17 votes

Texas law professor: ‘Time to repeal and replace the Second Amendment’

...Then she said, “I think I’m in agreement with you and, 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.”

Penrose also said that the U.S. Constitution was antiquated and needs to be redrafted to accord with modern times.

“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,” she said.

http://www.guns.com/2013/11/16/texas-law-professor-time-repe...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Showing her ignorance:

"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,”

Look up the DHS and tell me it's not on par with an army. Hell, I bet the Boston PD could take out most of Iran's army.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

Time to feed her nutritious Ritz crackers.

Oh wait, she's already crackers.

Nutty Professor

Time to repeal and replace that nutty professor.

I agree with her, too.

"How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army?"
She's right. We should stop funding our standing army and put an end to misguided socialist, and crony capitalist, imperialism.
But, she's wrong about the 2A. sorry, doc

" “How many of them felt the

" “How many of them felt the legislative and judicial responses to gun violence have been effective?”

Not a single person raised their hand, allegedly."

Her solution? More legislative and judicial action. What a laugh.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

"... drastic times require drastic measures..."

What country does she live in? There are around 12,000 gun homicides a year. There are 800,000 abortions and 443,000 tobacco-related deaths in that same time. That is about 100x the number of gun homicides and all of them preventable.

Gun violence is down. Gun ownership is up. Which is the drastic problem? Is it violence or ownership? How are these "drastic times?"

I am all for drastically shrinking the standing army and ending the militarization of local police.

"There are other rights that we all agree have limitations." says Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. Why does there have to be limits on owning something? My rights meet limits when the rights of others are violated. My keeping an arm violates the rights of nobody.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

"drastic times require drastic measures" said no dictator ever.

right...

The Koran, Bible & Torah

Are even older! Let's junk them too and go with something new and cool like Scientology! ;-)

seems like this whole "2A is outdated!"-meme is a concerted,

organized, post-AWB 2013 anti-gun PR propaganda rollout, phase 2:

CATO Const. Atty David Kopel & Eugene Volokh vs Hoplophobes: "Has 2nd Amd. outlived Its Usefulness?" ForaTV Debate, Nov 14, 2013

Debate: The 2nd Amendment Has Outlived Its Usefulness?

http://youtu.be/tPrPozLdYZg
IntelligenceSquared Debates
Published on Nov 15, 2013

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment

Recent mass shooting tragedies have renewed the national debate over the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, but gun violence has decreased over the last two decades even as gun ownership may be increasing. Over 200 years have passed since James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, the country has changed, and so have it guns. Is the right to bear arms now at odds with the common good, or is it as necessary today as it was in 1789?

Partner: Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
Location: Kaufman Center, New York, New York
Event Date: 11.14.13
Speakers: Alan Dershowitz, John Donvan, David B. Kopel, Sanford Levinson, Eugene Volokh

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I guess the first amendment

I guess the first amendment too, after all there was no internet....what about the fourth amendment? There were no cars, cell phones, or email.

Lady, let me tell you something...you might as well say that...

...the Ten Commandments is antiquated and out of date and should be re-written to reflect 21st Century ideals.

Let me explain:

The U.S. Constitution did NOT change ANY of man's fundemental rights - it simpley RE-ITERATED them.

Because man had so bastardized the God-given rights of the individual, the founders had to RE-STATE them and form a new government and force that government to adhere to these laws.

So the right to defend yourself is nothing new lady. It is our RIGHT.

THIS is the problem with this country when people of knowledge say things like this.

Our Constitution is only about 225 years old and NONE of our fundemental rights has changed in 225 years and they never will.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Time to fire this law professor.

If she has no respect for the law, she should not be teaching it.

Republicae's picture

Perhaps a garrote would be

Perhaps a garrote would be better suited than a pink slip!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Here's the fact behind the "Bill of Rights"

the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT GRANT anything. It's simply stating a fact, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall NOT be infringed.

The militia statement is NOT a prerequisite. It's the other way around. The people have a right, NOT A PRIVILEGE, to keep and bear arms, and they may if they CHOOSE to form Militia's with people gathered who BEAR ARMS by RIGHT!!!

The Bill of rights actually has a preamble, and here it is!!! It's never discussed and that's by design!!!

Here's the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

when you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it clearly says: that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Do u know that this is CLEARLY saying, what follows are facts, not grants of rights.

I have a right to breath.
I have a right to live.
I have a right to speak freely.
I have the right to keep and bear arms

ETC, ETC, ETC.....

Repeal the 2nd amendment all you want, I STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

While you are at it, Repeal in all geology books that the earth is a sphere. Im sure that will make it flat again!!!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

"18th Century concerns" are

"18th Century concerns" are STILL our concerns, its a concern you see littered throughout our GLOBAL history, this judge assumes the role of prophet, and deems this generation to be the last to have those concerns.....of all the folks that have fought for this in human history, this one person, who mind you, dosent understand the original intent,.....this ONE person deems to IGNORE the folks who have come and gone, and rather, would implement an AUTHORATIVE judgement, showing our concerns to our face while at the same time saying, those concerns are no more, how backward is that.....its like the mother asking her daughter if she took the cookies from the cookie jar, and the daughter saying no, as she takes another bite

"drastic times require drastic measures"- concern number two

"How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army?"
-concern number three.....no matter what you think of them, or HOW you think of them, the us government IS a "standing army", one that is purported to be one of the biggest in our histories, and shows no signs of stopping......our present "leaders" are not immortal, how stupid is it to illegally grant your "employer" more authority without knowing what future leaders may come......imagine giving histories version of hitler the power the us government is planning to give their future leaders..........not to think of these concerns is IRRESPONSIBLE, and someone i would never "vote" for

I agree with her

The second amendment should be repealed and rewritten. Period, end of story. It is to easily misunderstood. The next one should be extremely clear.

"If the government has the authority to own it, then the individual citizens that granted that authority also have a right to own it. Any man, woman, or child have a right to own anything they feel is necessary to defend themselves against any threat they may perceive."

How bout that one?

You know what, I'm a rothbardian, nevermind.

Séamusín

Republicae's picture

I understand what you are

I understand what you are saying however, I would prefer that no modern politicians are ever allowed to tinker with the Bill of Rights! It's bad enough they ignore them as though they were little more than historic platitudes, but if ever given the chance to revise or repeal, they would love to get their grubby little hands on such an opportunity.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

The 2nd Amendment

only recognized & wrote down a God given natural right.

It doesn't matter if they say they've 'repealed' it or not.

2nd ammendment......a natural

2nd ammendment......a natural right to self defence

Our natural instint to want to stay alive, barring an uhappy life

To be faced with a situation where your life may be in immediate danger, and knowing, legaly, your role, should that be the situation, is to die or hope the folks given "legal" authority to act doesnt take longer then 5 seconds to get here.........they never think in these terms, in human terms, so busy trying to create this ill concieved authority

We have a POTUS who's a

We have a POTUS who's a "Constitutional Law Professor" and now this? I'm beginning to get the idea "Constitutional Law Professor" is only and honorary title given to the feeble minded mouth breathers to make them feel better about themselves.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Time to repeal and replace...

this 'law professor'.

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

Human nature hasn't changed

Human nature hasn't changed in 10 thousand years, and it never will. That's why we keep the second amendment. Good luck repealing the second amendment the constitutional prescribed way.

People with Phd after their name need to stop doing that

everytime I see Phd I have a preconceived reaction that they are dumbasses until proven otherwise. No luck here. She's just a dumbass.

Phd=dumbass

How can she miss the elephant in the room? We have a gigantic standing army. With army-like cousins like the TSA and DHS goons all around us.

But they would never hurt

But they would never hurt because we have nothing to hide...said the person who they went after for no good reason anyway.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.