MegPenrose_488_366_86_sha-40

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 Specifically, Mary wants the Second Amendment repealed.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 . . .

146 Responses to Texas A&M Law Prof: Repeal the Second Amendment

    • Agree. Just another professor of opinion. A bush league version of Louis Michael Seidman, with equally progressive-paternalism views. American regulation of bar membership forces aspiring attorneys into approved law schools, which, through that change from a clerking-and-self-study education model to mandatory three-year degrees, gained the power to decide winners and losers before a young person ever sets foot in a law office. Law school tuition money has become, in reality, an extorted tithe to the liberal gadfly club, with few exceptions. Such is life in the modern regulatory culture. Everyone, given the time and your money, becomes convinced they are fully qualified philosopher kings. Blame Plato.

      • Constitution: Repeal Mary Margaret Penrose. The 2nd Amendment documents a natural right.

        What the heck is an Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M) college doing with a law school anyway? Like t1ts on a board, IMO.

  1. I would LOVE for them to just be honest and try to amend the Constitution to either remove or re-write the 2nd Amendment.

    When they don’t even come close to the required # of votes to do so, they can then shut the hell up because they “got their vote” and they were found wanting.

    • Repeal of any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights would precipitate a constitutional crisis, because the ratifications of several states were conditional on their inclusion.

      They’re getting desperate because the frog has noticed the pot’s getting warmer.

      • Yes, and this is broader than second amendment rights. The leftist/statist movement have been slowly ratcheting it up for more than 100 years. The key is always to go slow and steady so that people accept it as status quo before they tighten the noose by another increment. But they have overreached on gun control recently, and badly overreached with Obamacare. I really think we’ve just hit a point of inflection, and might have an opportunity to push back for a few decades at least. Until the economy is going well again, and people begin to enjoy increased freedom. Then, after people become complacent again, the cockroaches will slowly creep back under another name.

    • What these “progressives” don’t realize is that once they start mucking about with the Constitution, it ain’t only 2A that’s going to get changed. “since we have the hood open, let’s make a few more tweaks,” the thought process will go. The framers were way smarter than the morons we have running the country right now and much more willing to put the good of the country ahead of their own petty needs. I trust their wisdom. I sure as hell don’t trust the wisdom of the modern revisionist if this moronic woman is any guide.

      She is yet one more reason that tenure needs to be done away with. I have no problem with her expressing her views, but she is no more qualified to teach Constitutional Law than I am to teach Applied Nuclear Physics.

      • Just in case the Universe has turned upside down overnight and they do manage to call a Constitutional Convention, I’ll pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to fight for repeal of the 16th.Amendment.

    • EVEN a successful political effort to repeal the Second Amendment, or to modify any of the rights described in the Bill of Rights, only modifies a man-made document and has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the original Natural and civil right being described. They can write or repeal any laws or amendments they want, they cannot repeal natural law and I believe they will be in a for a very severe (and noisy) shock when they attempt to enforce such ridiculous legislation.

      The Constitution of the United States of America is a contract between the people who created that government and the government itself. Should that government break its portion of the contract we still have the other founding document to fall back on – The Declaration of Independence.

      The First and Second Amendment guarantee us the tools to fight against a tyrannical takeover and violation of the contract, the Declaration of Independence gives us the authority.

  2. The second amendment WAS in part against a standing army, but also against that standing army being used by a tyrannical government against the people:

    “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

    James Madison, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788

      • The crime of treason is used by the winners to describe the losers.

        Are we talking treason here? Is that your question? Yes, absolutely. We are talking of the treason of the current pack of power-hungry politicians in our federal government who seem to take pleasure in finding ways to subvert if not the letter, then the intent of the Constitution. If they take such actions too far, and given enough leeway history shows that politicians ALWAYS will, then THEY are the traitors, not us. It is not treason to rise up against a government that has exceeded its charter, it is self defense.

        If a state should secede from this union under present circumstances it is not treason, it is a recognition that the union they are currently attached to bears no resemblance to the union they agreed to join under the contract of the Constitution. I would argue that at a certain point of federal over-reach of the limitations of the Constitution that states will not so much secede from the union as admit that the federal government has seceded from them. There is no man-made contract so legally binding that you have no option to renounce that contract if either party is in egregious violation of its terms. See The Declaration of Independence.

      • Exactly. That is why the response is not to argue that fear of a standing army was not a motivation for the 2nd amendment, but to confirm that not only WAS it a motivating reason, but it was a very good motivating reason. One that is not obsolete, not by a long shot. Of course, that then gets into that whole argument about “Do you think your little pee-shooters are going to help you against drone strikes and M1 tanks?” which leads to the “Do you think the government is going to use drone strikes and M1 tanks against regular civilians, or are they going to use regular law enforcement and ATF officers? How well did those M1 tanks and drones work against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?” which then usually leads to the inevitable “You are a poopy-head!” (or equivalent)

        • Point of interest. The majority of complex and technical military equipment in use by our military is manufactured here in America. The current inventory is limited, as are available spare parts. The life-cycle of turbine engines and drone engines is not infinite.

