Fort Worth Law Professor's Proposal to Repeal the Second Amendment Panned by the Internet

Categories: Guns

Thumbnail image for MegPenrose.jpg
Via Facebook
Meg Penrose
On Friday, fed up with the ineffectual legislative and judicial responses to rampant gun violence and in the spirit of open and honest academic debate, Texas A&M University law Professor Meg Penrose offered the not-so-modest suggestion that the United States do away with the Second Amendment.

"Unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures," she said during a forum on constitutional gun rights at the University of Connecticut's law school. "I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood, and I think it's time today, in our drastic [times], to repeal and replace that Second Amendment."

The audience, mostly lawyers and law school students, reacted mildly to the proposal. The Internet did not.

See also: There's a Gun-Range Arms Race in North Texas, and North Richland Hills is Winning

A link to the original CT News Junkie piece on the UConn forum was posted almost immediately to the NRA News Facebook page, where the comments oscillated between "This woman who thinks she is smarter than the founding fathers needs to come down from her cloud to reality" and "Why don't people like this old hag who hate our country move to another country which share their views?"

The news was then picked up by the Daily Caller, which illustrated its post with a picture of Penrose smiling next to a burning copy of the U.S. Constitution.

To be clear, Penrose, who offices in Fort Worth and is representing several peace activists suing the city of Dallas for barring them from holding anti-Bush signs on the Central Expressway service road, isn't calling for the wholesale abolition of the individual right to bear arms. Her preferred version of the Second Amendment would allow each state to regulate guns as it sees fit, thus allowing "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."

Nor is her call for revision limited to the Second Amendment. She's in favor of rewriting the entire Constitution, given how dramatically the world has changed in the past 226 years, which is a favorite thought experiment of academics and pundits of all stripes.

She told the audience in Connecticut that she's pretty sure that won't happen, but it can't hurt to throw the idea out there.

Send your story tips to the author, Eric Nicholson.

My Voice Nation Help
118 comments
Diehartz
Diehartz

One of the oldest tricks, errrr, reasons to pass something or repeal something is to declare a crises or an emergency.  Doesn't take a professor to "think" up that strategy i.e. "drastic" events require "drastic" measures.  Come on "professor" give us something more than a grade school argument.  Oh, by the way, I believe it has already been shown that jurisdictions with very strong gun control measures continue to experience very high murder rates.  Please explain that one Ms. Professor Penrose.  How about starting with the City of Detroit........  Hmmm, do I hear crickets in the background.

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

She's just having fun - tweaking the noses of idiot little right-wing psychos.

Heartland_Patriot
Heartland_Patriot

"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 knows full-well that if that were to happen, the Federal government would ignore state's rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments as they commonly do these days, and then pass draconian legislation against firearms.  Its a red herring on her part.  And those defending her know this, too, or they are willfully ignorant of today's politics

peaceseeker
peaceseeker

At the time the 2nd amendment was written there was no organized army, just the militia and they had to bring their guns with them.  Things have changed!  Regular citizens do not need military weapons.  Further, those calling this law professor names is just showing their ignorance and can do or say nothing else. 

char411998
char411998

The only thing drastic happening is the ignorant shit in this dumb bitch's head!!!!

John1073
John1073

I read "A&M" and I just totally discredited anything else the article suggested.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

 Drastic times? I think the term she's looking for is desperate.

As in: Desperate times call for desperate measures.

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

You simply can't repeal a natural right.

For example, as it is a natural right for mothers to care for their children and for fathers to arm themselves to fight against tyranny. the best the government can do is persecute by hindering them.  In the end, mothers will continue caring for their children and fathers will continue fighting against tyranny.  The significance of a natural right is this:  Even if the government were to kill the both of them, the parents would still by nature be caring for children and fighters against tyranny.    .    

