Texans will head to the polls in November to cast their ballots for U.S. Senator. Current incumbent and NSSF A-rated Sen. John Cornyn is seeking reelection and there will be a primary for both party nominees first.
One Democrat candidate, NSSF F-rated Democrat U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett has some serious explaining to do to the Texans she’s hoping will give her a promotion about an issue that’s always front and center in Texas — the Second Amendment.
A Fox News report reveals Rep. Crockett has joined a (un)distinguished — and disingenuous — group of pro-gun control legislators who back 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.
In a state populated by people who revere the Second Amendment as much as anyone in the country, good luck to Rep. Crockett explaining that dynamic to them while trying to earn their vote.
Subsidized Private Armed Security
Candidates for federal office are required to file Federal Election Commission reports every three months, making public how much money they, as a candidate, have raised and on what they spent campaign funds. It’s transparency, the proverbial “sunshine” as the best disinfectant. It’s to ensure they remain within the law and so the public can see as well.
What does the sunshine illuminate about Rep. Crockett’s campaign spending priorities? Armed security. Her FEC report spotlights that Rep. Crockett spent a whopping sum of money apparently 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.”
In other words, Rep. Crockett — while perennially campaigning to take away Texans’ Second Amendment rights and defund law enforcement — spent 30 percent more than the median yearly salary in Texas ($61,400) on private armed security for herself…paid for by other people. What a deal.
While that’s not nearly as much as failed and former gun control congressional colleague U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) spent on her private security ($770,000), Rep. Crockett’s security payments should make Texans livid.
No Other Options
Given Rep. Crockett’s plentiful past statements detesting the role of law enforcement, it would make more sense if she also supported people arming themselves to protect against criminal violence. But, no…she holds the same illogical and dangerous beliefs that police need to be limited — or eliminated — and Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed. That’s a dangerous and unacceptable combination for any American.
Here’s how she envisions the role of law enforcement and presumably what Texans can expect as they hear more from her on the campaign trail. Mind you, Rep. Crockett said this just a few short months ago, in 2025.
“I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime,” Rep. Crockett told a podcast, according to The New York Post. “Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se.”
Jasmine Crockett: “Law enforcement ISN’T to prevent crime! Law enforcement solves crime, okay? That is what they are supposed to do.”
Ummm what???? pic.twitter.com/Ti8ycEzRix
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 8, 2025
If there’s still any doubt about how Rep. Crockett would approach Second Amendment rights and keeping Texans safe, just read how the gun control group Giffords’ offers a glowing endorsement of her.
“She’s proudly fought to pass measures to expand background checks to all gun sales, ban assault weapons and bump stocks, close loopholes that allow dangerous people to access firearms, strengthen safe storage measures, and address gun trafficking — all while also respecting the rights of responsible gun owners,” a Giffords statement boasts. “Now more than ever, Texans deserve a champion who will always stand up to the corruption of the gun lobby and put their safety first.”
It’s a tale as old as time for gun control activists. “A champion” for Texans who “puts their safety first.” What they really mean is someone who will take away Texans’ rights, all while spending substantially more than the typical Texan makes in a year to pay for subsidized private armed security for themselves.
Texans are smarter than Rep. Crockett makes them out to be. They’ll vote that way in November this year.
You are mistaken, Crockett is right, in the legal sense. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that police have no duty to protect individuals or prevent crime. Victims have sued for egregious failures by lazy cops, and lost every time. She’s still a hypocrite, all politicians are, but from a legal point of view, as expounded by the US Supreme Court, she’s right.
“The Supreme Court has ruled several times that police have no duty to protect individuals or prevent crime.”
I think you misunderstand that.
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police GENERALLY do not have a duty to prevent crime or protect individuals from harm. But that’s in context with individuals under specific circumstances.
But for the public at large (general public), within their jurisdiction, they do GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime or protect individuals from harm.
For example, the individual police officer has no duty to prevent crime against you specifically as an individual – but – as the law enforcement authority in a jurisdiction they have a duty to prevent (within their capability) crime against the general public of which you are a member thus have a duty to prevent (within their capability) crime against you just as much as they are obligated by duty to do for the general public.
This is what she said and what I am responding to.
< “I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime,” Rep. Crockett told a podcast, according to The New York Post. “Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se.”
She is right.
But this is what you said and to which I was replying:
“The Supreme Court has ruled several times that police have no duty to protect individuals or prevent crime. ”
But now that you bring it up, she is not correct because: For the public at large (general public), within their jurisdiction, the police do GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime, and that is also what they are suppose to do.
Laws are written assuming they provide a means intent for preventing them from being broken. How many times have you heard it said by politicians ‘we need this law to prevent …” what ever the crime is in the law. That means of prevention intended is ‘law enforcement’ in the form of police and the judicial system. That prevention takes different forms, including presence and deterrence factors such as patrols and arrest-possibility. The police, within their jurisdiction, GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime because the law demands it by its existence.
No, police do not PREVENT crime. Patrols and fear of being caught deter some crime, but so do shame and past experiences. Guards PREVENT crime. Police do not. The courts have ruled that is not their job or duty.
yes, they do.
Elites have always castrated, hobbled, declawed and defanged their slaves, working animals and food animals while surrounding themselves with guards and soldiers.
This is not a new thing.
What might be relatively new, as in the past two centuries or so, is humans en masse ignoring, forgetting or not understanding this.
ATF’s Hidden Gun Registry: How a ‘Tracing System’ Became a Billion-Record Database.
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/02/atfs-hidden-gun-registry-how-a-tracing-system-became-a-billion-record-database/
Congress Votes to Remove Less-Than-Lethal Devices From Gun Control Act Coverage.
“The House of Representatives voted 233 to 185 on February 9 to approve legislation exempting a new category of less-than-lethal projectile devices from federal firearm regulations and taxes, sending the measure to the Senate for consideration.
…”
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/02/congress-votes-to-remove-less-than-lethal-devices-from-gun-control-act-coverage/
“Now more than ever, Texans deserve a champion who will always stand up to the corruption of the gun lobby and put their safety first.”
“Corruption”, she says while wallering in hypocrisy surrounded by her security detail. If corruption was a snake it would bite her on the arse and she thinks she is a champion.
Then this: “all while also respecting the rights of responsible gun owners,”
Perhaps the biggest lie of all the lies the left spouts.
If crime prevention is unnecessary, what is the justification for her individual focused security?