve—I think we need to be protected down here.” (Emphasis added.)
Rangel’s statement is both refreshing and disturbing—refreshing because he said what he really believes, disturbing because he thinks that he and other politicians are more important than the rest of us mere citizens. Rangel truly believes, as George Orwell put it, that, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Don’t think that Rangel is the only politician that feels that way. The list is long. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi—I could probably list names until I’m two days past my deadline. All are perfectly happy to live their lives in a safe cocoon of public-funded armed security, yet are just determined to see you and me empty-handed when faced with a dire threat.
And that’s the takeaway from Rangel’s frank remarks. In this critical election year, educate yourself on every race in which you can participate—from local to state to federal. Any politician who enjoys armed security but would deny you the same doesn’t deserve your vote.