"While liberals hate guns, the liberals they elect hire armed security for protection. So the liberal leaders feel the right to protect themselves ..."
I'm trying to work out what your point is here. There is a small, but not to be ignored, number of people who think that "liberal"* stance on things means that they need to be shot. Pro-choice, anti-give-anyone-a-gun campaigners have been shot, along with anyone who was stood near them (see Gabrielle Giffords, and look up the less well-reported (at least internationally) shootings and bombings of abortion clinics and supporters). There are some people that *need* to have protection.** Hell, even in the UK, politicians tend to have security, especially at cabinet level, and there aren't that many guns, and most of them are out of the hands of crazies.
* "Liberal" in the American sense, which has a somewhat different meaning than in countries a bit less right-leaning.
** I'm still grappling with the concept that there is no way that the USA will ever be able to get rid of all those guns in private hands, and so there may be some truth that there are a lot more people that might need to protect themselves. Thus, a a vicious (literally and figuratively) circle is created.