Skip to comments.Texas A&M Professor Says We Need to Repeal “Outdated” Second Amendment (Gun grabber Alert!!!)
Posted on 11/17/2013 4:48:06 AM PST by Kaslin
Mary Margaret Penrose, a full time professor of Law with Texas A&M University, has called for the full repeal of the Second Amendment. Utilizing her unquestioned exercise of the First Amendment, the Texas Professor insisted the Constitution was outdated, and needed some substantial re-writing. Penrose was speaking in Connecticut (at a gun-control symposium) when she launched into her misinformed explanation of the Second Amendment; implying that our enumerated right to possess a firearm is largely responsible for the mass shootings that have cropped up in recent years.
Her argument, and blatant contempt for the Constitution (which she admits to describing as an obsolete document in her classes) is nothing new among the Left. Among her ramblings about the uselessness of our Constitution she managed to make a states rights case for the repeal of our Second Amendment right. Penrose argues that States should be able to make their own gun laws, without the burden of complying with that pesky document from the 1700's.
Drastic times require drastic measures. I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think its time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment, Penrose explained, according to the Daily Caller. Well. . . I think she proved her own point about the Amendment being misunderstood. But it got better:
The beauty of a states rights model solution is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with strong restrictions to do so and those who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so, the professor explained.
Right. . . Because right now places like Chicago and New York have such loose restrictions. For the sake of brevity, I guess we can gloss over the very real fact that we already have a state-by-state fluctuation in gun laws. (A point of consternation for law abiding citizens who struggle to remain in compliance with local laws while traveling or moving.)
While I applaud the Leftists sudden (if inadequate) grasp of Federalism, she seems wildly unclear on the idea of federally protected individual rights. Our Constitutionally enumerated rights were added to our founding document precisely because our founders feared violation of such rights, if left to local jurisdictions.
By Penroses logic, perhaps we should allow states to determine their own free speech laws. Would the law professor from A&M be supportive of states determining, on their own, to outlaw or restrict certain religions? What if states mandated allegiance to specific churches? After all, if you didnt like it you could simply move to another state, according to Penrose. Or what if we allow individual states to determine whether or not women can vote? Name a right (other than gun ownership) and Penrose would likely be opposed to its repeal on a state-by-state basis.
It makes one wonder if she (or for that matter, any of the anti-gun experts who spoke at the event in Connecticut) has ever considered what a gun-free nation would look like. Perhaps we should send them on a field trip to Mexicos cartel-plagued cities for an up close and personal view of gun-control in action. In a nation with only one legally operating gun store, and virtually zero tolerance for illegal gun ownership, corruption and crime run rampant. Do you think, for even a moment, Ciudad Juárezs cartel violence would be tolerated by the well-armed citizens of El-Paso, Texas? Despite the fact that the two towns are separated only by a river, they boast dramatically different gun-violence statistics.
Connecticuts Governor, Democrat Dannel Malloy, was also on the panel. Malloy jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon by citing past transgressions against the Second Amendment as justification for future transgressions. According to the Daily Caller, Malloy referenced the restriction of fully automatic firearms:
In the 1930s, machine guns were the weapon of choice for mobsters, and we collectively decided that machine guns should be illegal for private possession in the United States. We dont see machine guns being used in the U.S. in crimes.
Well, Malloy. . . First of all, not all machine guns are illegal for private ownership. They merely require a $200 tax stamp and some extra scrutiny from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (The bureau of All Things Fun.)
Malloy was referencing the 1934 National Firearms Act, which places restrictions and excise taxes on various types of firearms. It was passed in response to the use of fully automatic firearms in a number of high profile crimes, such as the Saint Valentines Day Massacre in Chicago. (That corner of America seems to have always had a serious problem with gun violence. Maybe we should outlaw Chicago?)
The 1930s gun control attempt was largely ineffective at reducing mob violence. It wasnt until the Feds began to aggressively police the behavior of La Cosa Nostra, later in the century, that much of the violence began to subside. All the Act did in the 1930s, combined with a secondary ban on automatic firearms passed in the 1980s, was drive the price of legal automatic firearms through the roof.
The tactic of the 1934 gun control legislation is almost identical to the kinds of racist gun laws that were implemented in the deep-south after the Civil War. Permits, fees and taxes were placed on guns in an effort to price them out of the financial capabilities of average African American families following the Confederates defeat. As the Ku Klux Klan rose to power in both the Democrat Party and State Legislatures, gun control became one of their favorite tools to ensure the passivity of minority races.
