TexasCHLforum.com

Wow. I've never seen such a compilation of half truths and flat out lies in an article. Her other "articles" are just as bad.

http://www.tinadupuy.com/column/trust-m ... n-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To the author of that article:

Trust me, you're an idiot.

the fact remains if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.

...and Zimmerman would likely be dead. But that is preferable to her ilk because THAT would be social justice in their warped minds. Self defense is bad and being a victim is noble. The life of a drugged-up, thieving, juvenile delinquent, wanna-be gansta is more valuable than a respectable member of society with a job and a future. The truth is inconsequential and a young person's death is best used for political expediency. The REAL truth of it is that if Trayvon Martin's parents hadn't been complete failures as parents and as human beings, their son MIGHT still be alive. People like this genuinely disgust me.

People like the author love to hide behind the written word and very selectively choose the fact that they want to deal with, ignoring the reality of everything else. In a separate thread, I posted a new story about Chicago, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the the country, having lost 10 of it citizens over the Memorial Day weekend. There were no "legal" gun owners in the crowd and a bunch of Trayvon Martain equivalents are not longer living. I would love to hear how Ms. Dupuy would handle that situation.

This isn't one good example anywhere in the world of proof that controlling guns saves lives. Even Canada has come back from the brink of that argument.

When I hear these arguments, I'm reminded that I cannot go to my local hardware store and buy a can of spray paint without being carded. The argument for that was to prevent graffiti. How's that working out? We cannot control the sale of drugs, the sale of alcohol to minors in spite of a raft of laws that have been passed and this lady is absolutely convinced that we all believe in gun control to prevent shootings like Trayvon Martin. Typically, these types, when backed into a corner, end up saying "well, it would be worse without the laws." Pulease!

74novaman wrote:To the author of that article:

Trust me, you're an idiot.

I second that emotion.
Motion carries.

chasfm11 wrote:People like the author love to hide behind the written word and very selectively choose the fact that they want to deal with, ignoring the reality of everything else. In a separate thread, I posted a new story about Chicago, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the the country, having lost 10 of it citizens over the Memorial Day weekend. There were no "legal" gun owners in the crowd and a bunch of Trayvon Martain equivalents are not longer living. I would love to hear how Ms. Dupuy would handle that situation.

This isn't one good example anywhere in the world of proof that controlling guns saves lives. Even Canada has come back from the brink of that argument.

When I hear these arguments, I'm reminded that I cannot go to my local hardware store and buy a can of spray paint without being carded. The argument for that was to prevent graffiti. How's that working out? We cannot control the sale of drugs, the sale of alcohol to minors in spite of a raft of laws that have been passed and this lady is absolutely convinced that we all believe in gun control to prevent shootings like Trayvon Martin. Typically, these types, when backed into a corner, end up saying "well, it would be worse without the laws." Pulease!

It's OK when the "oppressed" are killing each other, or their "oppressors," it's only bad when one of us "oppressors" kill one of the "oppressed." And btw, if you're a liberal you can't be an "oppressor," so while it might still be morally superior of you to take a beating or accept your death at the hands of the oppressed, it would still be OK if you kill one of them. And that would be especially true if you're rich, and your wealth doesn't come from some kind of productive activity (e.g., it's inherited, it came from Hollywood, or it came from the government).

Her essay is just the typical clap-trap spit out yet again.

I do believe strongly in gun control -- which includes access control, muzzle control and trigger control so that it can be discharged to hit what I aim at -- and only what I aim at.