this is another letter of complaint from my website of (homo)sexual assault that is
WWW.JAGGEDLITTLEDYL.COM and WWW.ANTI-GAY.COM
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
back to the menu
dear sir or vagina:

letter to the editor(s):

the following is a new perspective on the proposed gun-ban, highlighting rape of the lesser gender and taken from the political-action website (PAW) known as www.legalizerape.org:

men can take her, men can rape her, men can break her, she's a pipsqueak. and men can stop her bleeding just by fucking her. the truth is that ALL vaginas bleed for a man - and if it has not been claimed by a man then the vagina bleeds out an egg every month...kinda like a chicken. a woman is about DAIRY, she's a milk-leaker and an egg-bleeder. men can take her, men can rape her, men can break her, she's got a body built for pregnancy. these truths regard Strongwomen everywhere as being designed for motherhood rather than for physical ability, these truths regard Strongwomen everywhere as being members of the lesser gender who need protection from the strong gender - how can we possibly outlaw guns when it's so easy for men to take and rape and break a wombn? any ban on guns should be regarded as an assault on the womb. what's next, a ban on gender-based sports teams and gender-based military requirements? are we really going to deny little females their time in the sun, are we really going to require them to compete against the strong athletes or the strong soldiers if they want to even get a place in the sun? women NEED gender-based sports teams and gender-based military requirements if they want to be recognized as athletes and soldiers - and if they want to be regarded as "strong". i'm afraid that their little bodies full of estrogen don't stand a chance competing against men's testosterone-enabled strength. likewise, women NEED guns for self-defense against the men who want to rape them, women don't stand a chance using SELF for self-defense.

any Strongwoman is often raped, any Strongwoman is often the victim of domestic abuse, any Strongwoman goes to special gyms designed for the gender that does not have any use for substantial barbells. the bottom line is that Strongwoman, when it all comes down, isn't really that strong. now, with his proposed gun-ban, i believe that the white house-negro is flat-out ASSAULTING women. i believe that SEXISM is involved in the banning of guns, simply because Strongwoman cannot defend herself against the stronger gender with anything but a gun. she can't use other weapons, like a knife, because unless Strongwoman has impeccable aim and a decent throwing-arm, she'd have to be near her attacker to defend herself. put a gun in Strongwoman's hands, she is free to cower away in fear yet still defend herself. er, she'd let the gun defend herself from the strong gender, since her self - her actual SELF - is what drew the attacker to her in the first place. "i can take her," he most likely thought...it's like the day i found a chair at my local goodwill store - i couldn't hold it in front of me because it blocked my view, so i scoped it out and i said "i can take her," i put it down and grabbed the armrests while putting my head on the seat-cushion...and i stood up to carry the chair on my head to the check-out line. now, any man who scoped out a Strongwoman and said "i can take her," would be dead-wrong if Strongwoman had a gun.

remember george huguely? he used the brute strength of masculinity as a weapon, but if yeardley love had a gun to defend herself against her big, strong, football-playing hunk of a boyfriend, well, she would not have let femininity (once again) be trumped by masculinity - and she would be alive today.

george huguely didn't kill yeardley love with a gun, he killed her with his own masculine ability. by banning guns, the white house-negro is really telling the strong gender that the pipsqueak gender can pose no threat to them. by banning guns, the white house-negro is contributing to the elimination of pipsqueaks (aka, women). banning guns is really an insult to women, it's just uncovering another Strongwoman-insulting fact of life that doesn't need to be paid attention to. i mean, thanks to the "a woman can do anything a man can do" spin-machine of the media, nobody thinks that physical activities being gender-based is a sign that one gender would serve as a "handicap" to another gender...nobody thinks of the egg-bleeding vagina and the milk-spewing MOMmary glands as signs of "please put woman in her place" types of gender-roles, but if men know of a ban on guns then they are being told that selecting a woman to abuse is as easy as scoping out a chair at the goodwill - as men, we'd have nothing to fear if we wanted sex and we knew that Strongwoman had no gun in her purse. wham, bam, thank you mamn.

"i am, i am, i am, i said i wanna get next to you, i said i wanna get close to you, you wouldn't wanna have me hurt ya too" - stone temple pilots

thank you,
dylan terreri, i
sheldon cooper, ii

ps, with a gun-ban in mind, barack obama must want men to Risk Affirming Patriarchal Endeavors.
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays

check out my site, www.jaggedlittledyl.com , unless you're there now