It is, perhaps, one of the dumbest arguments in the “arsenal” of the anti-gunner. I’m talking about the attempt to claim that gun owners are overcompensating for their small genitals.
There have been a number of comebacks to this one through the years, of course. I read Massad Ayoob’s response that if that was true, no man would have a gun with a two-inch barrel. Fantasy author and gun guy Larry Correia has remarked that yes, he is, but it’s because his genitals are unable to throw a 230-grain slug at over 900 feet per second. There have, of course, been many others.
However, that doesn’t stop some from still trying to make the accusation anyway.
Democratic Illinois Rep. Sean Casten appeared to link gun ownership to “having small genitals” in comments he made during a virtual campaign event on Friday.
“If you are a constitutionalist, unless you’re a member of well-regulated militia, tell me why you need to own a gun, right? Having small genitals is not a sufficient reason to own a gun,” Casten said on a Zoom call with college students on Friday.
Casten’s Republican opponent, Jeanne Ives, posted a clip of Casten’s comments to YouTube on Tuesday. Casten’s campaign didn’t return the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Unsurprisingly, the internet went kind of nuts.
Well I’m female so…..probably.
— unruly kulak, striped edition (@robo_tabby) August 27, 2020
Uhh,I am a woman, & well, if you’re defunding Cops, I certainly NEED a gun.Yes,I know you want me to become a noodle and just give up, but I fight back.
— Sapphire 🇺🇸 (@Sapphire80129) August 27, 2020
My questions to Rep. Casten. So what? What if it’s in fact true? How does it matter? Are genitally challenged people somehow less deserving of respect? Does your statement include women? Do women who own guns have “small genitals”? Why are you so concerned about their Junk?
— jaschmd (@jaschmd) August 27, 2020
See, personally, I get tickled by this whole line of attack. You see, I find it amusing because these are often the same people who decry “toxic masculinity” think that men need to get more in touch with our feminine side. They argue that men shouldn’t be focused on how manly they should be, yet at the first opportunity, they try to attack that same masculinity.
However, Casten is missing something important.
You see, in order for his opinion to matter to someone, they have to actually care what he thinks. His opinion has to count for something, it has to matter in some way. Especially when it comes to my masculinity, and that’s what this comment was really meant to attack.
As you can see from the tweets above, a lot of women were less than thrilled with the congressman’s comments as well, not because of anything to do with gun rights but the outright sexism to believe guns were a guy thing.
Honestly, Casten’s whole line of attack is nothing more than an attempt to shame his opponents into capitulation. He can’t reason us into abandoning our gun rights, so he wants to shame us, to make it so we’re outcast. It’s an attempt to stigmatize gun owners.
The problem for him is that we simply don’t care what he thinks of us, nor of what his fellow anti-gunners think of us. We stand for our civil liberties. All of them. Not just the approved ones anti-gun lawmakers can tolerate, but each and every one. That’s because we know damn good and well that if gun rights go, it’s only a matter of time before the rest go as well.
And compared to that, why would we worry what some rando congressman thinks of our genitals? Frankly, I’m wondering why he’s spending so much time thinking about our genitals in the first place.