Legal Issues

Law Professor Says “Time to Repeal and Replace that Second Amendment”

[disclaimer] Mary Margaret Penrose, a full-time professor of law with Texas A&M University in Fort Worth, has called for the full repeal of the Second Amendment, according to an article in the New Haven Register News in Connecticut. Penrose made her comments an annual symposium put on by the Connecticut Law Review at University of Connecticut’s School of Law. The Symposium’s topic, “Up In Arms: The Second Amendment in the Modern Republic,” was selected by the Law Review’s membership and was held Friday, November 15, 2013 at William F. Starr Hall in Hartford.

She said she calls the Constitution an “obsolete” document in her classes, and said at the Symposium, “… 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.” “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,” Penrose said. Connecticut’s Governor Dannel Malloy gave opening remarks. He told the audience of legal scholars and practitioners that Connecticut supports the constitutional right to own firearms but he says no right is without its limitations.

Malloy told the audience made up of legal scholars and practitioners that those who believe there should be no limitations on the second amendment are wrong.

Clayton E. Cramer, one of the other symposium panelists and an adjunct professor at the College of Western Idaho, said on his blog, “I am encouraged to report increasing evidence that gun control is an old white guy’s movement. The panelists at the symposium were generally either clearly pro-gun, or giving data that gave serious doubts as to either the need for or effectiveness of broad gun control laws.

“The most notable exception was Professor Penrose of Texas A&M,” Cramer said, “who argued that our Constitution is really suited to an 18th century world, not a 21st century world, and proposed amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment and allow states to pass whatever gun control laws they wanted.”

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (138)

  1. wzrd1 – I started with a Barret .50, then built a custom .50 Single shot, research and competition rifle. Three years ago I got the Barret in .416, topped it with a Nightforce 8-32×56 NXS. This is a reach out and touch …. anything …. at distances that the .50 can only dream about. Your right about going thru the targets. I make targets out of 1.25 inch street plate now, they hold up a bit longer. Anything thinner acts more like heavy paper than steel. Nice sound too! I don’t shoot my .50’s much any more, .416 is way more fun and challenging. I lath my own projectiles for reloading. The .416 round remains supersonic at 2750 meters down range from the muzzel just to give you an idea at this munitions preformance. My mid range rifle is a Sako TRG-42 in .338 Lapua also topped with a Nightforce. Its consistant out to 1300 meters but I like it best in the 1100 to 1200 meter envelope and reload for that optimum range. For short range (under 900 meters) I built myself a .308 built out of a Tika, bull barrel, 600 series action. Slipped it into a MacMillian tactical stock and of course Night-force optics. This rifle is a true pleasure to shoot, is a tac driver and has win its share of range bets when someone is out to prove to there friends how good they are and puts out an open challenge. Ya gotta love the young blood, so much to prove! As you might suspect I’m single, and my checking account is my own so it allows me to indulge my passions perhaps a bit more than some.
    When your ready to tackle some distance shooting you let me know. Be pleased to help make that work for you. You stay frosty an get those eyes better. We can build you a .308, 30.06 or maybe a .300 WBM that will put you in the 9 ring at distance for a cost that won’t mean breaking into your savings or kids school fund! I’d be pleased to help. You stay in touch.

  2. @Pete, true enough for the smaller calibers, but .50BMG won’t ping that plate, it’ll go through it! 😉
    When I get the extra scratch, I’ll be getting a match grade M1A, with quality optics.
    Of course, before that, I’ll have my posterior lens capsule lasered, as my cataract surgery worked, but now that capsule is getting foggy. Oh well, the price one pays for suffering eye trauma…
    Won’t get to enjoy that ping on steel either, an IED dropped 45db from my hearing. :/

    Just as well, I far prefer precision shooting to simply striking a plate. 😀

    Well, back to catching up with my mail, then off to shovel more wet snow.

  3. WOW, arnt we just the cultivated American group. Its hard to understand the direction these, to date, 135 comments starting on Nov 22, 2013 to today has taken. It seems we are now more concerned with spitting on each other over this and that and allowing the good Professoe a good laugh at our expense than to stay on track and message concerning the professors stated position.
    And a couple of thoughts ……
    > Wzrd1 – you don’t need a Barret to shoot long distance. A tactical .300 or .338 Lapua will do quite nicely even a .308, is easer on the pocket book, and as far as our old eyes go just get better optics for it. Its a pleasure to hear that “ting” on steel at 1000 meters or better.
    > RPK – wasn’t one of the reasons we served to protect the rights of all? Didn’t that include the protection to free speach and a persons right to their opinion even if we don’t agree with it? Perhaps I misunderstood what my oath encompassed.
    > Dragon Slayer – if your going to insist on not playing well with others and insist that what others may say is wrong if you don’t agree with it. I would suggest that you might study the Documents which provide us with our foundation of this nation and culture to gain a better understanding of where your thinking may be a bit off. Just a thought, don’t really expect you to do it but, one try’s to throw a life line to the lost when hey can
    If we continue to argue and. Do not find the common ground amoung ourselves then people such as the Professor gain validity and a greater voice on the backs of our discontent. Get a life?? We already have a pretty good one. Do you wanna keep it?? Then find the common ground, support it, profess it, share it, but please stop pissing on it. Just a thought, far be it from me to suggest another way to think.

  4. RPK, that is and has always been my method.
    I challenge others to be better by being so.

    You’ve done so in the following:
    “The most important weapon in the arsenal of a United States military member is undoubtedly common sense and the ability to think outside the box.”

    That and the inability to quit were prerequisites for our teams. Indeed, even for the award of our MOS.

    So, with that in mind, I’ll never concede the war, only the battle, grudgingly.
    But, never really ceding the battle.
    For, in some battles, one wins by attrition.

  5. Wzrd1, you are at times openly insultive, provocative and incinderary. While that is your undisputed right, it is unnecessary if you are the Patriot you claim to be. I too am retired military from a combat MOS and have been married 35 years, and have 4 grandchildren. In the civilian world, all that and a dime will get you nothing short of “so what”. As for defending against enemies foreign and domestic, as you should know from your military experience, an enemy can be internal or external. Within and outside the borders. Wearing the uniform of an adversary or waiting in the shadows of your own unit. Within and outside the Government. To believe otherwise is a disservice to the oath we both accepted freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. sadly, within the past few years, recent history has shown this to be so. As for a radio, that is a tool to assist in denying an adversary the opportunity or will to over take friendlies. The most important weapon in the arsenal of a United States military member is undoubtedly common sense and the ability to think outside the box. To know when to fight or flee, to sound off or remain off the beaten path, to engage or withdrawal and return to win the battle another day. My comrage in arms, you are beating a drum falling on deaf ears. Withdraw and return to win another day. As they say, we may have lost the war…but, we won the battles! God Bless our brothers and sisters in uniform, past and present.

  6. Feel free to let me know what site it is, I’ll send my four year old grandchild along to keep you company.
    Though, I’ll admit, she is more literate than you and does tend to not use such infantile tirades and personal attacks.

    It’s strange though, I use reason and discuss the Constitution and how *all* have the same rights, you instead, seek to use personal insults, rights for yourself and no one else and are utterly incapable of utilizing our language in any rational manner.

    As for having a life, I’m retired military, retired after nearly 28 years of service. I’ve been married for over 32 years.
    Hence, I have no life worthy of speaking of, other than doing that which I spent so many decades doing, support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, from enemies both foreign and domestic.
    For, while my term of service has expired upon retirement, my oath, my word of honor has never had an expiration date.

    So, do run away, rather than try communicating and using your words in preference to feeble slights. If I had “ruined this site”, I’m quite certain that the site owners would have either contacted me to ask me to not “ruin” it or they would have cancelled my account. Neither has happened, so I operate the principle of tacit consent.

    As an aside to other readers, I personally own a full dozen firearms. Two are home defense pistols, the rest are either competition firearms or hunting firearms (and one that is a historic “Saturday night special” that I inherited). I fire competitively in M9 and M1911, as well as M1A and AR15. I considered going into long distace competition, but my eyes aren’t as sharp as they once were and a Barrett would be a bit more abuse of already abused joints, so I discarded that notion.

  7. yeah, i knew you couldnt let that zinger go mr. whizz turd…you think all the other people on this site arent tired of your personal tirades where you constantly contradick yourself???? well, i was on another site like this before and i got so tired of that whizz turd i just stopped going to that site. then, i went back to see if he was still on that site 6 months later and he was still yammering on just like you will be.so, i want to be the first to congradulate you on ruining this site. well, you dont really have to answer this comment if you are thinking about repairing your infantile b.s. sessions….im gone to another site until another guy like you wrecks that site too. so, on behalf of those people that used to enjoy this site before you ruined it….GET A LIFE!!!

  8. How fascinating! So, you are the only one permitted an opinion or free speech?!
    Any other rights you’d like to deny this recently retired veteran?

    As for getting a life, no thank you, I’m married.
    But, as far as my Constitution is concerned, I’ll take it in its entirety, the main body and all amendments. That includes the first and second amendments, thank you very much. It also includes the fourteenth amendment.

    I apologize for not returning your childish insult, but I’ll leave that for my grandchildren to do. You’ll fit right in.

  9. Let me get this one straight, Bill.
    She has the right to speak her mind.
    However, if she say something that isn’t in the nature of worship to some mythical alliance between the second amendment and the first amendment (as if the first amendment was passed because people had guns to the Congress and general assemblies of the various states heads to ensure passage), she must renounce her words?
    If she disagrees with your view, we should exile her, something in and of itself unconstitutional in the extreme?

    The first amendment right of free speech, a right, not an optional, not a Bill of Optionals, not a must be acceptable to all or at least acceptable to those who are armed, an inalienable right, is that one may speak one’s mind with vanishingly low restrictions placed upon it.
    The rules are really simple.
    Do not make speech designed to cause imminent lawless action. In short, don’t go to a place and make speech designed to cause a riot.
    Do not make speech planning the overthrow of the US Government. That is sedition.
    Do not make speech to execute the above planning of the overthrow of the US Government. That is treason.

    That’s the simple version. The more complex version involves things like shouting “Fire” in a crowded movie theater.