The original Bill of Natural Rights weren't established within the U.S. Constitution as legal precedent laws, but they were inserted as warnings made by our Founders towards any threats by future tyrannies whether they be foreign or domestic.  Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers made their declaration while under the threat of judgement and under the very throne of God.  Of course, I'm talking philosophy here and not the lessor endeavor involving legal-precedent law.  

As we live n a New World, our nation wasn't established by the prior way of Old World legal precedence, a process that, as cruel as it might have seemed, was blessed by the Pope and the Catholic church.  This process involved taking a leadier among men, crowning him as a king, and then challenging the existing ruling king to a war (a fight to dethrone one or the other).  Instead, our Founders shunned such legal precedence for the existing scientific method of natural law, a process that, during the time, was also blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church.

This is what a legal precedent lawyer will never understand as such a process in favor of the people would seem to go against his and her financial best interest (hee hee).  As incredible as it might seem, our Founders did not subvert or rebel against the rightful authority of the king of England, but they established a whole new Natural Law.  In doing so, they then utilized the new conclusion, while acting of, by, and for the people - and all the while as mere commoner people themselves - as justifiable evidence in order to divorce the people out from under a wayward tyrant.  

A natural right differs from a civil right in that the first virtue reduces literally on the physical level having nothing to do with legal precedent law (There existed during the time of our Founders no such thing as the cognitive sciences as Immanuel Kant, a figure long known as the father of epistemology, was a peer of our Founders having been a major figure along with Rousseau during the French Revolution).  

Concerning about what I speaking, John Locke suffered a great deal as he did not write his two treatises to advance his own livelihood, but he wrote them in secret for the sake of future posterity as he wrote under a pseudonym.   Indeed, his true identity wasn't revealed to the masses until after his death having been written into his last will and testament.    .     

On so many levels, this shallow professor is perpetuating lies in contempt of the people's.Civil Purpose and the incredible but necessary amounts of blood shed to advance it.  .    


Subnx
Subnx

My guess is that if she were complimented on her on her cute titties she would be offended

Subnx
Subnx

Her peace activists should be protesting in Iran and the mosques in Afganistan

FEDUp
FEDUp

You want mine? Come get it, PLEASE.

tom222
tom222

While I don't agree with her at all, at least she's honest about it. Unlike politicians that try to chip away at the second amendment a little at a time.

Hypnogator
Hypnogator

I just don't see how a law professor can talk about repealing one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.  Some of the original colonies wouldn't sign the Constitution without the Bill of Rights being included.  To repeal one of them, we would have to have a Constitutional Convention, opening us up to a complete revision of the entire US Constitution.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

What I don't quite understand is that she is (apparently) a tenured professor on the faculty of the TAMU law school.  Apparently she must not have much of a teaching load and how do her students manage to come to her office to discuss lectures and ask questions.

ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

The states, already regulate or not as they see fit. That's why Va guns get to NYC. But not why Tx guns get to Mexico. .. that is a whole different kettle of stupidity.

CueCat
CueCat

I hope this stupid bitch is not an Aggie. She would probably like ut better and be a good fit there.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Uh, she's obviously no Wendy Davis.

ryan762
ryan762

"Why don't people like this old hag who hate our country move to another country which share their views?"

Or get appointed to various courts, including the Supreme Court, so they can gut the various Amendments to the Bill of Rights from the inside like Republicans appointees have been doing for a very long time now.

Conservative state courts and the Supreme Court have effectively invalidated large parts of the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, and the 8th Amendment over the last couple of decades. If left-wingers want to do the same for the 2nd, they need to get appointed (or elected) to the various courts.

Repeal2nd4Tray
Repeal2nd4Tray

@peaceseeker THANK YOU!  Someone who gets it!  You should volunteer to help us out at www.trayvonsamendment.com

Heartland_Patriot
Heartland_Patriot

@peaceseeker Are the police going to protect us?  That is a common refrain from those who wish to ban private ownership of firearms.  Yet, the SCOTUS has previously ruled that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual citizen.  So, in essence, its another leftist ideal, that only "the group" is worthy of protection and not the individual (unless given some sort of "protected status" as the left is wont to do).

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

@John1073

No, you didn't discredit anything.

What you meant to say was that you "dismissed" the rest of the article.

Not your fault, though - gun violence advocates aren't exactly famous for their literacy.


Repeal2nd4Tray
Repeal2nd4Tray

@mrbusyb A "natural right" is something necessary to survival.  Food, water, roof, clothing, health care.


If you think you're going to be attacked, don't put yourself in a position to be attacked.  Lock your doors and windows and don't walk down streets you don't belong.

Heartland_Patriot
Heartland_Patriot

@FEDUp They never do that...they pass laws, or use executive fiat, to give themselves legal cover and then they use hired help to do it.  She is the sort who would never soil her own hands to achieve her ideological and political goals.

pak152
pak152

@Hypnogator"To repeal one of them, we would have to have a Constitutional Convention" nope they are treated like any other amendments when it comes to repealing an amendment.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm
to repeal the 18th amendment the Congress put forth the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th amendment. these are the two methods for ratifying for an amendment

  • Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
  • Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment). 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm


mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul I do believe she has her position because she was hired to fill a quota by others hired to fill a quota.  Eventually those hired to fill a quota will ban together to usher in a whole new flavor of social communism.  After they do, the conservatives will take over as always, transport them out west on the Siberian express, and eliminate them in death camps.

Meanwhile, the conservatives will rule for many years acting out the parts of caring liberal communists.  This is why the most ideal communist society is really just a fascist one.  The only solution to all this absurdity is to limit the size of government as Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested.         

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  Likely has not taught a class in-person for some time.   Was always a little pissed when my kids would talk about college classes I paid for that were actually taught by a grad student assistant or some other flunky working off of the professor's notes..

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@TexMarine Watch the Ad Hominem please.  Such charecter sniping responses work to actually give credit to her foolishness.  In other words, we aren't talking politics here.  A natural right isn't a matter of a choice between this or that.  Again, what she is suggesting is tantamount to Congress abolishing gravity.  "For now on let the record state that every action in nature shall not have an equal or opposite reaction and that all mothers shall be prohibited from caring for their children and that all fathers shall be prohibited from taking up arms against tyranny!"

Obviously this is a case of a stupid faculty tenuring a dumb professor to teach a misguided class of ignorants.  As a result, the wise should expect that the backside of a jackass with gas would utter better sense.    

"Hee Haw . . . Pppt . . .  Hee Haw Pppf . . . 


.  

strathound
strathound

@CueCat We will take her!!! She probably should have known better than to expect open-mindedness from an agriculture school. Hook em. 

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Weird, happy software..

Anyway, this Meg Ryan lookalike has stolen Wendy Davis's tits, which makes her as good a constitutional authority as we got goin' on the left these days.

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@Repeal2nd4Tray @mrbusyb A natural right is different from a civil right.  The original Bill of Rights reduced on the physical level because science did not exist on the cognitive level.  Because of this, one can't repeal a natural right.  That would be like repealing the natural right of mothers to take care of their children or the natural right of fathers to fight against tyranny.


The woman above is proof that anyone, in order to fill a quota, can earn a diploma and become a professor.  

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@pak152 @Hypnogator 



There is a difference between a legal-precedent civil right and a natural-law natural right.  The original Bill of Rights were written in as natural rights.  Those rights reduced down on the physical level like DNA.  So, one cannot repeal a natural right just as one cannot defy a natural law.  Don't argue with this so-called professor, but laugh at her as a fool.  Also laugh at the University she is making a fool of.    .     

Hypnogator
Hypnogator

@pak152 @Hypnogator Well, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that there is a major problem with eliminating one of the rights that the states insisted be included before they ratified.  Why not just have 3/4th of the states eliminate the House of Representatives?

carley1234
carley1234

@Sotiredofitall @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul As a conservative law student of Professor Penrose's I must say that none of you have any clue what you are talking about! 

