My hypothesis is this: given any opponent O to your view p, your first reaction is to claim that O is inconsistent with regard to p. So, take Obama, whose first initial happens to be O. He’s against arming school teachers and janitors. The National Rifle Association naturally finds this absurd, and, of course, hypocritical. In a recent commerical, which you can see at this link, they argue:
“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the narrator of the group’s 35-second video asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s
just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”
Is the President a hypocrite because his family has armed security?
Obviously not. First, the President’s security is provided by the (hated) government; each of the gun-carrying individuals surrounding the President and his children (etc.) is of the very well-regulated militia type: trained and retrained, background tested, sworn to uphold the constitution, serve and protect, and so forth. Second, the President (and members of Congress, etc.) exist in a gun-free zone, except for the police.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t have my 2nd amendment rights at the Capitol building, among the NRA’s biggest legislative boosters. Does that not make them hypocrites? Not really.