    Note how disparaging a Constitutional amendment is not within that set? Note how *you* with your puny little guns does not protect that Constitution? The *courts* defend the Constitution, not armed citizens.
    And believe me, puny is what your weapons and mine are. Unless you happen to have armed drones, smart bombs, iron bombs, guided missiles, dumb rockets, mortars, artillery, gunships, bombers, attack aircraft, fighter aircraft, helicopters, Special Operations teams in the thousands, infantry in the millions, your toy gun and mine do not count.
    Want to know my most powerful asset I had in my hands when deployed?
    My radio. For, with that, I could call in what could easily pass for the wrath of an angry god upon the enemy. Indeed, I did. Many times.
    Their AK, their RPG, their opinion rendered null and void by a rain of steel.

    Now, if you want to argue the law, that can trivially destroy her argument.
    But, she has the same right as you and I do to make a fool of ourselves by making an erroneous assumption and expounding upon it.
    And unlike many of our founding fathers, I did fight for my nation, many of them actually did not and interestingly enough, as many of our founding fathers died fighting for their country as I did.
    Since I’m obviously alive, they obviously were alive as well.
    Otherwise, someone else would have had to found this nation.
    For in truth, the dead pass no laws, write no amendments.

    BTW, thank Franklin and Jefferson for starting the push for the first and second amendment.

  10. It is my opinion as an American that she has her right to voice her opposition for the 2nd Amendment. Our founding fathers and others that came after them who fought and died so that her first amendment right is guaranteed.

    But it is also my opinion that she must show deep admiration, respect, appreciation, and gratitude for the 2nd amendment for there will be no 1st or other amendments without upholding the 2nd. There were many, way too many, true patriots, that paid dearly with their own lives to uphold them all so she can now enjoy her freedom of speech without costing her anything at all.

    She must retract the garbage she just espoused and immediately carry out a public apology for such irresponsible behavior.

    If not, then it is my opinion for this woman that she renounce her American citizenship and banished to elsewhere but here, never to return.

  11. We need to become close neighbors and better friends and pull together and fight back now before its too late. We are not the country we were 20 years ago, too much fighting among us. I live in Colorado and my gun probs are yours too, they just started with us because of dumb-dumbs and now another shooting in Denver. Russia is here to fight us because our own troops refused, we need to arm every real Americans who will fight for our right to be free from all this crap that’s coming out of dc.
    we are all doomed

  12. This woman has no sense of why our Bill of Rights was written in the first place. People like her have a tendency to get attention in the far left media. I truly wish she could actually see what countries with out a Bill of Rights have to live through and with no way to defend themselves against oppressive governments. Give up your guns and see how fast the Government strips more of our Constitutional rights away like the 1st and 5th just for openers.

  13. Maybe while she is rewriting the Contitution and Bill of Rights whe would also like to eliminate the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Ammendments.
    Once you throw out one, why stop there?

  14. I have to wonder what her political view is? corporatist globalism? where corporations have more rights than people.. she is definately a member of the sheeple party.

  15. Even the lead justice in the McDonald decision recognized the flaw in Illinois argument. As strict as IL is they still allowed home ownership of guns, it was outside the home where they clashed with the US Constitution. He recognized that having a gun to defend yourself at home (where you are fairly safe) but not outside of it (where it is more dangerous) does not make any sense.

  16. The Heller decision had the history spot on, as you said. Scalia nailed the history perfectly.
    What really does undo the shrieking gun control type is the fact that along with the second amendment, there was a militia act passed that defined the militia as every able bodied male 18 and 45 (subsequent militia acts would vary in age, but still defining the membership to able bodied males until the militia was split into the current system of every able bodied male in the unorganized militia being between 18 and 45, prior active duty service members to age 61 and the National Guard). All in the same time frame and session of Congress.
    That tends to leave them sputtering, “Yes, but it’s changed”.
    Which is countered with, “So, the Constitution and codified law is changed in a non-codified way? Sorry, but untrue, for therein lies the seeds of anarchy. The Constitution is changed by amendment only, codified law is changed by new codified law only.”
    Quoting codified law tends to take the wind out of many a sail of the ignorant anti-second amendment type. Displaying knowledge of the history of the second amendment throughout this nation’s history and of the Militia Acts throughout this nation’s history further deflates them.
    Further, explaining that Stevens was engaging in revisionist history, making up shit as he went along really leaves them without wind.

  17. Most of the points mentioned here are illuminating and logical. The Prof’s logic is faulty and would require a major groundswell unheard of today. When a state signs on to become a state, it becomes bound to our Constitution. That is why states are not allowed to secede once they are accepted by the other states (by voting). I would have more respect for her had she written a 2nd amendment, like Madison and others did.

    The best article on the 2nd Amendment that I have read is here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    It goes into clear detail about the history and changed meanings, as it evolved to the words we know today. It also explains with Scalia’s majority opinion what many of the implied definitions are (through the Heller & McDonald decisions). For example many of those in favor of gun control are confused about the militia. One of the major arguments in colonial times dovetails nicely with the individual right to own a gun and protect oneself. A great concern to early colonists was a fear of choosing between having a gun and only retaining it if they join a militia. The argument that the 2nd amendment only applies to those in a militia is specious.

    To those not familiar with recent 2nd amendment opinions are encouraged to read this, it is excellent.

  18. WHile the issue of removing the 2A from the constitution is the main thrust of this article, I think a second and just as important issue is at hand.

    Our current education system is polluted with people like her. If we want to get a grip on our societal future opposition to ‘professors’ like her are imperative.

  19. “Then show me where in the U.S. Constitution that the NFA, 68 gun law and the Brady act exists?”

    Where in the Constitution does authorization to pay for superhighways exist?
    The NFA does make sense, as there was a significant rash of crimes committed with SBR, SBS and submachine guns. Think machinegun Kelly, Al Capone, John Dillinger.
    The 68 gun law made no sense. There was no incident requiring legislation at all.
    The Brady act does make some sense, even the NRA doesn’t argue for felons possessing firearms, dishonorably discharged service members possessing firearms, lunatics possessing firearms, fugitives possessing firearms, illegal aliens possessing firearms, drug abusers possessing firearms, domestic abusers possessing firearms, etc.

    But, back to the question, the NFA, 68 gun law and Brady act, as well as superhighways funding all exist under the commerce clause.

    I have far more heartburn over Obama’s unilateral prohibiting of re-importation of firearms given to other nations. Especially considering the dearth of crimes committed with firearms such as M1 Garand rifles. He essentially shuttered the CMP with one executive order.

    As for the video, the speaker mixes federal legislation and state legislation. CCW permits are issued by one’s state, whereas suppressors are federally regulated *and* state regulated items.
    I’m in one of the more strange states. I can, under state and county law, possess even a Howitzer. Under the NFA, I can as well, just have to go through the background check, as my SSBI has expired (every person I know of who passed an SSBI for their security clearance had their paperwork sail through the BATFE). I can open carry legally, save in a city of the first class. My state only has one such city, Philadelphia.
    I let my CCW permit lapse, but before, there was no “8 hour class”. I believe there was a firearms safety class required, but as I was military, I fulfilled the requirements without having to attend the class, which is only a couple of ours long.

    As for the racial comment you provided the link to, I wouldn’t fire any employee that was off the clock saying such a thing.
    I *would* be keeping a close eye on said person, just to ensure that the person does nothing to damage the company’s reputation while on the clock. It’s been my experience that two types of people make such comments.
    The person who is a racist and actually believes such things and the person who wants attention. Both end up doing things at their place of employment that would eventually get them terminated for cause.

    Haven’t had the volunteer website deal like you have, but I did have a client that one company I worked for began to intensely dislike due to wasted man hours and abusive speech directed to our workers and even the company owner. The owner eventually authorized me to be extremely undiplomatic with the owner of the small business that was so abusive and tell him that we no longer wished to do business with him.
    I also kept a line open so that the office could hear the exchange.
    Got a raise for my trouble and the owner was surprised that I didn’t use a single bit of profanity on that owner, but did explain what each and every person that dealt with him thought of him. 🙂

    But, as you said, a disclaimer typically ends up being released for workers who are off the clock.
    I did chuckle over the disclaimer on the video, as that was part of our semi-OT conversation.
    I snorted over the notion of attaching a suppressor while defending against a home invader as well.
    And yes, I do know how loud a firearm is when fired indoors. Did a fair amount of that in the Army, under some far from optimal conditions.
    Of course, I have more hearing loss than optimal anyway, damned IED did my ears less than no good, but at least I came away with only tinnitis, a few buddies didn’t come away from that at all, a few others are maimed for life.
    They eventually caught the IED bomber, in Louisville, Kentucky.
    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-nsd-701.html
    So much for US surveillance! :/

  20. @Wzrd1,

    If an employee espoused a personal opinion, expressed as a personal opinion that diverged from my own, I’d be stuck with a press release that the employee does not represent the company and its owner in such and such a way.

    I think you and I are close to being on the same page. I’m personally am not even a deist, but realize the rest of the world I live in.

    That being said, there are things I would not my company smeared by, regardless of on or off the clock.

    And there are things that instantly earns my disrespect. Such as this:
    http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/right-to-carry/armed-robbers-family-is-angry-after-he-is-shot-robbing-a-dollar-store/#comment-12039

    If this person were my employee he would find his personal property on the front stoop of my business, regardless of his status when he made the comment.

    So I probably would put out the press statement, but repeated similar behavior need an ultimatum.

    Long semi-off topic: I have volunteered on a tech website for years. They have had many people ask questions. Of the people that are paying to ask questions there has been a hand full that got abusive to the volunteer experts. The paid staff for a long time was prohibited from disciplining the askers. The experts built up a system to ignore them. Once the site’s management finally allowed the support team to tell the asker “Here’s your refund, please go elsewhere,” did many of the problems go away. The 3% loss of income was well made up by the volunteers answering questions.

    So if she wasn’t on the A&M clock, then she has a right to say what she did. If A&M does not issue a statement regardless of the the “clock” status, then they are essentially condoning her viewpoint. If they were to fire her for off the clock statements specifically then they are probably going to be the loser. But if they issue a statement “We do not endorse her views but she has a right to speak.” I would question it but not run away.

    But then the reflection on AM is there. Paying for the 5% is usually not worth the employee.

  21. Where do they get that the seconed amendment has no restrictions there are plenty of gun laws who can buy what they can buy how many rounds how were and when they can use it … — Lloyd rawles — November 26, 2013

    Please watch the video below:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCZHMRhsjPk

    Then show me where in the U.S. Constitution that the NFA, 68 gun law and the Brady act exists?

  22. It’s strange. Somehow, some get to say nothing whatsoever, but we get to talk.
    That royally pisses me off.
    Even the f-ing village idiot gets a turn. Might learn something for a change.