But details about the 1934 Firearms Act aside, Malloy and Penrose articulated a clear belief that our founding document is outdated and inadequate for todays world. Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th century concerns? Penrose opined. I know its trite, but it is applicable: According to her logic, the first Amendment is outdated because our founding fathers never foresaw the power of the internet, broadcast or cable television, radio communication, or mass-distribution of printed materials.
Penrose, and the other gun-control advocates on the panel, represent the sizeable portion of Americans who believe crime is the result of inadequate laws. No amount of Constitutional disregard, Second Amendment tinkering, or violation of human rights will suppress all (or even a majority) of violent crime. (Click here for the latest fad among unarmed gang-oriented teenagers.) Penrose is representative of a liberal mentality that the Constitution is merely an obstacle to effective governance, when in reality the Constitution is an obstacle to over-governance.
Repeal the Second Amendment (good luck) and the God-given right to protect, with lethal force, ones life and property will quickly vanish. The Second Amendment protects more than our right to own hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns; it clearly articulates the peoples right for armed self-defense. It empowers women against aggressors, it protects the innocent from the criminals, and it keeps further violations of our rights largely at bay.
Penrose explained that drastic times call for drastic measures. That call for government action sounds eerily similar to the justification used by despots, dictators and Human Rights violators throughout history. A Law professor should be slightly more sensitive to the fact that criminality will exist regardless of our drastic measures. Eliminating the rights of the law abiding is little more than an act of oppression.
The first ten amendments were written because these rights existed before the Constitution and needed to be documented.
I think its high time we called out socialist indoctrinators and constitution removal oriented professors for what they are - traitors.
Horrors! People would be able to live in a community reflecting their religious values!!! "We" can't have that!
That was the idea after all, liberty being what it was.
A photo of the professor:
The pic screams athiest and lesbian in the same sentence.
We send our children to these indoctrination centers and we pay handsomley for it, who’s the fn idiot here?
Back then people used parchment and quill, so we should remove the outdated First Amendment as well. Don’t you think professor?
Why oh why are lefty wymen so fugly?
Our education system has been taken over by liberals for generations, yet we do nothing.
End tenure. Then start to change education.
IF the Constitution is outdated, as this POS claims, then she has ZERO First Amendment rights. She is not a citizen; she trumpets her defense of tyranny. She is an ignorant POS; she needs not teach others to be ignorant.
Let’s see if this democrat passes the test.
Believes guns, not people kill people..........check
Believes no one is responsible for their own actions.....check
Thinks you don’t have to obey a law if you don’t like it....check
Believes fairness trumps freedom and liberty....check
And many many more naive beliefs..........check
Yep! She passes the test as an enemy of our country.
If the law is changed, then the law is changed.
She is coyote bait
Texas A&M needs to fire this embarrassment. I wonder how many donations she’ll lose the school?
There is absolutely no chance of the 2nd being repealed, thank goodness.
Just my Humble Opinion but she kinda looks like Al Franken’s Sister or is just my imagination
fire her ass
Ms. Penrose needs to keep up a little better with the liberal narrative. "State's rights" is the slander they use against conservatives when conservatives want more freedom from the Federal government, claiming it's a dog whistle for a return to slavery. So - following in the footsteps of her ideological brethren - Ms Penrose, I demand to know - are you making a case for a return to slavery?
One would also like to think, incorrectly in this case, that a professor of law would know that the idea of the Constitution was to replace the inadequate Articles of Confederation, which allowed states to be in opposition to and competition with each other over basic things like tariffs between states and so forth. It was meant to simultaneously provide a guiding document for the states and the people to be governed under, while giving them the freedoms that our Founders had just fought for.
Based on the evidence of her lack of knowledge of basic constitutional law, it appears that Ms. Penrose's students would be justified in demanding their money back
Stupid is as stupid does or something like that. 99.8% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
> Why oh why are lefty wymen so fugly?
Not all but the bulldyke butches are the ugliest on the planet and they are all left.
Might be time for this idiot to leave America.
Are you still negative minded? (I did not chase you, I came across you here on a thread I spotted for other reasons.)
Faith is a POSITIVE thing. Touting faith A does not mean restricting faith B except inasmuch as the supernatural entities behind faith A may by nature undermine those of faith B. It happens on a supernatural plane, not in the mortal coil.
Sorry, Mike, it's you who show your ignorance here of the Constitution and its history.