          Will the government resort to slave labor to keep these manufacturing operations building new weapons and parts? Are not the repositories of those parts and ammunition viable targets? It is not necessary to destroy an M1 tank, a difficult proposition for even our well armed enemies. Just get it to chase you until it runs out of fuel or burns up its turbine or throws a track. Mount your attack against the relief effort.

          Hellfire missiles are complex and expensive. JDAMS not so much. Our salvation lies in the hope that even those that oppose us today may balk at the idea of all out civil war, should it become a real threat. All around the world frantic governments that cannot stand without the military and financial support of the U.S. will be desperate to find some solution other than the destruction of this country by internal conflict.

          Oh well, I can dream.

  3. If something bad happened to these folks then it would be a different story. Or she’s In the group that wants to be the only one with freedom. I think she’s the latter.

    • The intellectuals helped free us from the belief that a person born into royalty had some “God given right of kings” to rule mortal men and the church that defended such a belief.

      Once the intellectuals had helped to free us, now the natural progression is that the “Intellectual Elite” is now the defender of the “Monopoly of Force” of government; The new religion, where governemnt is to be our god and the “elite”, like Mary Margaret, are it’s priests.

      Once again, the forces of tyranny and control are on the march; and most academics are it’s foot soldiers.

  4. Hey, go ahead and try to repeal it. That’s how the Constitution is set up, fair game.

    heh. No, it’s the incrementalists we have to worry about…

  5. “there are simply too many rights in that document [the Constitution].”

    My tongue is getting sunburned because of my dropped jaw. And she teaches at a more conservative school.

    • TAMU Law School was just last year brought into the collective that is the Texas A&M System. Until then it was unaffilitated and is currently still located in Dallas. That should explain (not excuse) some of the issue.

      • Nope on both counts…it WAS associated with Texas Wesleyan University and is still located in Fort Worth (not Dallas) – this is just hatefulness on the part of the school that used to be committed to the students and NOW simply wanted to cash in their chips. I didn’t choose a law school based on prestige and don’t care one way or the other what they do now. A&M has never mad the alums that built the school feel welcome and I don’t think that will change.

  6. I appreciate her honesty. None of this “we don’t want ALL your guns” bullshit. Just come out and say what you’re really after, at least I can respect that.

    Disagree with and fight it until I’m cold and dead, but I can respect it.

  7. First up I want to credit her with understanding that the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee the right to bear arms and that it cannot be legislated away. The proper way to ban guns is to repeal the Second Amendment.

    Progressives have been arguing that the Constitution is obsolete since the early 20th Century. They say that it was meant for a simple agrarian nation and had out lived its usefulness as the nation came of age. What kind of government did Progressive think should replace the Republic? The first person they looked to was Benito Mussolini. Since then Progressives have followed one dictator after another. After Mussolini cane Lenin, then Stalin, then Mao, then Castro, then Ho, then Pol Pot, then Ortega, then Chavez and even an occasional good word for Hitler and the Ayatollahs. In other words, Progressives long for a Fascist dictatorship run by themselves.

    • thanks tdi. the history and adoption of the term progressive as applied by the leftist core of the Democratic Party and IMHO the vast majority of academia is worthy of an FN essay that could become an ongoing reference for TTAG.

      a whole generation of students have been polluted w this tranzi pomo claptrap.

      I’d be embarrassed as a Board Member @ A&M.

  8. How does a law professor not understand that the bill of rights doesn’t grant rights, it ennumerates natural civil rights, so the rights don’t come from the document itself, thus there is nothing to repeal?

    • I find it quite amusing that we the common folk have a better grasp of the Bill of Rights that people who hold advanced degrees and claim to teach it .

    • Because the idea of a “natural right” is meaningless. Do you feel your “natural right” to bear arms has so far been infringed upon? I’d say so, right? Well, then it either isn’t a right, or it is… but either way it doesn’t matter because someone can take it away from you, because they don’t agree with your assessment. It’s a nation of laws, and a society of norms. Gotta influence both if you want to keep your ‘natural’ right… unless you want to live outside of both law and society.

      • I don’t know if you enjoy playing devil’s advocate or if you’re just unintentionally trolling, but… If the first or fourth amendments were stricken, would you suddenly feel that you no longer had any natural right to speak your mind or to be secure from being roughed up, searched, and falsely imprisoned? Or are you just cool with that since we’re a “nation of laws” and the only rights are those defined by lawyers and politicians?

