…women should not be able to defend themselves against men.  It makes sense to me!

Semi-automatics are an affront to both Darwin and dimorphism.  Think of the evolutionary chaos when firearms allow petite women to defeat burly males in physical combat.  Genes are hereditary; handgun training is not.  Ergo, the survival of our species requires that any female who cannot defend herself with a muscle-powered revolver must submit to any male wishing to take her.

This is all obvious, you don’t need to be Swift to figure it out.  But there’s also an astonishing implication:  Chris Matthews is more repulsive in person than he is on T.V.

I say “astonishing”, but until this moment would have claimed “impossible”.  The error is both acknowledged and regretted.  It is also incomprehensible.  How can it be that not one woman on Earth would willingly couple with a rich, famous, well-connected celebrity?!  Yes, he’s the stupid wimpy kid no one likes, the witless blowhard too trivial to be squashed, a uniquely hideous splotch with Rudolph’s glowing snozz after radical nose surgery, and the only male whose fervent desire is to be impregnated by a slightly less pathetic male.

My sole defense is to remind you that he is a rich, famous, well-connected, world-travelling celebrity.  And with a pool of several billion women, I assumed that even Chris Matthews could find a willing paramour.

I was wrong.

Given the hypergamous nature of females and Matthews’ utterly ridiculous social advantages, the only reason to be rape-friendly is because he’s the most repulsive creature that could ever exist.  His flabby bulk is his only hope of trapping an unwary female into an intimate relationship, and semi-automatic weapons always win over flabby, easy-to-perforate bulk.

The best analogy is Rock/Paper/Scissors, where Paper wets itself at the thought of confronting Scissors because semi-automatic Scissors cuts Paper every single time, so Paper begs Rock (a third group comprised of neither semi-automatic-toting females nor Paper, and which would also obliterate Paper in combat because this Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy isn’t perfect) to protect Paper from Scissors–

(IMPORTANT AND NOT INCONGRUOUS NOTE:  Any statistically significant group of human males will always defeat a comparably-sized group of identically armed females in physical combat, due to sexual dimorphism.)

–which Rock could easily do, but which rightfully rejects Paper’s pitiful mewling because everybody hates Paper, and so Paper crawls into a corner and consoles itself that it would totally beat Scissors if Rock would only dull Scissor’s edges–

(IMPORTANT AND CONGRUOUS NOTE:  If Chris Matthews and Michelle Malkin ever do engage in mortal combat with semi-automatic weapons…or letter openers…bet on the Asian chick.)

(NO, WAIT, ESSENTIAL NOTE:  I’m betting on the Asian chick, you bet on Paper to maximize my payoff.)

–but Paper is…as always…wrong.

Chris Matthew’s modest proposal is that we can’t let technology make women the physical equals of men.  Whether that’s true or not–and you see that I consider even the most outlandish arguments–it still doesn’t do Chris Matthews any good.

There is no theoretical advantage that would make Chris Matthews the equal of any woman.