I attend her class twice a week and she also teaches other classes at the law school, so get your facts straight before you write something so stupid! 

Professor Penrose is one of the smartest people I know and I am embarrassed by these comments. You should all be ashamed and go read a con law book. 

ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

Yes it does. I just didn't want to have to write 1000 words when this fwew would do.

Heartland_Patriot
Heartland_Patriot

@strathound "Open-mindedness"  in this case equals "disarm those dirty peasants, only the mighty political state should decide who is to be protected and who is not worthy of protection".  If you don't like the nature of living in Texas or one of the other Free States, perhaps a more liberal-progressive place like Massachusetts or California would suit you better.

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@pak152 @mrbusyb @Hypnogator There is indeed a difference between what is a natural right and what is a civil right.  In fact, because the Bill of (natural) Rights did indeed reduce on the physical level, once again there existed no such endeavor as the cognitive sciences during that time, the debate between our Founders was whether they should have even been included in the U.S. Constitution.    

In contrast, civil rights are a legal precedent thing ushered in along with the two-party system in order to enhance the business of law making.  The naive in this nation thing we have a great nation because of the structure of the government.  Those who have been deeper disciplined in what is great about the United States know that it is a result of the freed up people when they have been able to control government limiting the scope of its authority.  

So, again, it is just as impossible to repeal a natural right as it is to defy a natural law.  Look, let these fools come out in the open so that they can be cut down like the uneducated sophist fools that they are.  

What I am conveying to you is common knowledge among philosophy professors.  The people who continue confusing the people are stumbling up the Children of God.  That is supposed to be the worst offense one can commit under Light of the Truth.  

So, just let them spout their confusion.  

.   .  

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@pak152 @Hypnogator 

Again, one cannot repeal a natural right just as one cannot violate a Natural Law.  As anyone with the most basic understanding of philosophy knows, this woman is a fool.  She is a disgrace to her university.  

pak152
pak152

@Hypnogator @pak152  but the method for amending the Constitution doesn't distinguish between those amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights and the others. they are all amendments. You could theoretically eliminate the House by getting an amendment done. Nothing is impossible when you consider that at one time there was an amendment prohibiting alcohol.

The process for amending the Constitution is difficult because it forces us to think about what we want to do. Can't rush into things. and your concern would be raised by many folks. The problem really lies with having a law professor even raising the idea of eliminating one like the 2nd. But that is typical of the liberal/progressive mindset

Heartland_Patriot
Heartland_Patriot

@carley1234 You don't sound very conservative if you are defending someone who wants to dismantle the enumerated statements of rights in our Constitution.  She cannot be so smart, and yet so ignorant, to think that the Federal government, particularly when run by the Democrat Party, wouldn't instantly seize on an opportunity like that.  Once the enumeration of the right was removed, the laws to ban firearms would be passed in short order.  Words have meaning, and when they are there for all to see, it matters.  Which was what the Code of Hammurabi was really all about.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@carley1234 Properly chastised, the loyal, though flawed, UP commenters head to the local watering hole, to 'cover the story from mahogany ridge'.

strathound
strathound

@Heartland_Patriot @strathound Ok "Heartland Patriot", lol. Thank you. You are a patriot, you used the words "protection", "protected" and "free" in a sentence as ordered by your corporate masters that run your political party. You may be dumb enough to think just because they vomit patriotic values into your awaiting mouth that they have your best interest at heart. However, given the growing income inequality in this country, I'd say that your servitude to them is paying off nicely ... for them. Please continue to be ignorant and spout of whatever right wing agenda they promote on Fox News. We need to keep the middle class in it's place in ignorance. 

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@TexMarine  No mourning here.  A bit sad, but that's the way of wild animals.  They're beautiful, fluffy, and graceful, and retain wild instincts, which is why they certainly belong in The Wild, and not penned up in a zoo.


ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

When did Oswald fall out of favor?

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...