    Rejected here, but mailed to me was:
    ” Where do they get that the seconed amendment has no restrictions there are plenty of gun laws who can buy what they can buy how many rounds how were and when they can use it with more laws aginst the defender then the offender then the ammo shortage and close down the only lead smeltery in the usa with environmental restrictions if are economy isnt bad enough the usa is made up of consumers who produce nothing in trade or at least thats were we are headed”

    Not especially worthy overall, but still worthy to defuse idiots.
    First off, *anyone* have a round limitation enforced overtly by the government? Sound off here. If you do, I have major heartburn. Equal to slavery being cool. Small hint, it ain’t.
    Smaller hint, put slavery and Stalin together, add Hitler, it’s still bad. As in shooting everything claiming to claim Constitution and considering blood debt, which is fundamentally unconstitutional!

    So, let’s explore the real world, something foreign to the above mentioned person.

    “Where do they get that the second amendment has no restrictions there are plenty of gun laws who can buy what they can buy how many rounds how were and when they can use it with more laws aginst the defender then the offender then the ammo shortage and close down the only lead smeltery in the usa with environmental restrictions if are economy isnt bad enough the usa is made up of consumers who produce nothing in trade or at least thats were we are headed”

    Christ on a crutch!
    OK, there was a restriction on day one. The militia. Every able bodied man from age variable to age variable, depending upon the medical science of the time.
    TERROR!!!
    Men could, if they were “able”, based upon leeches and slicing of major veins were totally cool or some spit. F-ing moron.
    Then, some bullspit about a-holes polluting their homes with lead fumes, (as opposed to order far better spit from really good quality companies (the idiots that turn out spit go to the gutter over time)).
    Various other mentally ill bullspit that was lost at second amendment bullet counting bullshit that hasn’t happened and won’t happen without a spitload of cities in flames.
    THAT is the reality.
    The unreality is the poster that somehow managed to escape this forum.
    TO our loss.

    It’s in the e-mail, but not in the forum.
    You all decide.
    Are we being “guided”?
    I know the answer, but it’s not what you think, but the NDA still stands.
    It’s uglier.
    Not a no guns thing.
    Only no minds thing.
    Vote tab A
    Slat B
    DO AS YOU ARE ORDAINED.

    Sorry, kids. It’s that ugly.
    Not a party,but reality.
    Something between the parties that are sponsored by the same motherf-ers.

  23. @Jim P. Were I an employer, my own opinions should prevail. If an employee, on employee time disagrees, I am free to disagree, up to and including cessation of employment due to mutual disagreements. I’d even give said employee a good reference if one was due by deeds. If said employee apologized for overstepping, I’d consider the merits and issue a company statement.
    If an employee espoused a personal opinion, expressed as a personal opinion that diverged from my own, I’d be stuck with a press release that the employee does not represent the company and its owner in such and such a way.
    I’m really, *really* reasonable.
    I also have an utterly unreasonable side.

    First, I’ll happily earn enemies here. I’m not a Christian. I’m a deist. I have the greatest of heartburn over any deity that can create an entire operational universe in his/her/its competency (I have some interesting discussions that even theologians have problems with there on sex of a deity), but is so utterly inept as to have to micromanage a microplanet in a fifth rate solar system, based upon the star, within a sparse end of an arm of a galaxy that is seventh rate.
    Sorry, got super heartburn over calling any creator so inept.
    Don’t expect hell, don’t expect a thank you not for thinking so either.
    To be honest, based upon human performance to date, if heaven is based upon the centuries of oppression, I prefer the original definition of hell.
    Erasure over time, forgotten.
    I’d jump in headfirst to give the incompetent a lesson!

    That said, I have a special relationship with the almighty, having sent so many to meet him… *

    My own reality is, treat everyone with respect until disrespect is hard earned.
    Even then, treat others as you wish to be treated.
    Hence, my acknowledgement of a few sparse considerations here.
    I and we are imperfect works, we can do better.
    We can only do better together.
    Those are the core of my beliefs. My “bible” is our Constitution.
    An abomination is the confederate flag, save in remembrance of the civil war and the deaths thereof, not in any consideration of something not of this current nation.
    Once I have sufficient funds, I’m also in the market for a match grade M1A and M4. I really feel lost not qualifying with the damned things quarterly.
    *That* is where I’m coming from.

    * George S. Patton. While, I have not sent as many per in number, I have most certainly sent so many per capita in the entire region to meet him/her/it.

  24. Where do they get that the seconed amendment has no restrictions there are plenty of gun laws who can buy what they can buy how many rounds how were and when they can use it with more laws aginst the defender then the offender then the ammo shortage and close down the only lead smeltery in the usa with environmental restrictions if are economy isnt bad enough the usa is made up of consumers who produce nothing in trade or at least thats were we are headed

  25. Should you be fired if you were not representing that company, was on your own time, just because someone tracked down the fact that you work for Bloomberg?

    There are some things that I, if I were an employer, would not ever want associated with my company even off the clock. Second Amendment opinions, off the clock, would not fit into those, as most issues such as Obamacare, global warming, etc. but it would color my opinion of the person. At the same time if I found out an employee was an active supporter of Westboro, NAMBLA, KKK, Aryan Nation or similar extremes I would lay them off immediately without comment. I also would have my company in a right-to-work state. I can’t talk for Bloomberg though.

    Anyway, enjoy the time with family, and the meal. And make sure your friends have somewhere to be as well.

  26. I should have qualified it properly. *If* someone is representing an organization at an event, their words can and should be considered by their employer. I do not disagree with that.
    It’s when someone is *not* representing an organization that the first amendment is operable.
    Lest we lose our voices in our nation to corporate interests, as it’s trivial to find out who works for whom today when one speaks in public.

    As a counter example, you work for a company owned by Bloomberg and you come on here to speak your mind about the second amendment. Should you be fired if you were not representing that company, was on your own time, just because someone tracked down the fact that you work for Bloomberg?

    Well, off to get things ready for Thanksgiving. Our youngest is back in state for Thanksgiving, our eldest will be bringing our grandkids over (2.9 of them right now, she’s due in December) and my father is being released from rehab after his last hospitalization.
    Tomorrow, the wife and I begin cooking parts of the meal. 🙂

  27. Under my observation ! If it looks like an idiot,talks like an idiot? Well I’ve come to the conclusion ,she is an idiot!

  28. Wzrd1, as you put it, “a slave to an organization” I know I myself have been a slave to an organization on more than one occasion. It was by choice per their rules per say when I signed on/was contracted as a employee. On many occasions I could’ve and would’ve exercised my 1st amendment rights except for the fact that I was in an official capacity as a part of some thing much bigger than myself, the organization I represented. I felt that putting food on the table for my children and paying the bills was a far more important task at hand than to relieve my frustration on a listening public if some blow hard made objections to our constitution or rights thereof. Company rules my not have even directly applied but any good employee should refrain from personnel opinions if it can bring a bad name or back lash from those in attendance to the place of employment! Rights are rights but common sense in exercising them is far better! Just like we all have the right to yell “bomb” at a crowded airport security check point but how many would just because we have the right??

  29. Wzrd1, I have to agree with Jay and his point is very valid. If someone is representing an organization and was at the event as their spokes person then the organizational rules and code of conduct would certainly apply! As you say,”a person is hired for their work and is slave to the hiring organization” applies in that situation. When they were hired/contracted for work they signed on to the rules and those are the rules! You can’t go back and start breaking the rules just because one day you decide to start throwing the constitution around as you signed the rules and agreed to follow them as a competent adult! If the organization deems it that she brought reproach on them and what they stand for, then she will be handled appropriately according to the rules she signed on to conduct herself by!

  30. @Wzrd1,

    Thank you.

    My company was bought out about a year ago and as part of being hired I told them

    I have my own personal website/blog. It is generally political commentary and I won’t involve or comment on my current or new company, but I have the right to say whatever I want there.

    The HR person understood and said no problem.

    At the same time, there is a point where a person’s personal conduct and statements renders a reflection on the associated entities, no matter how tenuous. And no action by that entity means they support that viewpoint. Such as the movement to have Piers Morgan deported earlier this year. That CNN didn’t really respond means that they support him in some fashion.

    The same if I came out in support of Westboro Baptist, and loudly proclaimed I work for Acme Corp. I fully expect that Acme Corp to can me. But if I come say the same thing and don’t associate myself with Acme Corp then that gets into a gray area.

    Her being a professor and teaching means that A&M now has a responsibility to interview her students and see if she is actually teaching facts, is downgrading papers on supporting second amendment issues and other similar conduct.

    So now it is sort of up to A&M on how to handle future employment and put out something. If they don’t, and I had a relative attending the university, I would really have to discourage further attendance.

  31. Tell us then, since one may not say one’s thoughts without fear of loss of employment, when does the line end?

    Actually it sort of depends on how she was attending the conference. If the conference invited her to speak through the school, and she was being “paid” or “expensed” by A&M, then they have every right to disavow her and her views, and preferably terminate her employment. If she was attending and/or speaking on her own and just using her credentials as a “crutch” then A&M really can’t fire her, but can say that those are not our views. They really can’t fire her directly though it can be added in to a pattern of conduct.

    This is similar to the Mass. Women Fired for Flipping Off the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. She was there on a company sponsored trip to D.C. That means she was “on the clock” and therefore her actions reflected on her employer.

    Same thing here. If the professor was “on the clock” then A&M is well within their rights.

  32. Jay, in your world view, a person is hired for their work and is slave to the hiring organization 24/7/365.
    Tell us then, since one may not say one’s thoughts without fear of loss of employment, when does the line end? At the church? The voting booth?
    Rights are inseparable, they used to be inalienable.
    Now, they belong to employers in your world view. In that case, we ceased to be a representational democracy and became a corpocracy, only the will of the employer prevails unless one wishes to be without employment, homeless and starving.
    Were the founding fathers to hear this discussion today, they’d have run back to beg the king’s forgiveness!

    As for my military service, I was free to say what I wished when out of uniform and never intimating that my opinion was one of the military or representing the military in any way. So is every other service member. But, you forget, we were under contract to the military and in many ways, regarded as military property. Our rights were curtailed by our own sworn oath, out of military necessity and the SCOTUS found that military necessity could limit rights of those serving in the military, lest operations become impossible.
    Your opinion is that opinions may be repressed by threats of loss of employment or other reprisals. Indeed, I don’t recall you distancing yourself from a death threat made in this very forum (If I missed it, I apologize).
    That is not how any form of democracy was ever thought to operate, it is not the way any democracy should operate. Indeed, it is a way that causes democracy to cease and fascism begins.
    All are entitled to their opinions, they are entitled to speak their mind. Regardless of the invalidity of the opinion or the lack of mental facility.
    But, one also should not be “encouraging debate” by threats of reprisal. Therein lies the seeds of anarchy.

