The Bill of Rights. It’s a document that was designed to set a standard of individual freedom in the United States, one that the American people sacrificed their lives to secure in the 1700s and extend in the 1800s, and ever since the liberal movement has sought to add new freedoms to the growing list. But for some, the idea that a person has a right to defend themselves is repulsive. For those people, like Texas A&M law school professor Mary Margaret Penrose, there are simply too many rights in that document, and it’s high time to start curtailing some of them. Specifically, Mary wants the Second Amendment repealed.
From the CT News Junkie:
Texas A&M University Law Professor Mary Margaret Penrose spoke as part of a panel discussion on tragedy and gun control. Penrose cited several high-profile shootings, including the Newtown murders and a 2011 shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded. She said she was shocked that the country has not yet reached a threshold for gun violence
Penrose asked the audience — a room packed full of lawyers and law school students — how many of them felt the legislative and judicial responses to gun violence have been effective. Not a single hand went up.
The symposium that Penrose was addressing was being held in Connecticut, the home of some of the more draconian firearms restrictions in the United States. In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, even more laws were passed restricting the ability for citizens to own firearms. However, despite already having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, the citizens of Connecticut feel that the laws aren’t working.
Note the use of the word “feel” in that sentence. That’s because while the Connecticut residents may feel that “gun violence” is out of control, the reality is that violent crime involving a firearm is on the decline and has been for quite some time now. And by “quite some time” I mean since 1993. The type of crime they are concerned about is declining, but they “feel” that it is now a pressing issue.
Naturally, Penrose follows her personal biases and decides to blame the guns. But in fact, that decrease in crime comes as firearm sales are through the roof. An investigation in Virginia recently revealed that while gun sales skyrocketed, the crime rate went down. If guns were the problem, then the crime rate would keep pace with the rate of firearm sales. But that isn’t true — in fact the OPPOSITE is true. In my high school statistics class, we would say that the facts disprove the hypothesis. But apparently Penrose has never taken high school statistics.
“I think I’m in agreement with you and, unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures,” Penrose said. “. . . 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 believes that “gun violence” is an increasingly common problem in the United States, but the facts clearly show that just the opposite is happening. Penrose believes that guns are the problem, when in fact the statistics indicate that guns are an independent variable in the “gun violence” issue. Penrose believes that based on a handful of incidents where less than two dozen people were killed, we should repeal a law that protects a basic civil right. That’s like saying the First Amendment doesn’t protect those who protest the war effort because it’s damaging to the nation’s security. Oh, wait . . .
Just like in Schenck, Penrose believes that the Second Amendment presents a clear and present danger to the safety of the United States and that the “nuclear option” of removing all protections for the bearing of arms is in order. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has come to its senses in the century since that case and realized that it’s only speech which is designed to cause immediate harm which is the issue. Penrose is still stuck in 1919.
See, here I thought that the law was based on facts and evidence. But this law school professor seems to be so very, very wrong about just about everything, and prefers litigating with her feelings.
Penrose said she advocates redrafting the entire U.S. Constitution when she teaches constitutional law courses. She said American life has changed drastically since the 18th Century when the constitution was adopted.
“Why do we keep such an allegiance to a constitution that was driven by 18th Century concerns? How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army? That’s what motivated the Second Amendment: fear of a standing army,” she said.
Penrose was right when she said that the Second Amendment is misunderstood, because she herself doesn’t seem to understand it. The Second Amendment was never about a standing army, the Second Amendment protects against a tyrannical government — like the one the Americans just overthrew. It provides the means for the people to rise up and unchain themselves should the need ever arise again.
Penrose is another example of the modern elitist. They have never experienced the terror of having their lives threatened by thugs, they have never been beaten and robbed in broad daylight, and they have never felt the fear of hiding in a closet while a gang of burglars rummages through their house. They see guns as a problem, despite any evidence to support that belief, and proceed to manipulate the emotions of those around them to foster support for their opinion.
Penrose is the reason that the Second Amendment exists, to ensure that even when the masses scream for Barabbas the government’s hands are tied.
Remember when politicians said that “no one wants to repeal the Second Amendment”? Yeah . . .