Posted in: Politics

Second Amendment: Texas Professor Calling For Repeal Of Right To Bear Arms

Professor Mary Margaret Penrose

The Second Amendment should be repealed, according to Texas professor Mary Margaret Penrose. The Texas A&M School of Law professor has now joined the ranks of other some progressives and gun control activists who deem the Constitution and outdated, antiquated document.

Professor Penrose made her Second Amendment comments not at Texas A&M but at a panel discussion at the University of Connecticut. The academic stated she feels the right to bear arms, as written, is largely misunderstood. Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy delivered the opening remarks at the gun control symposium organized by the Connecticut Law Review. After the governor signed an extremely restrictive gun control law in April, Colt firearms announced they would be leaving the state – and taking their jobs and tax revenue with them.

An excerpt from Professor Mary Penrose’s Second Amendment speech:

Unfortunately, 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.

During the panel discussion in Connecticut the Texas professor asked for a show hands to indicate how many audience members felt that gun control laws had been successful – all arms remained at rest. Mary Penrose then stated that she agreed about the lack of reduced gun violence and stated that during drastic times, “drastic measures” are necessary. Repealing and replacing the Second Amendment qualified as an “unfortunate” yet necessary drastic response in the professor’s mind.

Professor Penrose deemed herself “somewhat agnostic about guns” but said she is extremely passionate” about the Constitution – but in a negative light. During the University of Connecticut speech, Professor Penrose also admitted that she tells of Constitutional Law course students that both the Bill of Rights and Constitution are “obsolete.”

Penrose also shared this thought with the audience:

Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th Century concerns? How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th century was a standing army? That’s what motivated the Second Amendment — fear of a standing army.”

The reasons that both the Founding Fathers and the American people cherish and vow to protect the Second Amendment are many. While concerns about a standing army may number among them, “fear” is certainly not the only reason the right to bear arms was included in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about the Second Amendment:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

James Madison said that disarming the people is the “best and most effective way to enslave them.” George Washington stated that free people ought to be armed. Ben Franklin may have put it best when detailing how important it is for Americans to understand and retain our liberties, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

How do you feel about the Second Amendment and Constitution remarks made by Texas A&M University Professor Mary Penrose?

[Image Via:]

Articles And Offers From The Web


9 Responses to “Second Amendment: Texas Professor Calling For Repeal Of Right To Bear Arms”

  1. Gregg Weber

    It takes will/determinaton along with tools to keep freedom when Constitution and Bill of Rights are lost. Are you, speaking to the professor, willing to trust power moving towards absolute power to keep you free?

  2. Russell Tavares

    I think this professor forgets that the constitution INCLUDED a mechanism to keep it up to date with the times, and he should write an amendment proposing the repeal of the second amendment, if he finds it to be so untimely. The government didn't come with the power to ban alcohol, and it recognized the need to write an amendment to do so. The government MUST know that it doesn't have the power to ban guns, as it's stated explicitly, and if they wish to try to do so, they can follow the model of the 18th and 21st amendments, or be in violation of the highest law of the land.

  3. Rick Griffin

    I think she would be happy in Russia and we should send her there as soon as possible ! This country is full of liberals who want everyone to follow whatever they dream up ! If you do away with the second amendment do away with them all including her right to run her mouth about guns !

  4. Kevin Swan

    Thomas Jefferson NEVER said what you have him quoted as saying. In fact, the earliest known citation of that false quote dates all the way back to… 2007. (Really have to wonder who makes this stuff up, and how weak must be their argument that they stoop to complete fabrication of Thomas Jefferson.)

    Better research, next time.

  5. Matthew Hudson

    Mary Margaret Penrose, you have no clue what you're doing. You should be ashamed to be a law professor, with the level – no, the lack of understanding you have with the law.

    First, repeal the 2nd, and what changes? Nothing. Why? The second is only a second level of protections against extra-constitutional laws. The right to be armed is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and you should know that. Sadly, you don't, which tells me a lot about you, and your arrogance in thinking that you have a right to teach children.

    Weapons, which includes the entire realm of arms, was never granted to the Constitution to regulate, moderate, or ban. The document wasn't granted the right it needed to enter this area, and it does not have the permissions needed to regulate anything. That is why (which you SHOULD know) that the interstate commerce clause is used to regulate firearms – To Regulate Trade Between the Several States? How is regulating a man owning a sawed off shotgun regulating trade? It's NOT. But the courts and people like you keep passing illegal laws, and we keep allowing you to do so. Soon, Mary Margaret Penrose, we are not going to allow this, and when we put our foot down, you will remember.

    This is why the 2nd is not needed. All laws in the USA flow from the Constitution. Local regulations with no foundation are not even laws. They are moot. They are unfounded. They are extra-constitutional and illegal. States can only operate under the Constitution, and when they do not, then they are acting under color of law – which means, passing illegal laws and pretending that they are legit.

    You should be disbarred, fired, and made to go back to school, where you can have a second chance at learning what you should have known to start with.

  6. Gary Young

    She needs to be collected by the standing army, put in a rail car and carried to a concentration camp. Maybe she will then understand what it is like not to have the of Bill of Rights.

Around The Web