    That aside, letting the fool speak their piece permits one to shoot holes through their foolishness. Letting the fool speak in public, even encouraging political discussion is good, it beats it being done quietly in a back room, with a midnight vote.

  33. @ Roger. Actually you have some things to get over yourself. You, along with a couple of others here don’t seem to care about your own contradictions? I suspect it’s the tunnel vision affect born from your own flawed philosophy that says freedom of speech only works like a one way street.

    You are so busy thinking you’re defending this woman’s right to free speech that you don’t even realize that your criticism towards us is tantamount to that which you claim we are doing to her.

    The process you advocate –which is for us to “consider her comments”, has in fact already occurred. It should be abundantly obvious by now that the overwhelming majority of this forum has decided that her comments “don’t have merit” and therefore “should not be open to debate”. From there we are merely using a public forum to express our opinions, and yet you somehow misconstrue that as a violation of her freedom of speech.

    The fact remains that nothing we’ve said has prevented the flow of this professor’s words, so the First Amendment is obviously intact. Opinionating that someone should just shut up and sit down in no way violates the First Amendment. It is a mere form of expression about how we feel in regards to her words.

    There is no mistaking that this professor’s words are a fundamental attack on the most important part of our Constitution. This cannot be taken lightly. It’s not as if we are debating which brand of coffee is best here. We are talking about a woman that advocates the ENTIRE abolishment of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. If you think that makes for a worthy debate, you need to join another forum.

    Apparently you are unable to discern the differences between the defense of healthy free speech verses dangerous speech that advocates the overthrow and total abolition of our Constitution. Like I’ve said, a person’s ability to say whatever they want is protected, but that does not guarantee it won’t lead to adverse ramifications. You advocate that these consequences are somehow a violation of free speech, when in fact they are not.

  34. Wzrd1, Its obvious that you love to read into things what you will in order to try and make only your view valid! If you can’t understand that some people are hired by large organizations and when they are they have to follow certain guidelines, rules even dress code, they read the rule book and agreed to them when they signed on with the company, then your the only one that doesn’t get it, no constitutional involvement needed! That was the point and apparently you can’t grasp it. I’m guessing that when you were supposedly in the military you did what you pleased without reprimand!! If you don’t get it so be it but the constitution has nothing to do with the point I brought up, that she should be reprimanded as A&M is anything but an unconstitutional organization!

  35. Thank you, Roger. It’s good to hear the voice of reason and respect for our Constitution.

    Her notion is unworkable, as has repeatedly been proved in states that already restrict certain classes of firearms.
    Case in point, New Jersey and New York, two states that have significant restrictions on certain firearms (especially in NYC). Yet, firearms flow into the states and cities easily via the usual flow of interstate commerce. Unlawful in that instance, but the sheer volume clearly shows how such a national program would be unworkable and simply be anarchy and chaos.
    Our current system largely works. The issues we face with violent crime a symptom of our dissolution of our mental hospital system and disparity of wealth with no “escape valve” in some communities (see the poor in inner cities, the lack of quality education in said conditions, etc).
    To treat a symptom the way she suggests (we’ll not even go into Feinstein, as she’s the comedic relief) is like treating a fractured femur by administering morphine and calling it a day.
    The leg is still dangerously broken, but the pain was alleviated briefly. The root problems are not addressed at all.

    In other words, it’s a half-assed solution that never addresses the problem, but instead addresses one symptom.

    If you have a problem, you first identify it, seek its cause, then seek to eliminate the cause, not the problem itself, only to have to confront a new symptom caused by the original problem.

  36. Get over it! She is entitled to her opinion and constitutional right to voice it. I may or may not agree but I will defend her right to have and voice that opinion. That is what makes us a civilized nation governed by law. Remember, most countries have constitutions but ours is the only one beginning with the people telling the government what it can do. Get your emotions out of your butts and consider her comments. That is, do they or don’t they have merit and should or should not they be open to debate. Her comments may not have merit based on your view, but they should certainly be debated in a civil environment. If you don’t think so then perhaps you should reread the constitution, or perhaps just read it, as well as the history and extreme trials and tribulations the creators went through to create it. All the creators regarded it as an imperfect document at best, but felt that was the best they could do. Keep in mind that you too could change it by the same mechanism that she would use.

  37. @Jay, so you are saying, if you work for someone, you no longer possess Constitutional rights.
    If an employer doesn’t want you to say something when you are off from work and you do, you are fired.
    If an employer doesn’t approve of your religious affiliation off from work, you are fired.
    If an employer doesn’t approve of your associations off from work, you are fired.
    If an employer doesn’t approve of your possession of firearms at home, you are fired.
    If an employer wishes to search your home and papers without a warrant and you refuse, you are fired.

    Oh, wait. That’s right. Only some rights are inalienable by anyone, the others are magic.

  38. Wzrd1, and so called ex military, you above all people should understand things like Code of ethics, Code of conduct, Work responsibility, Work ethics, Job description, the list goes on and on! People get fired each and everyday for what they say as it does not represent the people or organization that hired them! Do you even understand that the 2nd amendment is the second for a very good reason, it protects all the rest. If you don’t think our constitutional rights have diminished and been trampled on, you need to spend some time looking back over history and the freedoms we have left! You really should get back on those meds Buba!

  39. @ Wzrd1. Dude calm down, it’s only a forum. You’ve posted multiple comments in a wacky attempt to somehow establish some circular reference about how our opinions disparaged her opinions which somehow deny her First Amendment rights thus making the Constitution obsolete… or some crap like that.

    But despite all your barking, I have to point out… For someone that claims to have read the Constitution twice a year for 28 years, how did you miss the part explaining that the First Amendment only applies to the government? Specifically it protects our right to freedom of expression from government interference. So it really wouldn’t apply to Cheaper Than Dirt forum members that wish this professor to be muzzled, now would it?

    Look, nowhere in the Constitution is it written that exercising your right to free speech protects you from the consequences of your speech after the fact. People get fired every day for poor judgment in their choice of words. These people find themselves with no recourse and the First Amendment is nowhere around to help them get their jobs back.

    You may want to go back and read the Constitution a 57th time. However, this time try to keep in mind that reading it is one thing, but comprehending it is an entirely different matter.

    You will probably attempt to respond with some double-spaced dissertation, but it won’t matter because my damage has already been done.

  40. @Jay, not only professors from educational institutions are invited to speak at the Connecticut Law Review. That is ancient news.
    But, as you said, speakers are invited, people don’t just show up and speak. And we know what the title of the symposium was.

    As for the militia, you are wrong. Every state has *two* militias, the National Guard and the unorganized militia per the militia act of 1903.
    The National Guard membership is well established, the unorganized militia is every able bodied male between 18 and 61, with later legislation adding females in the National Guard into the rolls as well.
    Indeed, the selective service operates under the legal framework of mobilization of the militias when the draft is in effect.
    I learned all of that researching the unit history of a National Guard unit that was mobilized into our theater. That was a favor that was highly rewarding, as I learned a lot more about militia history, militia mobilizations, the ineffectiveness of the unorganized and old organized militias, which is why the National Guard was formed. At the same time, the CMP was also formed. That fulfilled the statutory requirements for training of the unorganized militia.
    As for the unit I spoke of, it was formed by none other than Benjamin Franklin.
    Its history was far from spectacular, from the French and Indian war through WWII.
    Indeed, I was informed that the unit was proud to welcome members of the British Blackwatch for their formal mess, as that unit saved their militia during the French and Indian war from being wiped out.

    As for the remainder of colonial history and the second amendment, I can only say that Scalia got the history spot on, adding to my knowledge of the history by adding in UK history.

    But, as I said, people do have the right to self-expression. You would deny those who oppose you, rendering our Constitution worthless.
    That is what I oppose.
    Let the fool speak foolish things, let the wise speak wise counsel, explaining the fallacy of the foolish notion.
    Or is our point so poor, our truth a fallacy, our nation and Constitution so weak that we must discard that Constitution, the rights that we treasured worthless and we must instead seek to starve those who speak foolishly to death?
    Or, as others have done on this page, make threats against the life of a fool, thereby generating a martyr and providing evidence to support the foolish notion?
    I happen to believe that wise counsel will hold the day in the face of the fools ranting.
    Not harsh, immediate knee jerk reaction, nor attempting to deprive that fool of their employment. Unless said fool teaches anti-Constitutional doctrine, then, that person should be disbarred for violating their oath sworn when joining the bar.

    When faced with shrill voices, one does not match the shrill voice, one speaks calmly, with reason, historic evidence and facts. One most certainly never uses hyperbole, save in making a humorous point and one never, never makes a personal attack.
    Such undermines the speaker, every time.
    As an example, you never hear Obama get shrill or use hyperbole. That is what Feinstein is for. That is hyperbole in the attempt at humor.
    Though, her notions are far more humorous in their foolishness. As I recall, her notions lasted mere seconds on the floor, before being crumpled up and ending up in the circular file.

  41. Wzrd1, If you will read the article and understand this when you get off your high stool, she was at annual symposium put on by the Connecticut Law Review at University of Connecticut’s School of Law. Most of the time if not all of the time those present were invited and represent the schools and the section of the school they represent or act as a teacher professor etc… When you are hired by such an institution and act on behalf of said institution there are guidelines to be followed, like it or not! No where did I bring up Militia and each State has one, its call the State national Guard! I never mentioned her freedom to speak other than that she is a representative of the school per say! You completely missed most if not all the points and just flew off your proverbial handle, so fly, baby fly!

  42. @Andrew, your own argument undermines itself.
    “If you deem the constitution obsolete, and therefore repeal part of it, then it is not a CONSTITUTION.”

    Then, you continue on about the 18th amendment and the 21st amendment that repealed the 18th amendment that, by your argument, the 21st amendment should have never passed or been ratified.

    The Constitution can be amended when necessary. It’s extremely hard to do so, as one requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of Congress, then a supermajority of states to also ratify it. Indeed, there were amendments that made it out of Congress that still await ratification. One waited for over 200 years before it was ratified in 1996, the Congressional wage freeze while Congress is in session. Others await state ratification, most will never see the light of day.
    That is actually a good thing, as otherwise, we could pass reprehensible amendments in the heat of the moment, only to be stuck with them for decades at a minimum, as happened with the 18th amendment.

