Ruling-class arrogance still has its limits
Watching the encounter between Jason Mattera and Michael Bloomberg, it struck me that after all this time, gun controllers with armed security still don't have a good answer to "Why won't you disarm your bodyguards?" As you noted, this is a question that inquisitive reporters should ask constantly. Was there a single gun-control advocate at Dianne Feinstein's gun show, or will there be one at today's Senate hearings, who doesn't have an armed security detail? Are their guards limited to single-action weapons with tiny magazines?
There is a painfully obvious answer to the challenge Jason posed, and it's highly instructive that gun-control zealots never give it: "I need armed protection because I'm more important than you." Not even the President is eager to put things in such terms, when the uppity peasants notice that his family has protection at home, school, and everywhere else. It's logically true for most of them - none of us Little People faces the sort of constant threat the President does - but they won't make that case, because it does nothing to explain why we should be aggressively disarmed. Those who insist on their Second Amendment rights don't really begrudge the President his attention from the Secret Service; they just want him to return the favor.
Incidentally, if you're curious about how the Left handles this gun-control cognitive dissonance, Media Matters hilariously tried to brush off the Mattera encounter as a "misfire" because Bloomberg still pays some lip service to the Second Amendment. Got that? As long as a gun-control zealot doesn't support absolute, total, immediate forcible disarmament of the entire populace, he's not hypocritical for hiding behind a throng of armed guards.