Yet, when such a discussion on Tuesday completely ignored Rosie O’Donnell’s own controversy surrounding this issue – it was identified in May 2000 that one of her bodyguards applied for a gun permit – the coffee klatch oozed with hypocrisy.
To properly set the table, Rosie and the gang were discussing the Virginia Tech killings, and all those present took a predictably anti-Second Amendment and anti-NRA stance with the predictable exception of Elisabeth Hasselbeck whose challenge to O’Donnell set off the following delicious exchange: (h/t and video available here thanks to NRO’s Media Blog):
Hasselbeck: Gun control is something that is, it’s a difficult thing, because you think of how many people have been protected by arming themselves with, you know, women who would have been, you know, otherwise would have been raped and murdered being able to arm themselves and protect themselves against an attacker.
O’Donnell: Nearly every single study done in every single country proves that that’s wrong. However, you’re never gonna change the gun laws in America. It’s one of the most powerful lobbies…
Hasselbeck: It’s hard, it’s a Constitutional right…
O’Donnell: We’ve amended the Constitution before when the rights of humans have been violated. And if my right to live peacefully in America is violated by someone’s right to own a semi-automatic gun…
Yet, despite her activism, when Rosie herself felt threatened back in 2000, she privately didn’t feel this way. As reported by The Stamford Advocate on May 25 of that year:
An application for a concealed weapon permit by Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard has some Greenwich neighbors of the television personality and gun-control advocate up in arms.
The application, which is pending with the Greenwich Police Department, led to a rumor that the permit's purpose would be to allow the bodyguard to legally carry a gun when accompanying O'Donnell's son to public school in September.
For those that have forgotten – which appears to include the entire panel of “The View” including O’Donnell herself – this created quite a stir at the time, because she was staunchly in favor of gun control, and was harshly criticizing guests of her show on the other side of the argument including Tom Selleck (video available here).
Yet, although Rosie at the time tried to resolve the controversy by suggesting that the bodyguard had applied for this license at the request of the company he represented, she did admit to feeling the need to be protected:
But the talk-show host said she and her family do need protection because of threats made against her, arising from her pro-gun control stands.
O'Donnell expressed concern that publicity about her son's attendance at a local school - coupled with the information that the guard would be unarmed - could make him vulnerable to harm.[…]
O'Donnell said she can reconcile her support of gun control with the guard being armed on occasion.
"I don't personally own a gun," she said, "but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem."
As such, when Rosie felt threatened almost seven years ago, and needed to protect her family, guns were acceptable. Seven years later, when she obviously now feels safe, and another national tragedy has occurred, it’s time to amend the Constitution.
Just another example of the well-established liberal mantra, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do,” wouldn’t you agree?
Alas, wouldn’t it be wonderful if someone on “The View” brought this issue up the next time Rosie went on an anti-Second Amendment/anti-NRA rant?
Don’t hold your breath.
For those interested, there are a number of good articles published on the Rosie bodyguard controversy here, here, here, here, and here.
