Dem Rep Gets Personal, Claims People Buy Guns Because They Have 'Small Genitals'
Another day, another low-brow jab at the everyman.
Democratic Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois was caught red-handed, lashing out this week with a rude sexual remark at the expense of American gun owners.
According to the Daily Caller, Casten was speaking with collegiate voters at a virtual campaign event Friday when he smugly suggested people who own firearms were just overcompensating for being poorly endowed.
“If you are a constitutionalist, unless you’re a member of well-regulated militia, tell me why you need to own a gun, right?” the freshman congressman said.
“Having small genitals is not a sufficient reason to own a gun.”
While Chicago is experiencing chaos and violence, NRA F-rated Illinois Congressman @SeanCasten makes stupid comments about gun owners who are just trying to defend themselves.
Keep insulting law-abiding gun owners while people die in your city, Congressman. pic.twitter.com/k4nBQZt5Nr
— NRA (@NRA) August 27, 2020
Jeanne Ives, the Republican opponent to Casten’s re-election in his district this November, posted a video of the revealing and inappropriate remarks Tuesday.
Her campaign communications director Jeanne Murphy would reportedly go on to tell the Daily Caller in an email statement that, despite having “sold himself to [the district] as moderate,” Casten was an “extremist” on the issue of gun control.
“Sean Casten sold himself to IL06 as moderate in 2018, He represents decent professional people,” Murphy said. “In this clip, he takes a radical position and describes those who oppose him in the most offensive, degrading terminology that he can possibly think of.”
“Casten has shown us who he is — an extremist, and what he wants — to abolish freedoms and make government your keeper. Our question to voters: Is that what you want?” Murphy added.
The politico also attacked Casten for an alleged reference to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissenting opinion in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller as the proper constitutional view of the Second Amendment.
Delivered by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s official position in Heller affirmed conservative claims the Second Amendment extends to protect “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” both in and outside the context of a “well-regulated militia.”
Stevens, however, delivered one of his most famous dissents on the ruling, arguing the Second Amendment protects military ownership of firearms, but not the ownership of a personal defense weapon.
The justice would go on to suggest in a 2018 New York Times Op-Ed that the only legal solution that could bring about federal gun control in light of Heller was a full repeal of the Second Amendment.
Such claims would hardly seem to fall in line with any known brand of constitutional originalism.
According to the very philosophy of the founding — philosophy informed by great thinkers like John Locke — rights are God-given, pre-existing government.
As a result, any government established by the people for the express purpose of protecting such rights could not reasonably infringe upon those rights and maintain its mandate.
This is why — unfortunately for the gun-grabbing American left, and quite fortunately for the American people — you do not need permission from folks like Stevens or Casten to own a firearm in this country.
Heck, you don’t even need to have justification to own a firearm in this country.
Now, such readings of our fundamental rights may appear incredibly bold. But then again, so was the founding.
And much like the Founders, those who assert their rights boldly will always be faced with the slings and arrows of big government elitists and swamp-dwelling politicians.
In which case: At least attacks like Casten’s reveal the gun rights movement is moving in the right direction.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
