TexasCHLforum.com

A new take on repealing the 2nd Amendment, by a Texas A&M professor, of all things, "repeal it so as to leave gun laws up to the states."

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar ... _up_to_st/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to take on an A&M professor, and a lady at that, but might not repeal of the 2nd let the Feds ban guns? Of course there would be no explicit grant to the Feds of that power, but that has not stopped them yet. To wit, "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

Jim

b322da wrote:A new take on repealing the 2nd Amendment, by a Texas A&M professor, of all things, "repeal it so as to leave gun laws up to the states."

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar ... _up_to_st/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to take on an A&M professor, and a lady at that, but might not repeal of the 2nd let the Feds ban guns? Of course there would be no explicit grant to the Feds of that power, but that has not stopped them yet. To wit, "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

Jim

She stated that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed and let the States control guns. Never happen, the people in power want the Federal Gonernment to control everything.

b322da wrote:A new take on repealing the 2nd Amendment, by a Texas A&M professor, of all things, "repeal it so as to leave gun laws up to the states."

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar ... _up_to_st/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to take on an A&M professor, and a lady at that, but might not repeal of the 2nd let the Feds ban guns? Of course there would be no explicit grant to the Feds of that power, but that has not stopped them yet. To wit, "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

Jim

I'll bet my bottom dollar that her goal would be banning guns. These kinds of people are only in favor of States' Rights when it is convenient to them. Although I think that in today's context, it is a terrible idea, I keep going back to the original debate among the Founders over the possible need for a Bill of Rights. Both sides agreed on the fact of the same list of inalienable rights, but they differed on whether or not codifying them was the wise thing to do. One side said that there was no need for codification because, since the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution reside in the state or The People, if rights were codified it would be the natural tendency of any government to try and hem those rights in rather than to protect them. The other side said that if the rights were not codified, it would be the natural tendency of government to act as if they did not exist and to trample them. That's perhaps a simplistic description of the debate, but hindsight being 20/20, I am apt to side with the latter side of the argument. I believe that if the 2nd Amendment had not been codified in a BOR, we'd have lost that right a long time ago. . . . .along with most of the others. [sarcasm]Except abortion. That one we not only get to keep, we get to pay for them for others.[/sarcasm]

Personally, I think every single person who argues for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment should have a near-death experience in which they would have died except for an armed citizen who intervenes on their behalf. Occasionally, it wouldn't hurt if that armed citizen didn't get there in time to save them. It needs to be that way so that naysayers can see both sides of what happens when a gun could have saved a life.

b322da wrote:A new take on repealing the 2nd Amendment, by a Texas A&M professor, of all things, "repeal it so as to leave gun laws up to the states."

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar ... _up_to_st/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to take on an A&M professor, and a lady at that, but might not repeal of the 2nd let the Feds ban guns? Of course there would be no explicit grant to the Feds of that power, but that has not stopped them yet. To wit, "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

Jim

I think repealing tenure for college professors would be a more productive initiative. It would allow those who have descended into ranting insanity to be culled from the ranks.

Based on the language of the Bill of Rights, repealing any of the amendments does not change the fact that the rights mentioned pre-existed and the BOR's purpose is merely to codify protection of those rights. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS a right, so even if the amendment goes away, the right still exists.

Excaliber wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

b322da wrote:A new take on repealing the 2nd Amendment, by a Texas A&M professor, of all things, "repeal it so as to leave gun laws up to the states."

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/ar ... _up_to_st/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to take on an A&M professor, and a lady at that, but might not repeal of the 2nd let the Feds ban guns? Of course there would be no explicit grant to the Feds of that power, but that has not stopped them yet. To wit, "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

Jim

I think repealing tenure for college professors would be a more productive initiative. It would allow those who have descended into ranting insanity to be culled from the ranks of those with influence on our kids.

That was worth repeating.

Excaliber wrote:

Excaliber wrote:I think repealing tenure for college professors would be a more productive initiative. It would allow those who have descended into ranting insanity to be culled from the ranks of those with influence on our kids.

