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 Utilizing her unquestioned exercise of the First Amendment, the Texas Professor insisted the Constitution was outdated, and needed some substantial re-writing.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.
People who think like this work and live among Americans who wish to preserve the Constitution; they walk among us.
It is sadder when the person who thinks like this is an educator.
Surely a law professor is aware of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. While not often mentioned the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, like the Federalist Papers, offers considerable insight into the founders’ vision for America.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
If this is the best A&M can offer, time for them to go back to the Big 12. We southern folk down here in Alabama love our guns. We ain’t giving them to no gun grabbing liberal homo from A&M. The liberals just think that parts of the Constitution they don’t like are now outdated. If they like it, it is okay, but not those they don’t like.
And why exactly should we care what the Professor sez? Frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s hiney. Everyone has got a piehold and everyone has an opinion.
BTW, I applied and paid my $116 for my long gun certificate in the middle of September and I still don't have it.
Conveniently, the legislation did not put any funding to hire extra people or resources to handle the massive influx of applications on what used to be only the pistol permit division. Planned failure like Obamacare seems to be the way to backdoor what you really want.
She goes right into the belly of the beast (Texas) and preaches her contempt for our Constitution. She’s either brave or stupid. I choose stupid.
Makes for the perfect Obama Supreme Court nominee.
Thanks to the Demagogic Party, the First Amendment was in effect repealed long ago.
Thanks Kaslin.
Our Constitutionally enumerated rights were added to our founding document precisely because our founders feared violation of such rights, if left to local jurisdictions.
This is a blatantly wrong statement. They were originally interpreted as being a restriction on Federal Government actions only.
It wasn’t until more wide-spread incorporation mostly by the 14th amendment that they were interpreted to apply to other jurisdictions.
Maybe her students should make a “state’s rights” case for the repeal of our Thirteenth Amendment. Or maybe the Nineteenth.
After reading through the rest of the thread now, you beat me to it!
And you are quite correct.
“Penrose was speaking in Connecticut...”
Thats about all I needed to know...
IF they had tried to say that in College Station, I’m not so sure their would be such a warm and fuzzy in Aggieland...
So under the guise and convienience of the First Amendment they spew this freedom and liberty sucking drivle...
Hehehe, that Constitution and BOR really comes in handy doesn’t it...
You know, I happen to have a pretty good feeling there are significant numbers of high-amperage cattle prods (in Texas) that do not require permits or licences to encourage animals of this type into cages to be re-populated in places like Detroit, Chicago, NYC, etc etc etc...
I feel sorry for those places...Uhhhh, wait, check that, no, I do not feel sorry for places like that because this type of creature would thrive in an environment like that...
Unfortunately there is a chance that it could mate, and produce offspring that might migrate back to areas where they become a hazard to the local population...
Yes, I have decided that I do feel comfortable in my exercise of this thing called free speech...
It is very liberating...
Is this possibly how some women felt when they burned their bras in public back in the day...
Wow!!!
“Penrose explained that “drastic times call for drastic measures.””
I saved the best for last...
Be very careful of what you wish for, support and try to accomplish...
It WILL, I guarantee, bring about a “drastic response” that you will not ever be that unhappy about, ever again...
Damnit, don’t encourage them...We have almost gone a year without a pic like that surfacing like a mass of ugly jelly from the depths of the ocean!!!
Geesh!!! ;-)
“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’.”
The discussion is regarding the amendment being repealed. There is NO chance of that happening.
The interpretation of the 2nd is a different issue, and I’m with you in being concerned about that. It is good that those 5-4 decisions went the way they did, as that is now precedent, and folks will not take it lightly if those precedents are tampered with.
“You can’t say there is no chance. I thought there was no chance a communist could be elected as president. I really thought there was no chance a communist could be reelected as president. I could go on and on, but we must remain ever ready to defend our rights ( the ones that still remain).
I have to quit now as my blood pressure has gone up.”
I hear you, just don’t let it get to you. We all need to be as fit as possible, just in case.
It sure does. BTW I was going to ask you what BOR (Bill O’Reilly) has to do with this until I realized you meant the Bill of Rights :)
Yes it does.
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.