Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

A professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law claims that the Second Amendmentshould be shelved and replaced with something else.

Professor Mary Margaret Penroserevealed her thoughts at a day-long symposium held Friday at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford, according to The Daily Caller.

Connecticut’s Governor Dannel Malloy delivered the symposium’s opening remarks, the subject of which was the Second Amendment and gun control organized by The Connecticut Law Review.

read more:


Views: 1577

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


If it is your desire to be vague and open to interpretation then that is your right. However, if language is to be used to covey legal, lawful thoughts then - jargon and cliches that will lead to misinformation, as those type statements are confused and have numerous meanings to various people.

  1. 1.
    judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
    "a classic novel"
    synonyms: definitiveauthoritativeMore
  1. 1.
    a work of art of recognized and established value.
    "his books have become classics"
    synonyms: definitive example, modelepitomeparadigmexemplarMore
  2. 2.
    a school subject that involves the study of ancient Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, and history.

    Origin of LIBERAL

    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalissuitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
    First Known Use: 14th century
    cli·ché also cliche  (kl-sh)
    1. A trite or overused expression or idea: "Even while the phrase was degenerating to cliché in ordinary public use . . . scholars were giving it increasing attention" (Anthony Brandt).
    2. A person or character whose behavior is predictable or superficial: "There is a young explorer . . . who turns out not to be quite the cliche expected" (John Crowley).

    [French, past participle of clicherto stereotype (imitative of the sound made when the matrix is dropped into molten metal to make a stereotype plate).]
    Synonyms: cliché, bromide, commonplace, platitude, truism
    These nouns denote an expression or idea that has lost its originality or force through overuse: a short story weakened by clichés; the old bromide that we are what we eat; uttered the commonplace "welcome aboard"; a eulogy full of platitudes; a once-original thought that has become a truism.

    But today the words liberal and progressive have been hijacked and turned into their opposites: A “liberal” today is somebody who defends the 20th-century blue social model; a “progressive” is now somebody who thinks history has gone wrong and that we must restore the Iron Triangle of yesteryear to make things better. Most of what passes for liberal and progressive politics these days is a conservative reaction against economic and social changes the Left doesn’t like. The people who call themselves liberal in the United States today are fighting rearguard actions to save old policies and established institutions that once served noble purposes but that now need fundamental reform (and in some cases abolition), lest they thwart the very purposes for which they were created.

    This is not the first time such a reversal around the word liberal has taken place. To the contrary, there is a long history of specific political agendas that incorporate a forward-looking program and bear the name liberal precisely because they look ahead in the name of the nation as a whole. As time goes by they make their contributions and society goes on to face new issues. The old “liberal” becomes the new “conservative” and fresher, more useful ideas emerge to capture the label. Old liberalisms are born to perish as new, more vital liberalisms take up the struggle; in the process the liberal spirit itself lives on.

    - See more at: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183#sthash....

Interesting you should couch your argument in a conveyance of legal and lawful thoughts.  Having worked with a number of lawyers over the years I've observed that the best litigators are able to effectively present their case to the jury - the same goes for politicians - effectively communicating with people using words and terms that most people can relate to and understand.

Even though the first definition you cited: " judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind " is close enough (in principle) to the way the term, "classic liberal" is used today - by most people.

I do not like the concept of "the meaning of words is in the people," but like it or not, to a great degree it is the truth.  When you . . . well, maybe not you . . . but when most people - even well educated teachers, doctors, lawyers and college professors use the word, "gentleman," they are describing and thinking of a man who is well-mannered and considerate - a man with high standards of proper behavior and morals.  But being the wordsmith that you are, you must surely know that this was not the original meaning of the word, gentleman.

The historical meaning of the word was not descriptive of a man's behavior or his character. It was used to denote his position in society by means of his birth.  A gentleman was one who was born into nobility, owned property and had no need to work for a salary.

So, one can choose to communicate effectively with the public at large, or go through life trying to correct people with a dictionary. 

Here is a video lecture by Richard Epstein on "CLASSICAL LIBERALISM" - Notice the two words are used together so they now define the meaning of TWO not as individual free standing words.

I submit that the use of GENTLEMEN is still a structure of CLASS and EDUCATION so it is not a general term where you would address a group of Prisoners as Gentlemen nor would one use the term to address a group of unemployed.

Here is another debate

Why does this matter?

I think I have taken a shine to you and your comments ! 

I read the article in full and came away with a better understanding of current gub-ban tactics. Prof. Penrose has made both hostile, provocative, and a technically possible but actually implausible suggestion regarding self-defense.

Her idea of amending the Bill of Rights to abolish the Second Amendment (hardly likely) performs only one action. It would be the removal of the government admission and affirmation that the right of individual self defense IS inheirant; that government has NO authority at all to grant or remove the individual right of self defense exersized by upright competent individuals.  The truth will still remain. Yes this means that pre-emptive laws (like the gun control act of the 1930s) and restrictive or regulating laws like CCW permits, open carry,  and safe storage, the number limits of owned firearms as property, etc,, are nessesarily unconstitutional. Issues concerning an individual  abuse of rights is always to be handled reactively, in the courts, never proactively by broad pre-emption statutes. Individuals being ajudicated as incorrigible or criminal are remanded to institutions without their free exersize of rights, for theirs' and everyones sakes, as it was intended to be. 

She doesnt expect 'progress' to happen that way. Her 'knows best for all' collective crowd lost the war with recent SCOTUS decisions reaffirming individual rights. Now its just a matter of time before the states, full of residents that loathe curtailment of personal liberties, will implode the myriad gun control laws into nothingness.

Instead, she seeks to stoke the fires of fear and chaotic contraversy while she still  has time and opportunity.

It is all she has left to work with.


Insanity cannot argue truth - it has none.


Therefore, to propagate it must ELIMINATE anyone who promotes truth.




Ask Saul Alinsky or his promoter, Hillary Clinton, who carries a copy of "Rules for Radicals" in her purse and wrote her college thesis on it.

I am beginning to think that all of that spouting off of "Don't Mess With Texas" is just so much loud-mouth P.R. bull-sh!t.  It looks like Texas (in spite of all their ultra-Americanism posturing) is every bit as much infected by liberal traitors in their education and political system as is California.

When anyone (and by God I mean anyone) starts publically calling for legislation to "shelve" the 2nd amendment, that is when the purpose of the 2nd amendment should be activated and applied.

University Professors are by definition - LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and do not believe in the LIMITS of THE constitution. They are no different in any State of the 50. Just for your info the "DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS" was a saying to stop trash being thrown out of cars and trucks.

I was born in Yuma, Arizona and in the 50s used to spend a lot of summer times in Oak Creek Canyon close to Zane Gray's cabin. Got in a big brawl in Prescott many years ago when staying there for a football game. 

The new people have overpopulated the Red Rock area, Flagstaff and Prescott. Oh yes I attended Arizona State University also. I see a lot of Progressive people in Arizona over the last 20 years. Was Janet Napolitano not the governor? She is now the president of the California University system.

So, careful where you toss rocks some of us know the facts.

In the photo, is that you in the middle?




Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Al Goodwyn


Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service