    That the Constitution can be amended makes it pseudo-living as a document, however, I’m dubious as to the current living document theory of today.
    But, while society may change, while technology may change, humanity changes extremely slowly. Hence, a document that is slowly approaching a quarter millennium still remains quite germane to our nation today.
    For that, I can only applaud and worship the wisdom and foresight, as well as the great pains suffered in writing that Constitution all those many years ago.

    For those who keep going on about the Federalist papers, don’t forget that there were Anti-Federalist papers as well. *Both* contributed to our Constitution in extremely valuable ways, making it as immortal a document as can be imagined, may it outlast the Magna Carta!

  43. I can’t stand when idiots like this don’t recognize the purpose of a constitution. If you deem the constitution obsolete, and therefore repeal part of it, then it is not a CONSTITUTION. The whole point of a constitution is that is the end-all of all debates. Argue against it all you want, but what the constitution says is what goes. It is not a living document. It is established to protect the rights of the people. If it could just be thrown out as obsolete, then it is not doing anything to protect rights. And, yes, people will argue, all of the amendments (of which the 2nd is one) changed the Constitution, so it obviously can be altered. Every amendment, except for the 18th provided additional rights. The 18th amendment was the only one that took away freedoms, and it was later repealed. So feel free to add more amendments to the constitution that give us additional rights. But, try repealing one of the Bill of Rights or adding an amendment that restricts our freedoms, and it will suffer the same fate as the 18th amendment (aka prohibition).

  44. She’s on the payroll of Obama. They will never pass any of these things she suggests. If she doesn’t like guns, then move to Cuba.No one owns a gun expect the Military and Police. “From my cold dead hands.”
    This is what to expect from these leftist commie scumbags. She has to remember, there are over 200,000,000 guns in America, lets see how she plans to have us give them up.

  45. I am quite sure that all these RET**DED individuals see are rainbows and unicorns, because they sure as hell don’t see the reality of what is happening in the real world!!!!!!!!!!

  46. I should add, her notion would also disassemble the National Guard and the entire militia system in the US.
    The militia acts would make no sense, as they’d not be defined in the Constitution.
    Considering the sheer numbers of National Guard deployed overseas right now actively defending this nation, what in her world are we to do?
    Abandon them as no longer members of the Armed Forces of the United States of America? Redeploy them home for discharge, abandoning the small number of active personnel?

    Add in issues where state laws are flouted by criminals, who bring state prohibited weapons into communities, her law is idealistic in nature, ignoring the reality of lawful and unlawful interstate commerce. She’d turn something barely under control into pure, distilled chaos.

    But, this *is* the United States of America, where one has an unimpeachable right to say any damned fool thing one wishes to say, within extremely narrow constraints, such as threatening harm, plotting harm, treason, sedition, words intended to cause a breach of the peace.

  47. @Jay, you failed on several points.
    First and foremost, the militia is part of the second amendment, therefore the second amendment is operable upon the states. Hence, it cannot be separated by any state law or state Constitution. Period. Ever. Just as a particular religion or sect may not be legislated as an official state religion.
    You also failed in that she did not speak in her official position as a professor of a particular university. She spoke her piece individually at a symposium.
    So, you agree to having Constitutional rights, save when someone’s free speech disagrees with you, then the first amendment ceases to exist in your notion of our Constitution.
    I did not spend nearly 28 years of my life in military service to this nation to see *anyone* shred the Constitution that is the foundation of our nation.
    Not you, not any who made threats against her life, not anyone who disparages her right to say idiotic things.
    The fact is, the first amendment guarantees free press, free religion, free peaceable assembly and the freedom to say any damned fool thing you wish to do that does not disturb the public peace, threaten the government or plot to overthrow the government.

    I may disagree on multiple levels with the statements made by this woman, but I’ll fight to the last drop of opposing blood against anyone who would deprive her the right to speak her lack of mind.

  48. SHE PROBABLY LIVES IN A GATED COMMUNITY,ONLY TIMES SHE IS EXPOSED TO THE WORLD AT ALL IS AT SCHOOL AND ON THE WAY. SHE NEEDS TO SEE THE REAL WORLD, NOT JUST HER LITTLE WORLD. IF IT EVER BECOMES THAT WE CAN NOT OWN GUNS THEN THE NEXT IS A DICTATORSHIP WERE RELIGION WILL BE CONTROLLED ALSO.

  49. It’s obvious the the University failed with Mary Margaret Penrose who is suppose to be a full time teacher of the very thing she wants to change! She obviously does not understand that each individual State has and makes their own constitution, it can if so be it, elect not to follow the federal law and will win in a court of law as Our own constitution guarantees human rights, it does not grant rights, but guarantees right of the people, over rights of the government to control We Peoples rights to freedom and liberty! Penrose being in the position that she is in, should be reprimanded in that she represents a much larger organization, like it or not, and when we are a part of something of that nature especially a school of higher education our personnel opinions must be just that, kept a personnel opinion until such time as we decide to leave that employment and do not bring reproach on such a organization! All of us who love our freedoms need to do much more than post negatives and be apart of and support at the local level, State level and national level all organizations that support and defend Our 2nd amendment rights! It takes actions other than keyboard ones to do any good in the end! Everyone that owns a firearm if they are not actively supporting one or some of these organizations, are riding the coat tails of those of us who do! God bless America!

  50. The Domino Effect only works if they stand in front of one another. But stand a bunch of dominoes side by side and you can park a Freightliner truck on them.

    We need to be a core of dominoes standing side by side to prevent a line being knocked down and always willing to help the other line up.

  51. “…proposed amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment and allow states to pass whatever gun control laws they wanted.”

    Does anyone really believe that ten minutes after the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the Feds wouldn’t introduce legislation banning all firearms? This would remain a “matter for the states” about as long as it took for the first congressman to rush to the podium and scream “It’s for the children!!”

  52. This is the Domino Effect as applied to the subjugation of a nation. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Federal Papers stand as a circle of dominos stood on end. Any one which is tipped over will impact the next and the next and so on, destroying the structure of the foundation. I suspect that the 2nd would tip directly into the 1st, because without control of the freedom of speech, defending the right to bear arms there is no defense for the freedoms that define this nation in the world. We are at a crossroads of this nations history. The danger is that there are no clear choices and our vision is fractured as a nation “of the people, by the people and for the people”. The future is tenuous at best. Regardless of our positions or points of view we can not clearly see the path on which the next step must fall. I choose to “stand to post” and defend this nation under the oath I took long ago to ” defend against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic” but I stand in fog and my vision has become limited. I fear the worst for the next several generations to come.

  53. I too am an alumni of A&M (College Station,) Retired Military, Hunter, Collector and a Lover of the Constitution. I think it is the best and most enlightened Document ever penned by Men who knew of what Kings would do to retain their Power. God, does she know why the Pilgrims came here? It has served us well for over 225 years and is a model worthy of other countries and peoples to follow if they had the choice. If she thinks the Constitution is an obsolete Document, I fear for the loss of all the freedoms afforded us by the rest of the Amendments, especially the First Amendment which empowers us with Freedom of the Press, Freedom of assembly and Freedom of Religion, which in so many words tells the Government to their noses out of Religion period. What planet was she born in?

  54. I see where under comment number 69, Mr. or Mrs. DTBorden stated the following, and this is a verbatim quote: “I believe that Thomas Jefferson remarked that the entire Constitution should be periodically replaced. That would be a formidable achievement in the present political climate, but perhaps Jefferson had certain foresight.”

    Jefferson had a great deal of foresight, but he did not say the Constitution should be periodically replaced. But he did say, within his famous “Tree of Liberty” letter of November 13th, 1787, the following: …The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

  55. @Nobody, agreed.
    I find it ironic.
    A law professor uses the first amendment right of free speech to decry that Constitution and declare it obsolete.
    Very, very ironic.

  56. Wonder how long it will take before she’s handed her walking papers? A&M alum are predominantly conservative, and won’t put up with this kind of anti gun, anti constitution way of thinking or teaching. I can already see the board of regents phones and email blowing up over this matter. I’m sure UT will welcome her with open arms.

  57. Let’s get the majority view clear here.
    So, the first amendment is only for those who agree with you. If an opinion is different, they must be banished or voluntarily depart this once great land.
    The Constitution has amendments that are sacrosanct and cannot be revoked.

    OK, first, try reading that Constitution to start with. I did it a minimum of twice per year over my near 28 year military career. Just to remind me of what I was protecting.
    That wasn’t the right to tell people to get out of my country if they have a different opinion, that wasn’t the right to tell people that this is a Christian nation, ignoring the words in both the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers AND the Constitution.

    As for the inviolability of the various amendments, do look up the 18th and 21st amendments.
    One stopped something, the other repealed that amendment.

    Now, what her argument was, which most of you didn’t bother to read was, she wants the second amendment repealed and left to the states, as she sees firearms ownership as a states right issue, not a federal issue.
    I disagree, as commerce would introduce firearms into states that do not wish certain types into.

    Regarding the gentleman who said something about rocket launchers being prohibited, I suggest the gentleman investigate what NFA weapons are. It’s unlawful to have a weapon of mass destruction, one can pay for the tax stamp and own rocket launchers, artillery, SBS, SBR, silencers, AOW and fully automatic weapons. It’s a pain in the ass, but doable for the majority of people I personally know, as well as myself.

    For the record, I am a firearms owner a dozen times over. Some are competition weapons, others hunting, a few home defense weapons.
    As a firearms owner, I am embarrassed over some of the idiotic comments made here! I *really* have heartburn over one comment suggesting the murder of the misguided professor. Is that what our nation is to expect of firearms owners? Death threats because you both do not comprehend what was said by someone and also disagree with your perceived intent or some conspiracy theorist nonsense?
    If that is so, I know that the days of firearms ownership in this nation is numbered.
    Rightfully so for those who think that killing someone over what they said in a speech at a symposium! Hell, such people I would not trust with a f-ing plastic spoon.

  58. “”“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,” Penrose said.””

    The best part about this? The first thing Democrats say when conservatives make similar arguments, is that many people cannot afford to just pick up and move to another State — and that’s not even arguing about rights!

    All this malarky about the Constitution being irrelevant, outdated, or whatever else they try to say, is getting old itself. These same folks will whine about the First when it suits their agendas, using the very “outdated” list of rights to defend their own statements.

  59. What this woman needs is to be at the short end of someone who doesn’t want money, or anything else .JUST TO TAKE HER LIFE! I know the last thing threw her empty skull will be a wish for a gun to defend her life. For her sake I hope she doesn’t practice what she preaches….

  60. Did you notice that she gave these statements in the bastion of onerous new gun control laws Connecticut. I would like to see how it would be received in Texas.

  61. Another liberal with their head up their a__ h___.
    She needs to leave our country and go to one of the countries where she has no rights and see how she will like it.

  62. The entire Bill of Rights didn’t ‘give’ anyone any explicit rights, that they did not already possess. It merely Codified pre-existing ‘Natural Rights’ that All mankind Already possess. If you doubt this, please take some time and read over the ‘Federalist Papers’, as they are , in our Framers own words, the reasons that our Constitution and Bill of Rights exists, as it does.
    Thus, the 2nd Amendment Doesn’t give Americans the ‘Right to keep and bear arms’. We Already Had that right, it merely Prohibits the Federal(Feral?)Governemnt from ‘Infringing’ upon those ‘pre-existing’ rights to Arms.
    Since it didn’t ‘Give’ us any rights, per se, said ‘rights’ cannot be taken away, by the repeal of said amendment. Although it Would make it easier for the Federal Government to ‘Infringe’ upon our natural rights of self defense. So we probably ought to leave well enough alone.

  63. One must Understand, Why they think this way as These Script writers are nothing but agents for the Manifesto , and Falsely used Ex orders from the fraud proud progressive Community Organizer who should have never taken office with no real life experiences in any lawfully court challenged cases. Obama and his Ilk The first 10 Articles of Stalin’s and Karol Marx manifesto have and are About to Come to full fruition and the disarming is the main goal here for take over as we are BROKE.

    When it all collapses what is left ,but our Sprit to survive and Our Bill of Rights were Given to us by wisdom into our For Fathers Minds from above !

    These idiots of Script Law writing do not want Understand it as I believe they are agents from the dark One and try to Misinterpret the Word of God and think we Christians have No right to Get Politically involved in any issues ?
    No the U.S Constitution was designed for God fearing Peoples he gave us life he also gave us Liberty ! Enough of these creations its Time for A Revolt for JFK Taxes First !

  64. remove the 2nd amendment and the bill of right will cease to exist.
    and if the progressives and leftists get the dictatorial gov they seem to want, the powers will do to them what hitler did to the mostly gay brown shirts, when there usefulness ended he ended there lives. the liberal professors will most likely get culled

  65. I believe that Thomas Jefferson remarked that the entire Constitution should be periodically replaced. That would be a formidable achievement in the present political climate, but perhaps Jefferson had certain foresight. In the interim, the lady has as much right to an opinion as anyone else – another of the freedoms we enjoy. If we were all in the same agreement we’d be little more than a hill of ants or a hive of bees. Now, what have YOU done recently to further the cause of freedom?

  66. I must say, I’ve never heard a more clear group of responses in favor of what the professor said.
    The Constitution *is* obsolete.
    For, you’ve disparaged her first amendment rights to say whatever the hell she wishes to say at a symposium. Not a law class, not in a public officer role, but in a symposium.
    So, the first amendment is dead in your eyes, people have no right to free speech, only loads and loads of guns.
    So, you’ve proved her point. We don’t need a Constitution.

    Or, you admit that any asshole can say their idiotic opinion. Counter idiocy with wise words of counsel, with facts, numbers, you know, reality.
    Not say that someone doesn’t have the right to say something idiotic.

    Otherwise, you prove her point that our Constitution is obsolete and should be entirely repealed.
    In that case, I’ll be emperor.

  67. With all due respect to her higher education, teaching credentials and law degree: Another educated person who apparently has no common sense. She should stick to teaching the law, rather than entering her own opinions into the mix. BTW, I live in Texas. The majority of Texans that I know of support the 2nd Amendment and despise the manner in which our individual rights are being attacked one at a time. I would not be a bit surprised if she voted for the current occupant of the WH. And, referring to the Constitution as an “obsolete” document? You should be ashamed. I hope Texas A&M send you packing to one of those anti-gun states. Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting & dying so you can spew that commie crap to impressionable young College students.

  68. Stop talking and complaining about this fool Mary Margaret Penrose, professor of law with Texas A&M University in Fort Worth and put you effort where it counts. Request that she be DUMPED.

    Dean’s Office
    Aric Short
    Interim Dean & Professor of Law
    Phone: (817) 212-4114
    Fax: (817) 212-4199
    Email: ashort@law.tamu.edu
    Texas A&M University School of Law
    Please do not hesitate to contact the appropriate administrative office if you have questions or need assistance. We are happy to assist in any way we can.

  69. Even though college students are generally of adult-age, with occasional exceptions, they are still young impressionable minds. Too many professors and educators bring their personal politics into the classroom and it needs to stop. It bothers me that when I send my kids off to higher education, all the knowledge I have instilled in them could be compromised by this type of attitude. Like it or not professor Penrose, you are an American citizen, and the very same Constitution you call irrelevant, gives you the freedom to say that in the first place. A childhood friend of mine is a Sociology professor at a major California institution, and she actively promotes Marxist attitudes in her lesson plans. It burns me up. You must continue to instill proper American teachings in your children everyday that you can.

  70. State’s rights have nothing to do with this – the Bill of Rights enshrines NATURAL rights all citizens have and SHALL NOT be infringed by the government – they aren’t rights GRANTED by the government and thus can be repealed or otherwise taken away – attempting to appeal the 2nd Amendment could logically be considered unconstitutional because the constitution requires that the natural rights SHALL NOT be infringed – so trying to appeal an amendment that does grant the right but rather says the government shall not infringe the natural right would be considered infringing and therefore unconstitutional

  71. Regarding William Walkingstick’s comments (#12): Isoroku Yamamoto was better informed about Americans than you are about him. Yamamoto was a famous Admiral in the Japanese Imperial Navy, not a General. He commanded the Japanese fleet at the Battle of Midway, among other things.

  72. i usually dont get upset and feeling like i need to put my 2 cents in. however, i want to absolutely remind all that read into this article and have the slightest doubt that MAYBE because of this ladies higher learning pieces of paper that claim she is a scholar and that her every word ought to be taken as law!!! just because a person has a higher education. and in this case, this person has wasted at least 16 years of her life proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that yes, indeed she really knows how to study and pass tests to the degree of professorship. the lady does need to be complimented on the fact she can pass tests!! however, her education did no good as to the speaking of the self envy, the egotistical and destructive power she thinks she wields. just because a person has a good education does not mean that they also have the common sense that most common people are born with. in fact, she is probably an irritant wherever she goes. even her to FELLOWS. now, the other people at that university that have the common sense to go along with their higher learning diplomas need to cut this cancerous tumor out of their university asap!!! otherwise, you ALL will not be heard. nobody will take seriously anything any of you say, if you dont get together and as stated by someone else in this column, PUT A MUZZLE ON THIS loud barking senseless DOG!!!

  73. There are a lot of great views here I agree with, but PLEASE, all of you… DO NOT underestimate the power of the vote. It is people like this woman who are set on putting their name in lights at any cost, especially yours and mine. The more she spews her garbage the more the people of the great state of TEXAS need to stand up and be counted and vote and contact the people in Washington who (suppsedly) represent us.Even then, it is going to still come down to another civil war at some point,so stay locked and loaded.

  74. Our constitution has served our country well for over 200 years and with very few exceptions has served our country well. It was not written to let individual states violate it. The thought that we need to change it is based on what? Our country has a gang and drug problem, how would changing the 2nd solve this. What social conditions have lead us to this condition and place?

    The ability of individuals to protect themselves under the 2nd continues to protect and serve our country as our founding fathers intended. If this lady wants to put her talents to work she should look for ways to root out the evil that has caused the violence problem in our county and look for ways to solve the social issues that let a few bad apples cause harm rather then seek out ways to harm law abiding citizens.

    Perhaps she should look for ways to get people back to work at livable wages at the end of a long day these same people might be to tired to roam the streets looking for people to harm. The firearms didn’t cause this condition. Perhaps everyone should be offered gun safety classes in school and firearm marksmanship classes would teach young people to respect firearms and there might be fewer handling, storage and accidental discharge problems. Gun safes and trigger locks need to be used more also to protect our youngest in our homes. Let her start there if she has the desire to do something.

  75. Connecticut – The state that is/was home to Colt, Stag Arnms, Ruger, Winchester, Mossberg, just to name a few has been “raped” by the left leaning, Obama loving, suckboy of the progressive movement, Danel Malloy. I find it fitting that she speak to the people of Connecticut and introduced by Obama’s prodigal son.

    Mind you I look at this as a law abiding gun owner/collector and am appalled at th gun grabbers desire to strip me of my right as a resident and taxpayer of CT and the US. For someone to teach and profess that the 2nd amendment rights should be dealt with at the state level is preposterous. The 2nd amendment is what allows me to purchase and continue to keep my guns in Connecticut for the time being.

    I assume that if your’e reading this you have an affinty for guns and are pro second amendment??? You probably feel the same that your rights are being infringed. if it starts here, where does it end?

  76. At “G Man” outstanding!!! Here Here! At Mike you need to attend school where G-Man went cuz he just schooled U!!! ¥out

  77. i remember when i was in high school, in 1962 when i ran across a teacher of history that instead of just plain teaching history, which is what she was getting paid for, decided to make it her own symposium to infiltrate her views on all sorts of the lessons. you could SMELL that she was trying to implant the seeds of unrest into the community at large through her teachings of the young and gullible and also, not to intelligent. when i told my father about some of the off the wall b.s. she was selling, he went down to the school and had that teacher fired on the spot!!!! well, somebody with half a brain ought to fire this assanie.

  78. I worked at the central campus in College Station for over 30 years. Faculty and upper management at A&M are rabid liberals and have been for many tears. I was one of over 1500 staff required to go to an indirection class. One of the paid guest speakers said the US caused all of our current problems when we attacked Japan in 1941! I got up and walked out. Nobody else even questioned her comment because a Vice President administrator was sitting in the front row applauding her lies. Mary Margaret will probally get a raise and/or promotion. Texas is very close to switching to liberal big government because of Austin, Houston, ut, A&M and other liberal hotbeds.

  79. Typical liberal who has never held a job in the private sector nor owned a business. The only jobs these idiots can get are in the public sector, naturally, because the only thing they support is government control over us “serfs.” Freedom is a dirty word to them.
    They are about as believable as PETA members, yet the vulnerable students whose minds they pollute eventually believe every lie they are told. God help the Constitution!

  80. @ Mike (Comment #17). I do my best to stay away from flaming other’s comments in forums. I consider it counterproductive towards the issue at hand. But your comments have earned a flaming.

    Why? -Because your comments are intentionally inflammatory. When you make comments such as:

    “Let’s stop going into every firearm issue with “Murica!” at the tip of our tongues (or any other pre-determined mindset), and actually use our ears and brains.”

    Your statement is downright offensive because it attacks our sensibilities. You’ve placed yourself upon a pedestal looking down on the rest of us and speak as though you are the only one that possesses some keen intellectual perception over the issue at hand. You are not just scolding us for not looking at the issue the way you would like us to, but you are also tossing in an insult that we are of a substandard intellect.

    However, your words fall on deaf ears because what you fail to realize is that unlike the “next guy around here”, you are not a Constitutional patriot. This is quite evident because when speaking about aspects of the Constitution, a true patriot would never blend words such as, “I love my firearms just as much as the next guy around here…”

    To make a statement such as that shows how out-of-touch you are with the realities we actually face. The defense of our Nation and God given right to protect our families has nothing whatsoever to do with the “love of a firearm” as though it were just some side-hobby.

    You asked, “… did any of you actually read?” However, based on your comments I have to ask you the same, or rather I should ask – do you comprehend what you read?

    When this woman advocates a “call for the full repeal of the Second Amendment”, nothing further need be read into it. The rest of us, excluding you, actually did use our “ears and brains” and tasked our intellect to comprehend the damage that such anti-gun rhetoric could bring during the war that is currently been waged against our right to bear arms.

    Comprehending why certain laws are preserved by the Constitution rather than left to the individual states is important. This is a concept you obviously do not grasp. The founders understood that some laws were so important that they required consistent implementation across all states. The laws enshrined in the Constitution are few by comparison which indicates their level of importance. Yet you would tell us we should listen more carefully to a person that would relegate our Second Amendment to a standing of lesser importance.

    No sir, it is you that has failed to “actually use [your] ears and brains”, not us.

  81. I disagree with comment 17 by Mike — November 23, 2013, if we loose the 2nd amendment, then the federal government is free to implement all sorts of infringing gun laws under the veil of interstate commerce or some other constitutional scheme. All rights have to have some limitations, i.e., you are not free to cause harm by yelling fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire, but I think the federal government has already infringed too much on 2nd amendment rights, so taking it out by constitutional change would be a disaster. Now if you want to amend it to make it clearer on the meaning of free individual gun ownership, then I am all for that. States can already make it harder or easier to infringe on rights, so her initial premise has no validity.

  82. @willik who asked what’s in drinking water ask your govenor for a gloeing report on Texas water.
    By the words written here some would cheer to find out she is the 1 in 400 who will get cancs er from Hickory aquifer.
    Does anyone understand that Universitys are for education and not indoctrination and that education requires opposing ideas being allowed, to be debated, without being punished and threatened with bodily harm and banishment ; Exchange of ideas iis educating to not allow such is the root of tryanny indoctrination leads to stagnation and ignorance, the very slavery so many flag wavers say they oppose.
    Her paper, her paper, “not Texas A&M” expres sed an opinion that many on these pages talk throuugh their ass about. RECOGNITION OF A REPUBLIC AND THAT OF STATES RIGHTS BEING FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT GUN LAWS ITS RESIDENTS WANT
    BRING IT ON—- Is a Synopsium titled : “Up in Arms: The Second Amendment in Modern World” so scary that your onl argument is drown the bitch; She’s a Liberal Witch.nd
    What she talks about so many, yes yoi can reaf the fn words right here on some responses; has already taken place: YOU HAVE ALREADY RE-INTERPRETED PURPOSE OF 2ND Amendment into an issue of Right of Self Defense!
    AND IF THA IS NOT A REDEFINING OF OUR FOUNDERS INTENT THEN YO MAMMAS KEPT THE AFTERBIRTH ANF THREW AWAYTHE CHILD.

  83. Keep in mind that Texas A&M Law School is one of the bottom two of the law schools in Texas, and you’ll have a better idea of the credibility of its faculty. I wouldn’t be worried about outrageous comments by a professor at a bottom tier school. And, really, what are the chances of a constitutional amendment of any sort passing in America these days? The Dems can’t unilaterally change the requirements to amend the constitution like they can can unilaterally change the voting rules in the Senate.

  84. I am always amazed, amused and appalled by those with no understanding or knowledge of “both” sides of an issue or, at best, a superficial and prejudicial view, yet will pursue to great length the legal, moral and social implications in their arguments. IMO, this lacks credibility despite what, if any, valid points may be presented … debate, discussion, negotiation and compromise will always respect both viewpoints.

  85. I support the right of this Law Prof to speak. My thoughts are that she and the Connecticut Law Review are putting the Cart before the horse. What I mean is this;
    She should be suggest a national debate on how to protect the 1st Amendment; Right of Free Speech in the absence of the 2nd Amendment. Once that discussion and solution is discovered, then and only then should the discussion turn back to changing/repealing 2nd amendment.
    Do I hear a big AMEN
    ‘Molon Labe’
    CWO, USA Retired

  86. Everyone has their own opinion … just as everyone has their own a$$hole … when one chooses to express their opinion(s) on-line, the exposure may find their opinion to be as dirty and stinky as their a$$hole … maybe even more so … this one is!!

  87. Typical position of the left-wing radical liberal paradigm submerged in the solipsist mindset and justified by a deep devotion to the practice of misology. The politics of Constitutional irrelevance have been around for a long time. This is not the opinion of just one Marxian professor, rather, she is merely one voice representing a multitude of loyalists that have plagued our academies and universities for so long that there are now more Marxists in American academia than there are in the former Soviet Union. They have an agenda and they are working long and hard to once more prove to the world that Marxism does not and cannot work which will be recognized only after they have toppled what was once the greatest and most exceptional country on earth. They seem to willfully forget that history records the fact that Marxian governments often rounded up members of academia and disposed of them and anyone else capable of setting up an alternative system of government.

  88. Hmmm…limitations and restrictions? Perhaps we ought not be able to have atom bombs and rocket launchers(ok…that’s iffy)…but any pistol, rifle or shotgun should be permitted I think.
    Repeal the 2nd? Probably not.Perhaps clarify the writing/meaning for some who think it is directly tied to membership in a militia unit/organization.
    Section 1 of the 14th? I would like to. Look it up. Seems to have been written specifically for children of slaves. See all the other sections in that article? Refers to rebellion. No rebellions now…so Article seems invalid for 21st century as well.
    And while we are at it…equal rights? Let’s add females to the mix in selective service registration. If war breaks out, they would/could serve at home or as support. This is, after all, the 21st century…not the 18th.Fair is fair.

  89. To keep it short,
    If you don’t like the constitution —-> Get out of USA
    Stop making the US “like” other counties.

  90. This professor is obviously out of touch with the real world. Let her live in a high crime area which anymore is everywhere. It boggles my mind how some people who receive higher education actually don’t get the human condition. No matter what century we live in, the human condition is the human condition. There are predators and there are prey. What will you be Ms. Penrose a victim or not a victim? There is no in between answer. The human condition is the human condition.

  91. Doesn’t this imbecile know that the Bill of Rights in our Constitution is sacrosanct? It was established by the Founders as a listing of the things the American government cannot do to its citizens.
    Consider for a moment the scope of the Bill of Rights. No other nation has any such guarantee for its citizens; no other nation has ever had such a guarantee. It naturally follows that a liberal/socialist would have the goal of destroying it along with the rest of the Republic..

  92. I have always found it interesting how these people can spout what they “Feel” something should be and it is looked at by their kind as “What we should do” and without question. If you have an opposing opinion it must be backed up with facts and usually their only argument to those facts is to call you names or point to some circumstance of a KooK with a gun and what they did or attack you and your character. They will never have an honest debate because these people are not honest. These people rarely get where they are on merit but (like much of hollywood) bark like seals for their dinner

  93. I’m sorry, but as far as I can tell the states pretty much do as they damn well please when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights. Not to mention what is going on at the local level. We need a reset button, the anti gunners are sneaking in the back door and have been for sometime. Getting new anti gun laws put in place at the city and state level. They will keep pecking away at our rights until there way of thinking is the norm. What better place to take a profound foot hold than in education. Molding the great minds of the future to their ideals. Yes, a teacher who forces his or her beliefs on every student who darkens her class room door is a very dangerous thing. The problem in our great nation now a days is the lack of a middle. The majority of Americans are either far left or far right, very few are in the middle. IMO common sense has been throwin’ out the window, and the facts ignored. The problem in America is the lack of attention given to mental health. That’s the issue these idiots should be focusing their energy on, if they want to truly fix the problem.

  94. There are plenty of places with the laws that her and everyone else like her want. So if she doesnt like the ones that our forefathers came to this country to form because they didnt agree with being told what to do or how to live then maybe she should take her and her freedom killing ideas back across the ocean where she belongs. Im pretty sure freedom means we are free to make our own choices what to do. And I chose to own as many guns as i can afford and fit into my safe. And I choose to carry one on my side legally in all the same places someone might be carrying one illeagally, because new laws or not those same people will still be carrying one illeagally even when I no longer can because law doesnt permit me to.

  95. Here we have a fine, typical example of the progressive left, which saturates college level academia, who’s personal goals are pounded into the empty heads of college kids as ‘gospel’ and ‘higher education’ every day, by the hundreds in her personal classroom. She, and her type, doesn’t like the second amendment for their personal / liberal political reasons, and works constantly to strip all of us of that right. Too stupid to realize that without the history of the 2nd amendment, she could very well have a muzzle slapped on her blathering because it may be on some government agenda in another form prohibiting her from saying things so stupid.

  96. The liberals have been making a concerted effort to move into Texas in an effort to turn it blue. This is one example. Watch out people – if Texas turns blue, we’re done! They have a lot of electoral votes – there will never again be a conservative POTUS.

  97. For over one hundred years, one of the rich traditions at Texas A&M was a motto which stated: “Aggies don’t lie, steal, cheat, or tolerate those who do”. Recently, that changed with the determination by the University to open a law school. This professor appears to be the result of the determination of the University to abandon the tradition of honesty. Can you imagine some poor students and parents dismay and shock, who, after making a decision to send their kids to A&M’s new law school (at over S100K a pop) they find they are being screwed over and have to contend with listening to some “professor” teaching constitutional law practice as something to be used to bring about an inevitable government of the military police state, by the military police state, and for the military police state? When Texas A&M begins to commit hiring debacles such as this (usually reserved for Universities such as Texas University in Austin, or places such as Stanford) the Republic and our God given unalienable rights are soon to be totally non-existent. Looks like the Aggies got gigged to me.