100%!
As jmra said, that was worth repeating.

yikes...

The following was my response:

If the intelligent professor of law in the great state of Texas, a state with excellent pro-gun rights support, knows for a fact that the 2nA would never ever be repealed, so why bother us with her ridiculous opinion?

Anti-gun folks, just give up. The majority of US citizens want to keep their firearms, for self-defense and all other lawful purposes. If you are concerned about the abuse of firearms to commit crimes, such as mass-shooting by deranged people. Why you do not bother yourself with the abuse of vehicles by drunk-drivers? Death by motor vehicles is 3X more than that by firearms. Moreover, if you compare per vehicle and per firearm, the firearms are 9X safer than vehicles.

2nA is here to stay, 300,000,000 firearms are here to stay, 130,000,000 firearms owners are here to stay.

Oh! Professor of law, a simple advise, focus your energy on fighting poverty, strengthening education, fighting street gangs, and stamping out the addiction to hard drugs.

Last but not least, with Obama care spend some good chunk of money for early detection of mentally-unstable young folks.

She said she was shocked that the country has not yet reached a threshold for gun violence

“I think I’m in agreement with you and, unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures,” Penrose said. “. . . 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.”

She could have just come out and said "I think it's time to ban all guns." The time that has really come is for Liberal professors to explain exactly how countries like Norway that have already banned guns continue to have gun related massacres and, more specifically, what the 100,000s of people who protect themselves with a firearm every year are supposed to do when she is through with her banning. But that won't happen. What will happen is that she and her ilk will continue to cherry pick events and use them to justify their fruitcake ideas.

Notably absent at the event was anyone to challenge her misconceptions.

Clayton Cramer was one of the participants in this symposium, and he has a couple posts about it on his blog. Worth reviewing...

He mentions Penrose in this one, noting that she also agreed with overturning Roe vs Wade and Lawrence vs Texas. His conclusion: "It is amazing how much gun control advocates are willing to give up in order to justify restrictive gun control laws: abandoning "free to choose" and gay sex just to ban guns. Oh my!"

He also quoted one politician's presentation: "...claimed that the federal assault weapons ban was beginning to work when Congress let it expire after ten years...". Um, yeah. Sure.

Dave Hardy, a lawyer and 2A activist who writes the blog Of Arms and the Law commented on Clayton Cramer's participation:

...a high point came when Clayton Cramer and others pinned Richard Aborn, former head of Brady Campaign. He had insisted that he and they were never for banning handguns, that was a canard put out by NRA to scare the average gun owner, they were perfectly comfortable with law-abiding people owning handguns (so long as they registered them). Oh, and they did want to ban "assault rifles."

The pin was: how can you be in favor of banning "assault rifles," which are involved in a fraction of one percent of homicides, and not really be in favor of banning handguns, which are involved in about 50% of them? No answer was forthcoming, but only evasion.

Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

jimlongley wrote:Based on the language of the Bill of Rights, repealing any of the amendments does not change the fact that the rights mentioned pre-existed and the BOR's purpose is merely to codify protection of those rights. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS a right, so even if the amendment goes away, the right still exists.

Exactly. It seems that the educated are not so smart. They are just brain dead from drinking the progressive collectivist koolaid.

Anygunanywhere

mojo84 wrote:Excaliber nailed it. I couldn't agree more. Tenure is a very destructive concept.

Tenure ranks right down there with federal judges being appointed for life.

anygunanywhere wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Based on the language of the Bill of Rights, repealing any of the amendments does not change the fact that the rights mentioned pre-existed and the BOR's purpose is merely to codify protection of those rights. SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS a right, so even if the amendment goes away, the right still exists.

Exactly. It seems that the educated are not so smart. They are just brain dead from drinking the progressive collectivist koolaid.

Anygunanywhere

But. Or except.

If there is not a mechanism to enforce respect for a right, and enough people willing to execute the mechanism, then for practical purposes the right effectively ceases to exist. For example, the people in Great Britain have exactly the same right to self-defense and to arms that we do.