Normally, one will find the anti-gun sentiment in larger cities, not small towns. Smaller towns tend to be a bit more rural, particularly in their attitude toward firearms.
But that doesn’t apply to attitudes in smaller communities adjacent to larger ones. There, you’ll often find gun control advocates winning public office.
Yet it seems in one about a half-hour outside of Chicago, the mayor is only anti-gun when it comes to you being protected by firearms, not herself.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has 90 bodyguards babysitting her and her family as she rules over a city of 2.7 million. People understand the need for bodyguards for big city mayors, even if 90 seems like, well, overkill.
But why has the mayor of a small town a half-hour outside of Chicago, a little burgh with population of only 20,000, had a three-person security detail for over a year? Particularly when three officers represents almost 10% of the city’s police department?
Dolton, Illinois Mayor Tiffany Henyard has spent over $258,000 so far since May of 2021 making sure that least three officers are dedicated to ensuring her safety and security in the suburb south of Chicago.
To put that into perspective, that’s the same number of bodyguards that protect Birmingham, Alabama’s mayor but that city has almost ten times the population of Dolton.
At the same time, Mayor Henyard’s armed personal security detail affords her far more protection than the residents of her city enjoy. One of her first acts after taking office involved organizing an “anti-violence” march. She was joined at that march by anti-gun activist and accused pedophile Father Michael Pfleger.
I get that a mayor may feel the need for security. As our friends at The Truth About Guns note, other mayors have security. While Chicago’s Lightfoot’s 90-person detail seems a bit excessive to me as well, she also lives in Chicago, so I guess I can see it.
But Birmingham’s mayor lives in a violent city–not as bad as Chicago, but they’ve got their issues–and makes do with the same size detail as Henyard.
The issue is that Henyard’s anti-gun stance means that she doesn’t think you should have the best means of protecting yourself, but that she should.
Remember, she’s being protected by guns. In the process, she illustrates the true hypocrisy of the anti-gun stance.
You see, they’re never really against guns. They’re against you having guns.
Henyard has no issue with guns protecting her, just them protecting you. If you can’t outsource that protection to the police, well, that’s what you get for being a peasant. You’ll just have to suffer at the hands of criminals. Henyard, however, as mayor is above such plebian suffering.
And that’s how a lot of anti-gunners really look at it, too. They’re not against guns in principle. They’re just against you having them to use in self-defense.
Hell, many even realize that criminals will obtain guns no matter what they do, yet they still want to keep you disarmed in spite of that understanding.
And sometimes, those same folks get into a position where they can have 10 percent of the city’s police force assigned just to protect them and theirs. Must be nice.