  98. This post on a pro-gun site will obviously trigger all kinds of comments from gun advocates, comments that others will see; others who are not sympathetic to pro-gun rights. Name calling and denigration of those who disagree with or want to change the second amendment may make us feel better, but in reality makes us look like the nuts they perceive us to be. If you do not think that is part of their strategy you have missed something. The leftest progressives who want to create a government form of utopia don’t mind waiting a long time to change society…one mind at a time. They start with our kids and as a result, gain the next generation. So, let us all choose our words well. Standing for truth, liberty and freedom, we do not have to presume this as a personal attack but primarily a political one. From a poster in Britain in WWII, “stay calm and carry on”.

  99. This person (if you would like to call it that) is a complete idiot. What she lacks is common sense. If she thinks we need to rewrite the Constitution, she needs to leave America, the land of the free. The best place for a person such as her is Cuba or Venezuela. She has their communistic views. Just a thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  100. It appears that this professor of luciferian law needs to schedule her self for a battery of electroshock therapy sessions and get her things together, not forgetting her small Hitler icona and move to North Korea because when we take this nation back from these authorian regime she will be made a public example of why tyants don’t make it here.

  101. Gun control laws never get the guns out of the hands of the people that want to do harm. People that break the law do not care how many laws you pass.

  102. ‘states’ rights model’ solution, I get her gist.. No Constitutional Amendment, No Federal Responsibility to make or enforce gun laws.. Leaving gun law entirely up to each and every state on an individual state by state basis.. In a prefect world, writing a Second Amendment prohibiting the Federal Government from creating or enforcing any firearms law would be perfect, see above.. Good states filled with good people would be almost if not all or anything goes.. In a bad state filled with bad people, sheep, rams and gerbils (you know what they do with gerbils). Even the word (gun) said, a finger gun or a piece of bread chewed into the form of a gun will get you imprisoned, maybe for life.. But this is not a perfect world , and really states rights do not exists. Particularly since the “last” Civil War..

  103. all you aggie alumni are required to call , write, and otherwise contact the university and DEMAND her removal immedeatly. she can then move to conneticut and waller in the progressive mudpen that that area is

  104. Since these people have such a hard time living in America. They should think about moving to a Socialist state like France, Where they will be happy and content!.Better yet if on their way out, would they please take their leader Obama with THEM!.

  105. An Amendment can be proposed one of two ways. Both ways have two steps. It can be proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states. Or on demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress could be forced to call an Article V Convention to propose an amendment, or amendments, which would only be valid if ratified by a vote of three-fourths of the states. Go ahead and try to repeal the second amendment, it’s not gonna happen. An Article V Convention is the way to go and we need to rewrite/eliminate a few other amendments in my opinion.

  106. What the Hell is in the Fort Worth water?
    Isn’t that pro-death (choice[?]) LegisCritter running for governor from there? (She’s so un-remarkable I can’t even remember her name.)
    If she’s such a proud anti-gunner, she needs to STAY the heck in Connecticut! She seems to be at home there.

  107. Don’t forget we just bought that law school and the clearing out of old pathetic dead wood had not yet taken place……All law schools have clowns in residence and this one is just the most obvious.

  108. Just another progressive who believes the unwashed masses are not capable of taking care of themselves, and that government can solve all ills, either real or perceived. Like the POTUS she surely believes in unicorns too.

  109. Real American Patriots say Time to Repeal and Replace Mary Margaret Penrose, a full-time uber progressive coward professor of law with the once great, Texas A&M University unless they fire her… period.

  110. What a shame to A&M…a disgrace….

    You can bet your last Dollar there are Very Powerful and Influential Alumni who he Tenure be damned, will now employ every strategem available to remove her from that Institution on the grounds alone that she is teaching her Students (Their Children) that the Constitution is antiquated and not relevant!

    They will move to contain her. They will move to alienate her. They will make it so difficult for her, even her friends will tire of the heat. She will not be welcomed whereever and whenever she can be excluded from any and all Aggie functions.

    I hope she can see the writing on the wall… Cause the finger just began writing… Let her go move to New York or Illinois now, maybe she will be happier in those States.

  111. She sounds like she should be managing Guest Experience at a Target store instead of teaching law. Those who hate the Constitution have no business teaching law.

  112. I love my firearms just as much as the next guy around here, but did any of you actually read?

    Her idea, according to the article, is not to ban privately owned weapons, it is to allow each state to regulate it by way of the community [as a whole] that resides in said state.

    (Do I think its a good idea to repeal the Second Ammendment? No. Do I think states should have a greater say in my abilities as a gun owner? Yes.)

    Let’s stop going into every firearm issue with “‘Murica!” at the tip of our tongues (or any other pre-determined mindset), and actually use our ears and brains.

  113. bppettie — November 22, 2013 @ 6:57 pm:
    She is allowed her opinion/view and this symposium where her comments were made is exactly the place for her to express it. The fact you disagree is also recognized and you are here to express your opinion, within this forum.
    She is a Law professor who seemingly doesn’t understand constitutional history. Remember, a degree doesn’t mean you’re smart… it means you can pass a test.
    God bless America!

  114. Way to go professor!!! I’m sure that in your perfect little world, freedom of speech, and religion, won’t be far down the road either? You go girl!!!
    And William Walkingstick is correct about an invading army, they wouldn’t succeed here in America. There are 600,000 hunters that are going to invade the north woods of Wisconsin in a few days for the dear hunting season. And that’s just Wisconsin.

  115. Way to go professor!!! I’m sure that in your perfect little world, freedom of speech, and religion, won’t be far down the road either? You go girl!!!
    And William Walkingstick is correct about an invading army, they wouldn’t succeed here in America. There are 600,000 hunters that are going to invade the north woods of Wisconsin in a few days for the dear hunting season. And who that’s just Wisconsin.

  116. Hullabaloo, Caneck, Caneck
    Hullabaloo, Caneck, Caneck
    Good bye to Mary Margaret Penrose!

    (From our Aggie War Hymn)

    Phil H.
    A&M Class of ’72

  117. It is people like this who get the rest of us killed trying to defend them. I did the research when the DC case was moving through the United States Supreme Court. I looked for a city, similar in size to DC but with strict gun control. The city turned out to be London England. With similar populations and the gun controls as we know them, London England had TWICE AS MANY violent crimes as Washington, DC. You cannot argue the fact that an unarmed public is MORE susceptible to violent crime that an armed population.
    Now, to take that a bit further, since Australia has confiscated the firearms from the public, they have thousands of home invasions. They never had home invasions previously. When asked why no felony prosecutions had been processed, the Prime Minister stated, “We dont have any laws prohibiting home invasions. As a matter of fact we havent even been able to come up with a definition suitable to write the new laws.”
    Another significant factor, unless you are a fan of the NWO, you understand that the United States is the only thing standing between freedom and slavery world-wide. There is no wonder they want us disarmed! They have a real significant problem. There are over 50 million known armed Patriots in the United States. There is no army in the world who could attack the US and survive. You hear rumors of foreign troops on US soil for the purpose of disarming Americans. That may be true but it is a futile plan if you take the time to sit down and do the numbers. The Chinese have the largest army in the world at 2 million troops. If you combine all the armies in the world, you come up about 50% short. Now, you also hear, “They would control the airspace” but the Russians controlled the airspace in Afghanistan and they got whipped by a bunch of guys riding camels. As the great Japanese General, who was educated at Harvard stated at the outbreak of the war, “You cannot invade the mainland of the United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” General Isoroku Yamamoto. The problem with the airspace is there are millions of American Patriots who live in close proximity of every airfield that could be used for military aircraft. It is impossible to hide fighters, bombers, attack helicopters and the like. And you especially cannot hide fuel trucks. One round costing less than $1.00 can destroy a billion dollar aircraft. Boy is that bad economics. And then the ultimate problem, much like President Lincoln’s problem at Gettysburg. He asked two of his top generals to go to Gettysburg to command the Army of the Potomac. They both refused. He then had to order Meade to take command. It was Robert E. Lee commanding the army of Northern Virginia and he had never lost a battle. Do any of you know any commander, with knowledge of military strategy/warfare who would be stupid enough to take command of a force against the American Patriots? So, in conclusion, I would say the stupidest thing you could do would be to disarm the largest army in the world in times of turmoil and an unknown future when these people could defeat any invading force on earth. Take a good look at this lady. Would you follow her up a hill in battle to save your country? I didnt think so.

  118. I also am an Aggie, and it pains me to see her and her radical anti-Constitutional views. Texas A&M University has a long and glorious history of being not only a land-grant college, but a 100% ROTC Corps of Cadets school. Prior to 1962, every single matriculating student at A&M was a member of the Corps of Cadets, and a sworn ROTC member.
    I am sure there are many (although this is a tired metaphor that cannot seriously be taken as fact…) Aggies turning in their graves to know that a member of the faculty of this august university would say something so radical, so un-American

  119. Insignificant. By the end of the article, could a single one of you even remember her name without going back to the first paragraph? That’s what I thought. Next issue please?

  120. So who cares what she thinks. We all have an opinion. My opinion didn’t get published so what makes hers valid.
    My opinion is that all law professors that don’t know how to handle a gun should be fired and lose their benefits. If they are attempting to change laws or reinterpret them to their own opinion they should be fired also. If they are not willing to defend the Constitution they should be fired. If they say or publish something stupid they should be fired. If they have a stupid look on their face they should be fired. If they disagree with me they should be fired. …That’s what I think so get rid of the ignorant -itch.

  121. I wonder what her view of the First Amendment is?

    Would she appreciate it if I said she had no right to speak out against the Second Amendment and the First should be repealed?

    How about if LEO can search her home at anytime without a warrant?

    If she doesn’t want to exercise her right to self-defense, just don’t take away my rights.

  122. This law teacher should keep her opinions to herself and just teach the law as it is.
    There should be no restrictions on the second amendment b/c the second amendment gives no power to the fed government or any other government to limit it or restrict it in any way. The 2nd Amendment merely points out to the fed that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of gun rights. This all results from the liberal misinterpretations (deliberate) of the constitution and purpose of the constitution… that all rights are held by the people and certain limited rights were given to the government by the people. If anything needs to be repealed it is the income tax and any and all rights given the fed government to regulate anything.

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

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading