Consider this hypothetical:
Mr. A is a firm believer in Blue Laws. Specifically, he thinks it is morally wrong for a business/shop/restaurant to be open on Sunday (or pick Saturday or Friday or any other day). That's his stance and he lobbies representatives and bureaucrats in government to push legislation and enforcement of his belief.
With me so far? Mr. A is using his resources (money, time, voting) to push for a law he wants.
Now here's where they hypothetical gets hairy. Mr. A also owns a restaurant and store. It's not a franchise as he has total control of the hours. However, he keeps it open on Sundays.
Why? How does he explain his petitioning of the state to force him to do something he is not doing voluntarily?
Well, when asked Mr. A gets enraged and sputters about competitive advantage. You see while he is well-to-do he wants to be better off, and if he closes on one day then he looses 14% of his business, perhaps more if that's a busier day.
And Mr A would continue saying that he's just one business owner. That state or nation-wide that would be a bare drop in the bucket. That his individual actions are totally unrelated to his beliefs in State Blue Law Policy.
Many other businesses would still be open on Sunday that his contribution would be meaningless. And besides, why should the moral burden fall unduly onto him? What about all those other shopkeepers why should they be allowed to stay open while he has to close?
In fact, Mr. A would puff up his chest and boast about how when the Blue Law he supports get passed all business will have to comply and in one fell swoop he'll no longer have to worry about a relative disadvantage and made everyone become more moral.
Clearly, this doesn't just apply to Blue Laws. And no my conversant yesterday did not have a last name starting with A.
It's also an explanation as to why wealthy liberals don't pay the tax rate they feel people in their bracket deserve to play (The IRS does accept checks sent their way). And well... "Mr. A" did brag about getting the best accountant he could find to make sure his increase in tax payment stayed as low as possible.
If you're going to convince the State to impose on my life, you better, at the very least, already be adhering to the code you're clamoring to cram down my throat.
It's like someone trying to ban fur but keeping their mink coat until it's been made illegal, because otherwise she'd be colder than everyone else.
Some feel that an action is only moral if it comes at gunpoint. That true fairness comes from having the state force people to do what their proponents would never do on their own.
It's also not that uncommon. There are gun controllers that have guns and others, especially among government, that have armed bodyguards.