      • “Because the idea of a “natural right” is meaningless. Do you feel your “natural right” to bear arms has so far been infringed upon? I’d say so, right? Well, then it either isn’t a right, or it is… but either way it doesn’t matter because someone can take it away from you”

        Hannibal, I’m never really sure where you’re coming from, but you also do not seem to fully understand the meaning of a natural right. I believe that you are law enforcement, so let me state it this way: If you arrest someone and put them in handcuffs in the back of your squad, have you infringed upon their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well, two out of three anyway. Have you taken away those rights? NO! you have infringed, that’s all. You have the power to force them to not exercise those rights only while your power or authority grants you dominion over them. Their rights remain intact to whatever degree they can overcome your ability to infringe upon them.

        A person has the natural right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. You place them under arrest, search them and remove any weapons (arms) you may discover, and confine them to a gun free zone. You have rather thoroughly infringed upon their right to keep and bear arms, but do they now have no natural right to defend themselves against you or anyone else? If another prisoner attacks them must they make no effort to defend themselves? Have you EVER seen such a thing happen? Their right to defense remains as does their right to pick up and use as an arm ANYTHING they can get their hands on. Your infringement of their right is NOT equivalent to a repeal of that right. And the INSTANT your ability to infringe is removed their natural right is restored 100%, whether you like it or not.

        You may be able to fly, but you cannot legislate away gravity.

  9. Thank you for bringing this to our attention but I could not finish reading this absolute crap. I hope she gets a robbed at an ATM and a person of the gun who is packing passes by, knows who she is and keeps on walking.

  10. At least she is honest. None of the “I support the 2nd Amendment, but…” crap.

    Of course, feelings are her dominate thinking method so the parts of the Constitution she likes are fine, but the parts she dislikes got to go.

    Lastly, I really want the education bubble to pop soon here. Maybe then we can have more accountability for these ivory tower dwellers and reintroduce them to the real world. If you thought the Wisconsin union fight was nasty, it’ll pail compare to the elite in higher ed fighting to preserve their cushy system.

    • “Raise your hands if you don’t want to save children… see? Everyone supports banning all guns, because no one raised their hands! I’m a scientist!”

  11. First, you must understand that these arrogant socialist do not recognize maturity based on Chronology… but Credentialing. This means:

    1. these Professors are able to see kiddos that have served for years in the military as being “children right out of high school”, and, therefore, too immature to carry a firearms.
    2. for these veterans (putting their lives in God’s hands to fight for what this Country is supposed to stand for) coming home and wanting to receive the necessary Credentials to be considered “mature”, they must Renounce God, embrace Socialism, practice Homosexuality, and curse America in order to get the required credentials from these socialist professors…. that would explain why these Liberal Professors would not want the 2nd Amendment…..

    • Uh, bullshit on the 2nd point. Sorry, but not everyone who gets a degree is a XYZ that you mentioned, even if you’d like to think so. Maybe I should introduce you to some Army and USMC vets I know with Master Degrees… and some of them are becoming college professors. There is hope…

  12. Even if 2A were repealed, it wouldn’t affect my right to keep and bear arms in the least. Now, it may give the government legal justification for confiscation, but, of course, then there’d likely be war. So, what she doesn’t realize (or maybe she does and is simply a psychopath), is that what she’s proposing will likely lead to a very bloody violent conflict.

    • Ah but that’s the beauty… there is no way it could be repealed. Folks who are cushioned in their own echo chamber don’t realize that gun-proponents don’t just make up a 5% extremist fringe…

  13. 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.
    Cowards. How about pointing out how many people are in prison for killing & are now off the street & unable to kill someone else? And although she asked for only ‘legislative & judicial responses’ – how about pointing out how many people have successfully defended themselves with a firearm? I wouldn’t want any of these lawyers or future lawyers defending me on so much as a traffic charge if they’re that wimpish & afraid to speak up.

    I know a couple who had been as far left as leftists can get (he was a college prof -not unlike Ms. Penrose- and she was a Ph.D. federal employee) and sadly, they were robbed at gunpoint in their home. Thankfully, neither of them was hurt, but their point of view changed drastically after that incident – they are now strong 2nd Amendment-supporting conservatives. I wouldn’t wish that fate on anyone but it did change their perspective on things. And btw, the perp was never caught.

    • Well to be fair, she is right. None of the legislation against firearms has done anything to make our society safer. People are still getting shot in CT, NYC, Chicago, and California. That alone should be evidence that it’s not going to work.

      As for repealing the Second Amendment, I welcome her to try. At least that would be the Constitutional way to go about making the changes they want to see made. Come straight at it instead of trying to circumvent the Bill of Rights with legislation. If anything though, the pendulum is swinging the other way. We’re living in an era of an increasing public distrust of government, increased firearms ownership, and expanded CCW. We’ve also seen recall efforts in Colorado succeed largely because of anger over legislation against the RKBA. I expect the price for that to continue to be paid in CO. I also wonder… just thinking out loud here… if we may even see state borders redrawn over guns and other cultural issues in the not too distant future.

