Rep. Jasmine Crockett, in her time in Congress, has managed to do something I never thought was possible. She made me think that maybe AOC isn't the dumbest member of the House. Honestly, she's said some colossally stupid things in the last couple of years and has made her name by playing down her elitist roots and pretending she's just "Jazzy from the streets" or something.
Another sign of her stupidity is that she thinks she has a shot at becoming one of Texas's senators.
Oh, and let's not forget that she's yet another anti-gunner. That's kind of important for our purposes here.
But despite the fact that she thinks that you and I should be disarmed, she clearly feels she's worthy of protecting.
According to a news report by David Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Rep. Crockett has some serious explaining to do to the Texans she’s hoping to give her a promotion about an issue that is always front and center in Texas—the Second Amendment. As NSSF pointed out, Fox News recently revealed Rep. Crockett has joined a (un)distinguished and disingenuous group of anti-gun lawmakers who support proposals that limit the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves while at the same time paying exorbitant sums to employ private armed security protection, sometimes subsidized by others.
An FEC report cited in the Fox News report revealed that Rep. Crockett spent a whopping sum of money seemingly to protect herself, while simultaneously advocating for policies that restrict Texans from being able to do the same.
“By far the largest expense was private security, despite Crockett repeatedly calling to defund the police,” the Fox News report stated. “Crockett paid close to $80,000 for security in 2025. A significant portion, $30,079.34, of those security costs came in the final quarter of 2025.”
That hypocrisy didn’t sit well with Keane and the NSSF.
Nor does it sit well with me.
Look, I don't actually care if members of Congress spend their own money for private security, by and large, nor do I care (much) if they spend their discretionary budget on it, just so long as they don't think protection is only for the elites.
The problem for me is that she seems to think that if you don't have deep enough pockets to outsource your safety to another, you shouldn't get safety at all. Not only is she about defunding the police, but also about denying you the ability to protect yourself. Sure, the police don't have a duty to protect, but if I can't do it myself because you've disarmed me, they're my only hope, and Crockett supports ending that, too.
I don't know about you, but I don't have $80,000 I can drop on personal security in a year. I don't get to sponge off the American taxpayers to cover that kind of expense, either. So, I have to do it myself, like I have to take care of minor home repairs and maintenance. To do that, I need the tools, and in this case, that means guns.
And Crockett seems to think that we should be denied those tools.
"But people kill others with guns!"
People kill others with hammers, too, you freaking knob. Yes, they use guns more often, but we use guns even more often to stop those people, kind of like how most people use hammers to hang pictures and other typical uses, rather than beating someone.
Crockett, however, can outsource it and figures that if you don't have the money for that, you're simply not worth protecting at all.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member