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 Utilizing her unquestioned exercise of the First Amendment, the Texas Professor insisted the Constitution was outdated, and needed some substantial re-writing.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 “state’s 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 it’s 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 Leftist’s 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 Penrose’s 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 didn’t 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 Mexico’s 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 Juárez’s 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.
Connecticut’s 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 don’t 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 Valentine’s 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 1930’s gun control attempt was largely ineffective at reducing mob violence. It wasn’t 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 1930’s, combined with a secondary ban on automatic firearms passed in the 1980’s, 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 Confederate’s 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 today’s world. “Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th century concerns?” Penrose opined. I know it’s 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, one’s 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 people’s 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.
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.
End tenure.”””
Absolutely-—
Also- END the structure of ‘school boards’ where they mave morphed from being made jup of the local citizens to being only made up of ‘teachers’.
When I ws a kid, the local farmers & homeowners were on the school board. There wasn’t a single ‘teacher’ in any of the slots. THEY carefully looked over every book we would be using. They KNEW the person who might be hired as the teacher, etc.
I will put my grade school & high school education up against any kid today—with the exception of the computer stuff. It didn’t exist then.
I am reading very clearly your intent. You want “freedom of association” in the way that they actually DID it. Which included persecution. And you then say that oh, if persecution is so bad it will fail. Well if murder is so bad it will fail. If rape is so bad it will fail. Why make an exception for persecution?
Liberals are the most closed minded group in the world when it comes to the rights of anyone who opposes them.
Embarrassing that you would judge an entire university by ONE person!
I went to high school with her. I’m not surprised.
If the place were so bad as you suggest, nobody would go or stay there with a preferable alternative not far away.
Where did you read that I preferred persecution? I preferred LIBERTY. Further, if you think I'm advocating "going back" in whole, then why would I allow any place for in my statements for gays and lesbians? They wouldn't even enter my thoughts as permissible behavior. Just because there were attributes of the original Federalist system I prefer, does not mean I want to set time backward. I do think laws setting aside a non commercial day would be a good thing, but there might be limits that modern reality would set. I'm OK with that.
Really, your bitterness has me all wrong, and your obvious need to attack me betrays your true heart.
Have bunches of friends who send their kids to A & M
Relatively conservative (another bastion of liberalism but in good disguise), great religious center
They tell stories like this and others like ‘my child does not do well in her history class, her teacher doesn’t speak English articulately
I am aghast. I would NOTpay hundreds of dollars per credit for that
Ive seen one too many of these kids wandering around after graduating. No job no good job
College is for the most part third party payer. Parents are idiotic about this paying to have their children brainwashed
Never
I see a possibility here.
When a conservative government has congress and the presidency, it is important to make a crystal clear restoration of the Posse Comitatus Act (different from the common law posse comitatus). The first part is once again the resolute prohibition of the use of military personnel in a police role, except under very strict, temporary situations, affirmed by congress.
But a *new* part of the Act should be groundbreaking.
It should be that all adults of good character, excluding convicted felons and those sharing their dwellings, and those adjudged *in a court hearing* as mentally *incompetent*, are, in effect, law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the United States.
In accordance with Common Law, this represents an enabling act to the Second Amendment, *beyond* their natural right to keep and bear arms, for them to have under their personal control, arms and ammunition for their use in the role of Law Enforcement Officers.
As additional justification for this, this is so they may participate in a fully “voluntary muster” by their county Sheriff, the traditional Common Law leader of the posse comitatus, if there is a law enforcement or emergency need in that county. Otherwise, they are free citizens, and as such are expected to “protect and defend” the civil rights of other citizens.
Once the communists like this “professor” repeal the Second Amendment, repealing the First Amendment will be a snap. The Bill of Rights belong to the American people. By repealing them, the government would be breaking its contract with the American people and by doing so, it would be giving the American people the right to remove and replace the government with one that is more America friendly.
He needs to visit the Holocaust Museum. Maybe if the population was armed? Every American should see this. You just walk away shaking your head. “how did this happen”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.