      • Well to be fair, she is right. None of the legislation against firearms has done anything to make our society safer.
        Well, to be fair, no she’s not. Whether legislation & judges are making our society safer and whether what they do is effective are two different questions. Laws passed can be effective, but the problem is we can’t always tell the full effectiveness because you can’t count crimes that are never committed. Making our society safer includes locking up folks who do commit a crime, particularly violent crimes. Two different animals.

      • People are still getting shot in CT, NYC, Chicago, and California. That alone should be evidence that it’s not going to work.
        So . . . if I follow your logic here, and I think I do, legislation isn’t going to work, but repealing the 2nd Amendment (and thus disarming law-abiding folks who simply want to defend themselves) will work?

    • I’m glad the couple survived, and I’m glad they decided on a practical response to their misfortune.

      However, when I hear stories like this I can’t help by feel some measure of scorn. Much like the people who were all for Obamacare until they realized that they would actually have to pay for it. A true pacifist, who would genuinely rather die than harm another person, I can respect (as long as no children depend on that person for protection). Someone who is happy placing others at risk as long as they themselves feel safe…not so much.

  14. In a perverse way, I do enjoy reading the numerous stories regarding antigun people who do a 180 after they come face-to-face with a serious threat to life & limb from a 2 or 4-legged predator.

    Here’s how I explain it to my antigun friends, “Let’s say that you do not know me and think that you perceive a gun printing through my shirt while in line at the local convienence store. You would be nervous, would you not? I think it would make many people nervous to at least some degree…antigunners more so, because they would realize (even if they will never admit it to themselves), that having that gun gives me a tremendous advantange should I suddenly go “mass killer”…and there they are with not much of a clue as to what to do about it.

    That fact makes alot of unarmed people nervous because I think it immediately shoves in their face a stark question they’d rather not address: ‘How much do you trust a stranger?’ In libi-land, everyone wants to believe they can teach the world to sing in perfect harmony and such a stark question is just too uncomfortable….best eliminate the need to be forced to ponder it lest their happy-place view of the world is troubled”

  15. 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.”

    Ma’am, your opinion and your a$$#0le both stink.

  16. “The Second Amendment was never about a standing army, the Second Amendment protects against a tyrannical government — like the one the Americans just overthrew”

    Not exactly. The second amendment does not embody ONE idea. Self defense comes in many forms (defense against invasion, defense against tyranny, defense against a mugger, defense against a bear). And of course there is hunting, which is self defense against hunger.

    Many people we concerned of the executive tendency to make war to distract people from domestic issues. Gee, no president has ever done that.

    Yes, Part of the idea was to make standing armies unnecessary (along with prohibiting Army budgets for longer than two years ).

  17. I completely disagree with what Ms Penrose is proposing. I do, however, respect Ms Penrose for understanding at least enough to know that it is going to require changing or repealing the Second Amendment to get done what she wants to get done. So few others in the civilian disarmament camp understand that basic premise.

  18. I still don’t see how any of the first ten amendments can be repealed. They enumerate your creator given rights. How can a mere mortal take those away?

    Also, this professor is advocating redrafting the Constitution to her students? That’s just subversive, no matter how you slice it.

    • I agree, though as a thought exercise I could see the value of doing away with one or more amendments and try to think through how that would affect society. I think frank and thoughtful discussion would usually find that they wouldn’t like many of the consequences. But to advocate trashing the constitution is pretty disgraceful. Actually, to push students toward any particular idea violates the very spirit of academic freedom (which has been a hollow shame for quite some time now).

    • Those who take oaths in this country put a hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, not a hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible. Maybe you got confused.

  19. Repeal of the 2A would not automatically translate to guns being banned, it would only confirm policies in many states while unaffecting others. Unless this person is suggesting laws on top of a repeal to ban possession, good luck enforcing that sweetheart and that even if you get 38 states to go along with you.

    Nothing to see here, just another liberal bathing in the security and freedom provided by the rest of us.

  20. “how many of them felt the legislative and judicial responses to gun violence have been effective. Not a single hand went up.”

    Ahhh, so law makers and judges sitting on high, writing rules on paper, has had no impact on “gun violence”… BUT, writing it on a different piece of paper would. Got it. Thanks!

    Funny, when you hate self defense and believe you CANNOT defend yourself (because you lack the skills and mind set to) how you think rules written on a piece of paper will somehow keep someone from doing harm to you or others.

