Judy Dorsett Tyler's 2nd Amendment Statement
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Judy Dorsett Tyler's 2nd Amendment Statement

  1. #1

    Exclamation Judy Dorsett Tyler's 2nd Amendment Statement

    Here's a video that I guarantee you won't forget anytime soon! She didn't cry, although she came close to losing it, and she gave those a reality check they dearly needed.

    Texas girl, Judy Dorsett Tyler, had the encroachment on her second amendment rights so graphically illustrated. The honorable senator from New York , Chuck Schumer, was getting a little uncomfortable in his chair. The room was absolutely dead quiet throughout her testimony and the gun banners (meaning Senators who want to BAN citizens' ownership of all guns) absolutely speechless as this little Texas gal chews them up and spits them out. She knows what the 2nd amendment is really all about.. Watch it. You will be glad you did. And pass it along.

  3. #2
    I wish I could have been there so that I could stand up and applaud !!
    Life Member GeorgiaCarry.org http://www.GeorgiaCarry.org

  4. #3
    Who is this "Judy Dorsett Tyler" referenced in the OP's text? The video seems to be testimony by Suzanna Gratia Hupp. According to Wikipedia, Dr. Hupp is a "former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives" and "is recognized as a leading advocate of an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon."

    Further, Hupp is quoted as having said, "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

    Pretty powerful words, huh?

    I know the Luby's Cafeteria massacre took place in Killeen on 16 October 1991 but does anyone know when she gave this congressional testimony? And what was the testimony supporting? Obviously something to do with 2A but what exactly was this subcommittee seeking testimony for?

    Lastly, I may have to get her book and read it: From Luby's to the Legislature: One Woman's Fight Against Gun Control.

    3X PM

  5. #4
    I know the story but had never seen the video - but, yup...
    that's is Dr. Hupp...

    Wonder what the deal is with the name.....

    I STILL wanna stand up and applaud !!!!
    Life Member GeorgiaCarry.org http://www.GeorgiaCarry.org

  6. #5


    In 1966, Col. Jeff Cooper, widely acclaimed as "The Father of the Modern Technique of Shooting," coined a word used to describe the anti-gun people who want to take away our rights under the Second Amendment. The word is: "HOPLOPHOBIA. (1966) From the Greek__weapon plus___terror. An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user. Not equivalent to normal apprehension in the presence of an armed enemy. Hoplon means instrument, tool or tackle, but it is the root of hoplite (man-at-arms, gendarme) and thus principally signifies "weapon" in English derivations.

    It seems like this word describes the anti-gun people to a tee. When this lady was making her statement, Jim Brady was present as well as Sen. Schumer, two of the most vocal anti-gun people in the U.S. We didn't see all of the film but I would have loved to have seen their response to how everyone was more afraid of them (lawmakers) and their lunatic ideas. Very intelligent woman but I bet her loss had very little impact on those gentlemen she was addressing. She seems to have larger cajones than some of our lawmakers who are only giving lip service to the Second Amendment. I have no doubt she has her gun with her now!

  7. #6
    We didn't NEED to see Ol' Chuckie's "reaction". It would be most in charactor and therefore predictable that he would dismiss her testimony as the "overwrought, emotional banterings of an embittered woman who's rationale is questionable due to the vicious loss of her parents. All the more reason to BAN guns! Completely!"

    Utterly predictable and most sad.

    The enjoyment of our freedoms are dependent on the amount of "trust" our "Elected Nobility" are willing to place in the rank and file citizen. Dem/Liberals are used to dealing with THEIR constituents, for the most part non-self actualized citizens who desire nothing more than that the Government make them feel secure and "take care of them". Surrogate Parents, in short.

    Taking that "lead in", Dem/Lib "Leaders" typically LIKE the warm and fuzzy feeling of power that having a lot of people "dependent" on them gives them. Unfortunate for those providers of the "Bread and Circuses", however, comes the realization that the dependents can become quite unruly if they don't get what they want. (It's a maturity thing. Dependents never really reach full maturity, regardless of physical age.)

    Thus you will find that most Libs would prefer that the rank and file have no access to weapons, with which they just might express their frustration at their "Elected Nobility" should the demand for Bread and Circuses exceed the Nation's capacity to provide. (Or the States' for that matter.)

    Has anyone noticed that the States/Localities with the most stringent gun Laws happen to coincide with those States/Localities that have the largest conglomerates of Governmentally Dependent?

    Just sayin'.

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  8. #7
    Anyhow, that young lady has the chutzpah of the entirety of the male members of our "revered and much vaunted" Senate, it appears.

    My kind of girl!

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  9. #8
    Hoplophobia, eh? Nice combination of words for the purpose. (I tend to use "Gunaphobics" to describe the same mind set.)

    Either way, for the supporters of such nonsence (i.e. gun "control") it is nothing more than an outward manifestation of the closely held desire that NOTHING upset their carefully sheltered and self centered (and catered to) existance. A gun, to them, represents a means by which their status quo might be upset. A happenstance they are singularly unsuited to "handle".

    For the so called "Leaders" who spout this same mantra... it is nothing more than the realization that their "power" is, indeed, limited. By nothing more than than a carefully planned and carried out exercise in marksmanship. (i.e. Oh DEAR! You mean the Peons might actually REBEL?)

    Thus it is the effort to deny the rank and file citizen the "right" to bear arms that IS the thrust of their efforts. They couch their propaganda in that effort with warm and fuzzy language alluding to the reduction in crime........ What crap!

    (Like any self respecting drug smuggling organization could NOT smuggle in a few hundred tons of guns right along with the tons of drugs they manage to get in the Country each and every year....... Drug bans notwithstanding.)

    If there is a "demand".... someone (or -ones) will "Provide"! Basic rule of economics. Legally or illegally, don't mean nothin'!

    Our "leaders" know this quite well. Thus, it is NOT about "reducing crime". It IS, rather, about eliminating the average, law abiding citizen's capability to "Just say NO!" to the edicts of an oppressive Government.

    Exactly one of the reasons why the 2nd ammendment was placed in the category of "inalienable rights" to begin with.

    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  10. Yep. And she's pretty too.

  11. #10
    So….if she had a high capacity magazine in the gun she left on her dresser it would have been a different outcome?

    And then she ends with the paranoid tin foil hat bunker dweller line.

    Not very convincing.

    We've got to better than that to convince the opposition.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts