Texas A&M law prof: It’s time to repeal Second Amendment

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Calls for gun control are one thing. Calls for overturning parts or all of the Constitution are quite another. Can't say I'm surprised and have actually been wondering how long it would take until we started hearing the progressives call for just that.

Texas A&M law prof says it’s time to repeal Second Amendment

A full-time professor on the faculty of the newly-minted Texas A&M University School of Law called for the repeal and replacement of the Second Amendment on Friday.

The professor, Mary Margaret “Meg” Penrose, made her controversial declaration during a day-long panel symposium on gun control and the Second Amendment at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford. It was well-attended, primarily by law students, law professors and local attorneys.

“Unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures,” the professor said, according to CTNewsJunkie. “I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”

Penrose also noted that she tells students in her constitutional law courses that the entire United States Constitution is an obsolete document.

If there ever was a reason to stand against the leftist and progressives in America this is it. They simply do not believe in America as it was created at all. If they get their way the America many, if not most of us grew up with will become obsolete and replaced with their "new and improved" version.




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.

A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick. The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.

I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped, and it has to now include an amendment that says if you are a public servant, and you serve a corporate master rather than the public, and if you lie to the public in order to press an agenda that has more to do with profit than the people, then you should be dealt with appropriately.

APPROPRIATELY!



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Since when is liberty "obsolete"? She should thank the First amendment of that "obsolete" docement for her freedom to call it obsolete without being eliminated by the Second.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 




Penrose also noted that she tells students in her constitutional law courses that the entire United States Constitution is an obsolete document.


I sure am glad she gets to spew this in front of impressionable youngsters. Of course I am POSITIVE that is part of the official curriculum at Texas A&M pre-law. Down with Constitution and its laws!.....the whole reason we as lawyers exist in the first place. In addition, I am POSITIVE she offers a viable alternative to our obsolete system. Thank Goodness!


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.

A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick. The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.

I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped, and it has to now include an amendment that says if you are a public servant, and you serve a corporate master rather than the public, and if you lie to the public in order to press an agenda that has more to do with profit than the people, then you should be dealt with appropriately.

APPROPRIATELY!


So the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to the internet, television, radio?


+12 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".

Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.

The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.

You want your liberal utopia- go create one somewhere. If they did that- how long do yuo think it would be before their perfect utopia got over run by outsiders who could give a damn about their laws? How would they protect themselves?

I could be mistaken- but isnt language such as this equal to treason? These professors need to keep their personal beliefs out of the classrooms.


+11 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mon1k3r
 




I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.

A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick.


When the amendment was ratified civilian weaponry was much more on par with the governments than it is now. If anything we need t repel the laws that prevent just a thing. Banning automatic weapons for example is a fairly new idea. Didn't used to be that way.

Hunting is just a red herring anyway and has nothing (or little anyway) with the 2nd amendment. Just because we are now severely out gunned by the government doesn't mean we should give up the last of our weapons.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Fine.

Get an amendment on the ballot.

Get it ratified by all 50 states.

And than sure go ahead.


Thats not even touching "grandfathering", but you want our guns? Do it right, and put it to the people.

OH and thats one elections that tricky ballots or hanging "Chads" won't be tolerated.

But feel free to try.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Mon1k3r
 




When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols.


There was no internet or TV either. On the basis of changing technology, should we hamstring the First Amendment too?



The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.


Very true. In effect they left the wording alone but gutted the 2nd's intent for their benefit, not the American peoples'. Very much the same route as the 1st (corporations are people and money is speech) and 4th (NSA and Patriot Act) are going. Again not for your benefit or mine.

The question is: do you really honestly believe the crew in DC will further look out for you with your Constitutional revamping? Do you trust them with the best interest of the people you care about in mind?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Dang it!!

I know better than to read ATS right after eating!

You should always wait at least half an hour.

These people make me sick, instead of changing our country, why don't they move to a country more to their taste...



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I have a friend who has, shall we say, unusual tastes in hobbies and collections.

We once started discussing guns and I asked him if he had any. He answered, 'but of course' and promptly went to his closet to get it. I was somewhat worried about what was going to appear but he took out a very old leather case and opened it up.

Inside was a blunderbuss. A very old, breech loading weapon right out of what, the 1700s?