  21. As a TAMU graduate and former student, well, for one I had no idea we had a law school and I graduated last year, TAMU has famously never had a law school. That was always TU’s domain. For two, I don’t think she’ll be sticking around. The bush school of political science is where a lot of her students will be coming from and the profs there are moderate libertarian as hell.

  22. The U.S. Department of Defense dwarfs the “standing army” the British had even w/ Hessians and Native Americans added to the bunch. The fighting forces at the disposal of the commander in chief represent the largest and most powerful the world has ever seen. The U.S. spends more, per capita and raw amount, then any other empire in the world ever. That is something to fear.

  23. How is this for revising the second amendment:

    The right of the people to keep, own, store, bear, carry, transport, buy, or sell arms, ammunition, and components of such, shall not be infringed, restricted, regulated, controlled, tracked, or registered by any and all governmental agencies.

    • A great start… if I may suggest some slight changes:

      The right of the people to keep, bear, transport, buy, or sell arms or any items related to arms, shall not be infringed, restricted, regulated, controlled, tracked, or registered by any person or persons.

      Still probably too simple. It seems a lot of lawyers today get paid by the word so if we let them do it we would have some 300 page treatise on firearms instead of the simple 27 word item we have now.

  24. “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.”

    My mother would have said, “no shit, sherlock”. I wouldn’t have raised my hand either. It hasn’t been effective….and I am extremely grateful to a great many in the pro-2ndA movement, for there efforts in keeping it that way. Built into this single small paragraph is the entire problem with Liberals – they assume their is a problem, and they assume government has the solution.

  25. Perhaps she is correct in that the 2nd ought to be replaced….. And here is what it ought to be replaced with;

    The right of the individual to keep and bear arms, ammunition, transportation, and weapons of war, for the purposes of defense of self, household, community, enterprise, State, Nation, or Republic, shall be sacrosanct and absolute, as shall the right to such defense, and no Government, corporation, artificial entity, or private individual shall infringe upon these rights in any way shape or form, nor shall ANY Government, corporation, artificial entity, or private individual regulate, tax, impede, prohibit, survey, or in any other manner interfere in the free possession, transport, import, export, sale, or keeping of arms, ammunition, transportation or devices or publications involved in maintaining these rights.

    • Sorry, but private individuals certainly can prohibit the “keeping of arms” on their own property, if they so choose. We don’t want government to trample one person’s property rights in favor of another’s.

    • You’re making the text more complicated than it already is… you should be deleting words, not adding. Adding text makes lawyers salivate. That’s where the writers of the original one muffed it all up.

      “The people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  26. I think she is on the right track. Quit B.S.ing around with these chip away tactics and go for the repeal. Of course, that is a really hard task, so the grabbers will just keep whining on their blogs and stroke each other’s emotions.

  27. “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.”

    Laws might be more effective if our justice system actually enforced them. They don’t, they take plea deals, they go soft on criminals, and people that should be serving years in prison, only serve a few months. That’s why they’re able to have rap sheets a mile long.

  28. “How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army?”

    Still one of my biggest concerns today…hello, Police State!

  29. “Penrose asked the audience — . . . — how many of them felt the legislative and judicial responses to gun violence have been effective.” A very effective, presumptuous, and deceptive question.

    If the legislative and judicial branches had taken thousands of actions in response to tornado prevention, no sane person would ever conclude that these actions had been “effective.”

    Evil happens. It will always happen no matter what we do. In an armed populace acts of evil are amateur and on a small scale. Upon a disarmed populace, acts of evil are professional and take place on an industrial scale.

  30. 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.”

    That’s because any legislative response to gun violence wouldn’t be effective. I agree with her students.

  31. Repeal of the Second Amendment will have no effect on violence, violence is in the nature of man, evil dwells in the heart of man it’s not something one can legislate away.

  32. I felt I needed to write her a letter. I sent the following email and thought I would share with the group:

    Ms Penrose,

    I believe you are very much wrong about repealing the Second Amendment! I believe every person born of this Earth has a natural and civil right to defend themselves. The Second Amendment protects this natural civil basic human right. Other countries have taken away this basic natural human civil right. You are doing major harm to this country and to our way of life by teaching young people that we do not deserve this basic natural civil right. You are a teacher of the law not a teacher on how you “feel!” If you cannot stick to teaching the law then I am asking you to resign!

    PLEASE STOP TEACHING AND TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY NATURAL CIVIL BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.

  33. She is a child in an adult world.My observation of collegians is the more academic they get the less real world sense they have.Here is an example of theory turned to fact.Dictators would love her.the First Amendment was because of the 2nd Amendment ,not the other way around,so she can Talk treason as she does because the 1st Amendment allows it. A very foolish person.

  34. You guys need to stop assuming they care about facts and evidence.

    People like Marge are advancing a cause and will do everything, including lying and misrepresenting, to further it.