No attempt was made to apply the Bill of Rights to the states till the passage of the 14th Amendment, possibly accidentally, required it.
There is a loonngg history of state and local interferance with "constitutional rights" prior to the Civil War, including the 1st, 2nd and others. In some southern states, not only was abolitionist literature prohibited, in obvious direct violation of the 1st, its distribution was a capitol crime. Many laws that we would today consider "gun control" were passed and enforced in the period before the War. A great many states even had "knife control" laws.
The main reason for this disconnect between "constitutional rights" and state action is that the Founders were NOT in favor of "limited government," they were in favor of "limited federal government." A very different concept indeed.
Maybe we should just get rid of the 4th Amendment as well.
I think a full property search and anal exam would suit her just fine.
ObamaCare = It’s the Law = Can’t be repealed.
2nd Amendment = It’s the Constitution = Must be repealed!
This is really embarrassing. I cannot believe TAMU has gotten so liberal. Really, really embarrassing.
She may indeed feel this way, but calling for repeal of the 2nd does not show it.
Indeed, I have respect for anyone who proposes changing the Constitution by amending it. As that process is itself impeccably constitutional.
Doesn't mean I will agree with the proposed amendment, but at least their method for change is constititutional.
95% of our problems arise from "interpreting" or ignoring the Constitution, not amending it.
Perhaps we could include an amendment which did not end up in the final draft of the Constitution:
NO LAWYERS could serve in Congress.
I hope that you're right, but the last two Supreme Court decisions concerning the 2nd Admendment were decided 5-4. One more choice for this president and that flips. That seems to me to be a long way from 'absolutely no chance'.
And, how oh how do we account for Kirstin Powers?
You can breathe more easily. TAMU Law School isn’t really TAMU. TAMU recently bought Texas Wesleyan Law School in Fort Worth (a third- or fourth-tier law school) so it would have a law school.
A photo of the professor ... The pic screams athiest and lesbian in the same sentence.
***This is really embarrassing. I cannot believe TAMU has gotten so liberal. Really, really embarrassing.***
See yesterday’s thread.
The Founders did, in fact, favorv limited government, especially on the federal level. Many also favored limited government on a state level, but they recognized that in a republic those states retained rights and powers unique to themselves, and that to restrict states’ rights would negate their idea of a republic. So, it was a matter of them saying “We may like limited government, but we can’t presume to dictate to our brother states what they may believe is in their own respective best interests.”
A repeal of the 2nd Amendment would bring about a revolution...of the violent kind.
Well there goes the thread. Thanks a lot. Why don’t you just post a picture of Helen Thomas while you’re at it?
She also looks like an obnoxious jerk.
Wouldn’t be a lawyer, by any chance, would she?
Liberty is a positive idea. I would like to see variety rather than enforced uniformity. Apparently you have no faith in the founding idea.
Fine philosophical sleight of hand... your “positive” liberty idea includes freedom to squelch a faith by main force rather than by what is the Christian means — displacement. The more such levers, the greater the risk of misuse.
Apparently you have something against that LIBERTY of free association. Because you see, if one cannot exclude one has no control over one's associations.
This would be a wonderful way of allowing gays, and others to form depraved communities of their own and we'd all get to see the consequences, thus allowing Natural Law to work. It might well be that exclusive religious communities would fail, and we'd learn that too. You would preclude that, which I would call a negative attitude.
TAMU bought the law school from Texas Weslyan in Fort Worth. PERHAPS this lady is a leftover issue. But we will see. I have an Aggie daughter and lots of family Ags and I would hope the school will raise standards and become a solid conservative place to study law. But these are all academic types and their minds circulate in a different way than people in the real world. They begin to believe that their ideas are smarter than even the founding fathers.
I don’t think she is that unattractive. She is dressed nicely, could use some makeup, but her hair looks good. Really, we have seen the type and this woman doesn’t fit even though she may be the type.
I meant to say she looks like she works out.
Some of the most ignorant people can be found on the rolls of college professors!!
Why oh why are lefty wymen so fugly?”””
Maybe we have it backwards.
They are Liberal because they are fugly.
You are performing sleight of hand again.
Unlike you I don’t idolize early America just because it was early America.
You might remember the actual and vicious persecution of minority faiths that in fact were Christian but not the style of Christian that the majority wanted.
The gospel was instituted to be sold. Never to be forced.
You have failed to read my post for what it says, preferring to interpret it for what you would prefer to attack.
And they'd learn that or fail.