He showed me what was required to shoot it once, and once only. It took a good minute or more and he was hurrying.

THAT's what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not freekin' machine guns.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


The defence againt tyranny argument doesnt really fly.

If a revolts breaks out not only do the guns flow freely but so do the heavy weapons. There is always someone witha vested intrest in the rebels, in 1776 it was the french and if it happens again it will likley be the Chinese or Russians and like the french not out the goodness of there heart but to stick it to the govement you will be fighting for giggles and laughs.

Hell when you see a revolt anywere round the world in the news even in the most opressive of reguimes they never lack for guns do they?


Im not a gun grabber by the way and not a fan of gun control. But if you want your guns at least be honnest to yourself you want those gun cause you just want them. Nothing wrong with that.
edit on 16-11-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


The private citizen should be allowed to have tanks, howitzers, B-52's, etc. We don't really need them, but what the hell..
edit on 11/16/2013 by ItCameFromOuterSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

ItCameFromOuterSpace
reply to post by Bassago
 


The private citizen should be allowed to have tanks, howitizers, B-52's, etc. We don't really need them, but what the hell..


If we did have them, I bet anything that you wouldn't hear a peep out of the gun grabbers' mouths... or in this case, tank and artillery grabbers.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

signalfire
I have a friend who has, shall we say, unusual tastes in hobbies and collections.

We once started discussing guns and I asked him if he had any. He answered, 'but of course' and promptly went to his closet to get it. I was somewhat worried about what was going to appear but he took out a very old leather case and opened it up.

Inside was a blunderbuss. A very old, breech loading weapon right out of what, the 1700s?

He showed me what was required to shoot it once, and once only. It took a good minute or more and he was hurrying.

THAT's what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not freekin' machine guns.


You're right, and they couldn't even imagine the extent of technology we have today back then... but even when this new destructive technology was coming about, we were warned about the "military-industrial complex", were we not?

Besides, I believe in the second amendment, but I'm not asking for a machine gun. Anything will suffice if I could use it to defend myself in a time of desperate need.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 




He showed me what was required to shoot it once, and once only. It took a good minute or more and he was hurrying.

THAT's what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not freekin' machine guns.


We'll have to disagree on that. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms. It doesn't say the right to bear currently manufactured weapons of the era. The founding fathers were smart people, I'd wager they knew this.


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The gun grabbers don't want to have a good look at real history. In the days when the 2nd was put in place, private citizens could and did own their own warships IF they could afford them.

The whole idea of the 2nd was to ensure a corrupt government could be tossed out by the people. If you bother to read the literature, news paper articles and the speeches made on the subject of the 2nd, the intent is clear.

So why the hell does someone like me, who does not even live in the US, know all this and yet idiots with law degrees don't. Only in America.

There is a way to alter the constitution, it is set out clearly, so why don't these people use it as it was designed, because they damn well know it would never happen. That is the crux of the matter. You are free to leave the US at any time.

P



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
While it's good to know the names of gun-grabbers and anti-constitutionalists, they are irrelevant. Guns & ammo are in high demand. Not only by citizens but by government. For every gun-grabber there are 10 libertarians/constitutionalists/gun owners. There's no chance of reversing the 2nd amendment. Gun grabbers like to think they have a shot and love to spew their verbal garbage, but their wishes are futile. It's really that simple.

I laugh when I think of Obama and his ilk trying to ban guns. It's a very hilarious thought.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


We can thank the dumbing down of education (history and civics) for one thing. Geez the person spewing this stuff is supposed to be teaching students at one of our universities. This is not only dumbing down it's targeted leftist propaganda by those in positions of teaching.

What hasn't been done through restrictive legislation they'd (love to) finally try to push by removing the constitutional right altogether. That statement about the warships is very telling. Try mounting a large gun on the bow of your boat now days and see what happens. Coast Guard would at minimum board and arrest you or just sink you in place.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.


The Amendment has no bearing on type of arms, it simply is "arms". It is a direct coorelation between a free citizen's duty to protect their land and their lives, along with the Natural Right to defend yourself.


I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped...


You need to expand this to the OP. You love the "idea and intent" but don't like the idea of a Right to Bear Arms....





new topics
top topics
 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join