  35. At least she has the balls to come out and say her agenda, unlike most bullshit politicians —> “I respect the second amendment BUT…………”

  36. This woman looks like she is Gabby Giffords sister, there’s a lot of vacancy about the eyes that would be a dead giveaway if you put them side by side, that and the drooling, of course……….

  37. It is refreshing to find someone who is so honest about her viewpoint. As least she is not trying to tell us that she doesn’t want to ban all guns, when she really does.

  38. This is a good thing, that more of them are finally starting to be completely honest.

    Too many apathetic gun owners sit out the 2A fight because they believe that the “progressives” will actually stop once they achieve this round of “reasonable restrictions.”

  39. Somebody should ask her, if she wants to start repealing rights, why doesn’t she want to go in numerical order? In other words, hey, lady, shouldn’t we first abolish your right to freedom of speech and of religion?

  40. Captain Capitalism (Aaron Clarey, author of “Enjoy the Decline”) published this video yesterday which is 30 minutes and I think speaks to the “gun guys” as much as it does to the “manosphere guys”.

    They also fight the influence of the left and the Feminists.

    Give it a watch and see what you think.

    • That could get me off on a huge, long tangent in the area of gun control and female backing of same going back to the early 90’s, when the the hard-core left-wing Jewish feminists still had the media in their thrall and were flapping their yaps about gun control, hunting, bushel basket of other “oppression” by men. Fortunately, Gloria Steinem and her ilk have decided that not only do fish need bicycles, fish prefer rich guys on a Harley. The damage is done, however.

      Let’s just boil it down (that video and the truth): The hard, hard truth comes down to the fact that a majority (easily 55 to 65%+) of women want someone to provide for them. Period, full stop. If they were pulling down a six-figure paycheck and they met a man pulling down a bigger paycheck, they’d be happy quitting the workforce and having kids and a life. That whole “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” was crap. Hypergamy is biologically engrained in women. But… thanks to feminism, they no longer care who is acting as the provider: A husband or Uncle Sugar Daddy.

      We used to joke in engineering school about the girls across town at the state university taking liberal arts degrees that they were in search of a “Mrs” degree. This pejorative was applied to girls in liberal arts programs who had, for three years, thought that engineers across town were too scruffy, too nerdy, too unappealing to date. And I’m going to be honest: The amount of time that an engineering program demands means that there isn’t a whole lot of time for looking nice and perky. There were lots of mornings when guys would roll out of bed with only two hours’ sleep, put on some clothes and go through another day without a shower, and it wasn’t because we were partying the night before.

      There were some seriously cute and pretty girls in those liberal arts programs… but for the first three years, they dated only good looking guys, who by and large, were also in the state university liberal arts programs. Starving artists/musicians and the like.

      Then came senior year. Sometime just before the end of the fall semester.. suddenly engineers were attractive. When I say “suddenly,” I mean within a two week period, engineers were attracting women with no effort on their part.

      At first, we had no explanation for this. Then the few grizzled guys taking a MS or PhD’s in engineering would start holding court at the local beer-n-wings joint and they’d explain to us undergrads about the “Mrs” degree program at the state liberal arts school. What was happening, we were told in no uncertain terms, was that these formerly stuck-up girls had learned what their earning prospects were, and the news was grim. Then they started realizing that Mr. Dreamy Starving Artist was going to be just as badly off.

      Then they started hearing about what engineering graduates were going to be pulling down.

      Suddenly, seemingly without explanation (we engineers were pretty dim in the ways of women back then), these liberal arts graduates were seen in all the bars and hangouts for the serious nerds and geeks. We were getting hit on. This was back in the days when women rarely asked guys out on dates, folks. In normal situations, women would give you all manner of hints and openings, but they’d very, very rarely come out and say “would you like to go out…?”. Well, that convention went out the window in a hurry. Graduation was coming up, and if these women were going to snag socially clueless (but high-earning) engineers, they couldn’t wait for the engineer of the desired income strata to figure out all the hints and clues the girl was giving off.

      The word was out, who had a job offer (or more than one) or not. Even in our own school, which had a 8:1 male-to-female ratio, women suddenly were interested in guys with job offers to whom they wouldn’t give the time of day only a few months earlier.

      Well, that was decades ago. Lots of case law has been stacked against men since then, much of it having to do with pre-empting one’s right to own guns on the unsubstantiated words of a female. The divorce rates tell the entire story. The hard truth is that the government can’t protect you, can’t provide for you and in the near future, fiscal and monetary policy are going to make things very grim for those who think Uncle Sugar Daddy is always going to be there. The independent person, who needs nothing from the government, will thrive by comparison.

      My advice to young men today is not only to not get married, it is to not allow any woman to so much as move a toothbrush into your apartment. Learn useful skills, of which the use of guns is only one. Among people of the gun, learning how to provide for yourself is an integral part of the advanced mindset.

      • The only error I see in your post is that women today want a Daddy to provide for them but that Daddy is not Daddy BigBucks it’s Daddy Government. Period. That’s the Daddy they want supporting them and enabling their vision of being “empowered”.

        The 90s were when things really started to turn south with women and their vicious hypergamy. Feminism really lit a fire under it. Sorry to hear you got caught up in all of that … I myself am an Engineer – Which discipline did you get your degree in and what did you end up doing with it as a career?
        Just curious, really! 🙂

  41. Texas A&M bought Texas Wesleyan University School of Law because they wanted to upgrade their status to UT-Austin level, and buying was cheaper than building new. That said, it isn’t surprising that a liberal bombthrower holdover, at a newly elevated law school, at the most conservative public university, in one of the most conservative states, would strain for a headline and possibly fish for a job offer.

    Her analysis, legal and historical, is laughable, untenable and more suitable for some high school hack’s Youtube channel than a serious academic forum. Nevertheless, watch in the coming weeks/months as she starts complaining of “institutional harrassment” and how she’s fleeing A&M for a more academically free environment. She’ll get a new gig with a side of street cred. You heard it here first.

    • Well, I’m not sure that’s fair across the board. A&M is a nationally ranked research university with some truly exceptional programs in a number of fields. Their graduate program in chemical engineering, to cherry pick an example, is more highly ranked than those of luminaries such as Vanderbilt, Tufts, Dartmouth, or Yale. Prestigious programs abound in “aggieland” as evidenced by the attraction to the school of both top students and major employers.

  42. “Note the use of the word “feel” in that sentence”

    The supporters of the police-nanny state concept and/or Statism (and most politicians too of other ideologies) do not want voting citizens “thinking”; they want people “feeling” with their emotional reactions to leading close ended questions. Interesting that the spellchecker does not recognize the word ‘Statism’.

  43. Seems to me we need the 2a more then ever before!

    1. Our current administration is willing to break the law at every turn.
    2. Poice Militarization is leading to a shoot first and ask questions much later attitude.
    3.There is an active move to purge a certain political and moral value from the Military, which could make them more usable against their fellow countrymen.

    Its not about sport or hunting, or self defense its about combating tyranny!

  44. I agree. Lets have an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. I like this one

    Amendment—The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The federal government shall insure that no private individuals keep or possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. All other forms of weapons may be owned, borne and possessed by the citizens of the United States without restriction or registration. Such weapons may not be taxed

    A State of Disobedience
    Tom Kratman

  45. “She then proposed leaving it to the states.

    “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,” she said.”

    Interesting. I wonder if she feels the same way about women’s so-called “reproductive rights.” Bet not.

    • Yep, the state-by-state dream is now in full swing. Try that with anti-discrimination law? Didn’t think so. It’s just more of the same: When the left likes the Supreme Court mix, they spit on the legislature. For the last few years they’ve decided SCOTUS is not good, and all policy authority should be yielded to, surprise, the president (Sunstein’s exact proposal). What the left neo-platonist self-assessed philosopher kings know is this, that the evolution of the economy is going to dramatically change politics, They just wish the ‘3/4’s of states’ rule wasn’t in the constitution, because they’re in a hurry. The clock is ticking.

    • It’s not as crazy as it sounds – in addition to Kansas nullifying federal infringements on 2A, the People’s Democratic Republic of Mexifornia has nullified the indefinite detention part of the NDAA:
      http://benswann.com/breaking-california-nullifies-ndaa-indefinite-detention/

      Now, if we could just get Governor Moonbeam to embrace the rest of the Constitution…

      And yes, it would apply to unconstitutional infringements on reproductive rights as well, not that they’re guaranteed or anything – I just go by the fact that only people that you can actually see without doing a vaginal probe or vivisection have rights.

  46. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is what united states was build on not other country’s laws.their for if someone would change constitution it would be treason.the united nations has no right to try and change the constitution.any country that would try and change the constitution would mean war.this is the way the real arthur’s would have felt if someone try to change the constitution.

  47. Natural, Human Rights simply exist. No matter what the government says, no matter any document, no matter what anyone anywhere says: Human Rights will continue to exist, no matter what. That includes the Right to keep and bear arms.

    The RTKBA can be neither granted, nor withdrawn. Human Rights cannot be extinguished until you exterminate all mankind.

    • Nah, let them blabber their stupidity for all the world to hear. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, so to speak.

      Trying to repress the Free Speech even of idiots and especially of people you disagree with makes you just as bad as, if not worse than them.

  48. I actually ate my lunch in the presence of Ms. Penrose today inside a classroom she had just finished using for a lecture. She was hanging around talking to students who had questions about their course work.

