What Are Anti-Gunners Compensating For?

They know that argument goes both ways, right?

Here, from the NRA’s official Twitter account, is proof positive that one of the most brutally unkind things one can do to the average anti-gunner is to put a microphone in front of them and let them speak freely. (NB: If you’re at work, you’ll want to lower your volume or put in some headphones.)

Yesterday was #Saturday, which means our HQ employees were at home enjoying the sun with their family and friends. Meanwhile, #misinformed #gun-grabbing #protestors were chatting with our social media team. As promised, here is part 1 of 3. Stay tuned! Happy watching! pic.twitter.com/teB8eDvXB9

— NRA (@NRA) August 5, 2018

In that clip, of course, an anti-gun protestor demonstrating at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia declares that the only reason anyone would carry a firearm is…gasp!…that they’re overcompensating for something. Although this is quite possibly the dumbest argument for amending the Bill of Rights that has ever been bandied about—which is why most pro-gun folks generally refuse to dignify it with a response—it’s an extremely common trope that we guarantee you’ll hear if you leave the mic running long enough. But we can just as easily point out that their words reveal a giant, gaping hole in their anti-gun logic.

Let’s start here, shall we? This is an image of one of the most commonly carried types of self-defense firearms:

The Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard 38 | Image courtesy of smith-wesson.com

That, my friends, is a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber J-frame. Please take note of the length of that barrel: under 2 inches. That’s because it’s designed to be small enough to carry discreetly, and not meant to be accurate at distances beyond the average self-defense encounter (usually around 7 yards). Most firearms used for CCW are similarly diminutive—golly, it’s almost as if they’re being used for a very specific purpose that has nothing to do with anyone’s…inadequacies.

Next, let’s talk about the massive pit of hypocrisy in the anti-gun argument displayed above. The very same segment of society that screams the loudest for repealing the Second Amendment also agitates hard against “body shaming.” We’re not taking issue with this otherwise noble cause: Of course what a person looks like has nothing to do with their value as a human being. We’re just curious about why the go-to insult these guys have about Second Amendment supporters has to do with our genitalia.

Let’s move on to another vast, fetid sinkhole of stupid in the “Lord Farquaad” argument: Are they aware that women own and carry firearms, too? Like, a lot of women? To quote one woman of my acquaintance who carries concealed, “Oh, yes, I’m definitely compensating for my tiny dick. It’s so, so, small, it’s practically inside-out…oh, wait.”

Finally, a question: Are the anti-gunners aware that the “size” insult cuts both ways? Second Amendment supporters generally find the subject amusing, and often enjoy the occasional self-deprecating joke based on the old “you’re overcompensating” trope, but if we’re going to get nasty here, let’s not forget something. Maybe the problem here isn’t that our masculinity is too small. Maybe the problem is that their ignorance is just too big. Like an echoing Marianas Trench made out of pure stupid. A giant hallway of entitlement down which we throw hotdogs of truth. A gaping well of narcissism into which we chuck pennies (which have yet to hit bottom).

Just saying.