    Little did she know that she was sharing a room with someone willing to give his life to preserve her constitutionally memorialized right to say such things. I just wish she would stop attacking my constitutionally memorialized rights that give me the ability to protect her right to say what she said.

    As I sat there, I wondered what she would say if I proposed that we apply her own formula to her First Amendment rights, or her Fourth, or Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights, which I am sure she holds in high regard. Surely such a proposal would have invited her contention that to do so would surely be the harbinger of tyranny. In the end, I decided not to engage her in discussion since I already know I cannot move a stone by simply speaking to it. But I wondered to myself how such people attain such offices as hers without the capacity or discipline to logically extrapolate the eventual outcomes of their proposed policies.

    The security guard assigned to her looked none too pleased as he waited for her out in the hallway. However, it painted the perfect picture of her own hypicracy to se her advocating for the weakening our rights to self-defense while being followed around by a guard to defend her. I guess she thinks that we can all afford carry a cop or guard around with us everywhere we go and that, therefore, the second amendment must be obsolete. Rather, her actions belie her actual commitment to her own purported beliefs and, rather than taking responsibility for her own personal safety (or lack thereof) she saddles someone else with that responsibility (in this case the tax and tuition payers).

    Meanwhile, the rest of us in the real world are constantly confronted with the fact that when seconds count, help is minutes away, and, if we want to survive a life-threatening, we have to be able and prepared to take responsibility of our own safety.

  49. Just when I thought aggies couldn’t get any worse, they take over a TTT law school, boost enrollment (just what my profession needs), and hire an idiot who wants to repeal one of the guarantees of my liberty.

  50. “Hmm, let’s change this amendment because I don’t have any life experience to realize the importance of it.”

    Guess they didn’t teach history where she went to get her degree.

    • I experienced the beginnings of the transformation of the schools into propaganda mills in the fourth grade, in the latter half of the 1950s. There was a propaganda piece titled “The Little Red Schoolhouse,” where the ‘R’ was a stylized hammer and sickle. The piece told about those poor little Russian kids who are only taught what their teachers were allowed to teach, and they were only given reading material that was dictated by that nasty Commie Government, and so on. I was curious. I asked the teacher, “How do I know that this article is the truth and you’re not doing to us the things you say they’re doing to their kids?” The teacher got all uncomfortable and changed the subject.

      Where’s Joe McCarthy when we need him the most?
      .

  51. The Second Amendment was partially about a standing army as the Founders didn’t trust standing armies then, hence the “well-regulated militia” part (i.e. general population familiar with the usage of arms). But, concern about tyranny and protecting the individual right to self-defense was also part of it.

  52. Why would this crazy libtard bitch (Mary) trust ‘Big Gov’ to such a degree? 1984 is more than just a date. If you cant trust your fellow citizens (as well as yourself), who can you trust?

  53. While I totally disagree with the professor, it seems to me we should embrace her right to argue for this, and appreciate her forthrightness. She is not calling for a softer or different judicial interpretation of the Amendment, she is calling for its outright appeal. I for one applaud her candor.

    • It’s true. Freedom of speech includes the right to be as stupid as you want. What bugs me is that the nannies want to repeal Darwin’s Law.

  54. I personally would like us to go back to British Rule. Perhaps if we hadn’t allowed these ‘ Colonial upstarts’ to get the upper hand, those ‘damn ‘ constitutionalists’, my family wouldn’t have been disenfranchised at the end of the Rev War and they wouldn’t have lost lands and money as a result. Margaret , you are why I decided not to go into Law. The only thing that you can do to draw attention to yourself and your second rate University , is to come to Connecticut, which is only one year out from the Sandy Hook Tragedy, and promote a repeal of the 2ND Amendment , something that would not have had any effect on that situation. Guns in the hands of any legitimate person, are a deterrent to crime and a deterrent to an abusive government , one whose actions lately have me more worried than ever that. The purpose of people like you is to sit in your academic towers, collecting out of proportion salaries and think of things to ‘do’ to your fellow citizens. You remind me of my local politicians who can’t sit still and who are constantly trying to think of other things to spend my tax on, always thinking up ‘new’ laws to make life ‘ better. Go back to your academic hole from where you came. And let me remind you, it was with a gun that one of my ancestors fought the Mexicans and got Texas as a part of this country. Without that gun , you would be speaking Spanish, smoking pot and living in a Mexican commune barefoot with eight kids. What a jerk.

    • With a current passport you’re free to fly there any time you want to for about 7 bills. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass!

  55. We merely hope to advise you that I am certain novice to putting up a blog and completely adored your review. Very likely I am probably to remember your article post . You absolutely have magnificent article topic. Like it for telling with us your blog article.
    Carrie W. Childs http://www.cufams.org

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *