Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Professor Says Second Amendment Should Be Repealed

Second AmendmentTexas A&M University School of Law professor Mary Margaret Penrose is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, saying she feels the right to bear arms, as written, is largely misunderstood.

Penrose made her Second Amendment comments not at Texas A&M but at a panel discussion at the University of Connecticut. Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy, who signed a major gun control law this year, delivered the opening remarks at the gun control symposium organized by the Connecticut Law Review.

Penrose said:

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.

Of course, many supporters of the Second Amendment also are strident supporters of states’ rights, but they and the professor likely have different mindsets.

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. Repealing and replacing the Second Amendment qualified as an “unfortunate” yet necessary drastic response in the professor’s mind.

How to hide your guns, and other off grid caches…

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 law students that both the Bill of Rights and Constitution are “obsolete.”

Penrose also said:

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 gun rights supporter say.

Penrose actually supports re-writing the entire Constitution, according to KDAF.

She told the Houston Chronicle:

My proposal says that Texas is in the best position to decide for Texans what gun rights should be, presupposing that guns are a right. Whether you can take an automatic weapon hunting or not is (a decision) better made at the state level than by the (U.S.) Supreme Court justices.

The problem with her argument, say gun rights groups, is it would allow gun ownership in more liberal states to be prohibited – the opposite of what the Founding Fathers supported.

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.

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

© Copyright Off The Grid News


  1. No Socialist bitch should be teaching her excrement anywhere!

    • So first of all, many different things go into the amendments of the constitution. Traditionally, the original bill of rights did not apply to the states, it applied to congress, an example of this is even in the first amendment stating, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” the bill of rights doesn’t enumerate you rights. It prevents congressional restriction of those rights. So technically, the bill of rights doesn’t have enumerated rights, thus it is founded upon the base of rights that are implied to you. But since those rights you argue for aren’t directly expressed to you, you don’t legally have them.
      The fourteenth amendment through incorporation gives the application of the bill of rights to the states. However, if I was an owner of a company, I can legally infringe on your implied rights due to the fact that the fourteenth amendment applies the bill of rights to the states but not private corporations. Unless it is a state affiliated organization, I would not be violating any legal statutes.
      Many people don’t know that congress has the elastic clause enumerated to them in the constitution, so if they pass legislation that some people don’t like, congress can pass it based on the ground of it being necessary and proper and they wouldn’t be in violation of the constitution due to this clause being enumerated to them in the constitution. It appears many of you have a great many things to learn about the governments workings.

  2. I’ll be looking for the next article, which will focus on how Cheesy proposes repealing the First Amendment.

    • As abhorrent as Cheesy’s speech is, it is protected by the very one you speak of, the 1st. For the record I do not believe in what the professor is saying. I strongly support the bill of rights as they are written.

    • Although Cheesy’s comment is the emotionally correct response to this, um…Teacher, I have to say that Doug G hits the nail on the head. If we as conservatives start trying to dictate the free exchange of ideas, even bad ones, we might as well put on Woodrow Wilson T-shirts and join the progressives. Tyranny is Tyranny, no matter which side is inflicting it. A conservative oligarchy is as dangerous as a “Liberal” one.

      This does point out, however, how critical it is to send our kids into the world armed against destructive ideas. I have often seen Ephesians 6 misused to promote physical armament, but equipping your kids with the right ideas, knowledge, morals, and integrity, with a healthy dose of faith, is the true Full Armor of God.

  3. So what is to prevent the government from taking away the rest of the bill of rights? You don’t need freedom of speech. The government already established atheism as it religion. Gather a group of people without a permit.. yep, that right is gone. I guess the national guard replaced the militia. Right to keep and bare arms, gone, as per her. She can house the UN troops and feed them at her expense. NSA has made sure the 4th is a thing of the past. 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th, HA! We’ll just stick you in Gitmo and tell you when we are good and ready to give you a trial. 9th, see the 4th. Finally, the 10th… The President, Congress and the Senate will just write themselves a cart blanc law, taking power over everything, you can’t squat without asking mother may I.

    If one goes, then all of them must be taken away.

  4. There would be no states rights of any kind, including the right within some to own guns if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed. She knows this and is intentionally trying to mislead people.

    As for her statement: “Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th century concerns?”
    I’ll tell you why. Because it was a brilliantly conceived document that is as relevant to day as it was when adopted. It contains in Article 5 the means to make changes to the Constitution via Amendments. There is NO need to call a Constitutional convention as some are trying to do to rewrite the entire document, a move that would no doubt be totally destructive to the freedoms and sovereignty protected in our Founding Document as it stands now.

  5. Its funny that she will hide behind the 1st amendment while speaking against the 2nd.

    Texas of all places…….

  6. In Texas the only places we have these type of people are in the metropolitan areas. The rest of us just wait for them to do more than talk. We buy ammo and wait.

  7. “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.”

    If she believes this why does she still live in Texas? Go to Mass. where they randomly search houses without a warrant to make sure there are no guns in the open.

    The fact is she doesn’t want the states to decide for themselves.

  8. Freedom of speech allows her to push her swill in Texas, the 2nd amendment allows the people to protect themselves from those who would try to enforce her swill. Run the bitch out of town, better yet tar and feather her. That’s what they used to do in the old days.The constitution still means as much today as it did in the past, perhaps even more!

  9. I’ll carry a concealed hammer.

  10. I think this so called professer should go back to school and learn what it means to be an amercian.
    She sounds like she failed history class and has no regard for the vets in this country that fought and died for her freedom and to say what she said about our bill of rights and the constiuition.

    It is sad that we have people in our country today that feels like Mary Margaret Penrose does. Maybe all
    these people should live in Iran for a while to get a grasp of what freedom is. She should not be a law
    professer She should be a student.
    Jeff Barncord , United States Army

  11. I am truly amazed at a phenomenon I have observed,,, I actually obtained a Doctorate degree and have the equivalent of a PhD in war, I also taught at one of the service academies. We hired civilian professors… who don’t believe in war!?!

    I watched them in amazement, through panels and discussions with the soon to be “officers” they were training, and I began to see, that there is a point from which the education diverges from the “sense” a person has,,,,

    In other words, there are people like this woman,,, and there are a LOT of them,,, who are educated way beyond their ability to reason.”

    The world is a hard place,,, wars and rumors of wars until the end of time….. I began to believe that these “Uber-educated” idiots had the strange idea that THEY and THEIR Super-duper intelligence and total creamy liberalism/groovieness were actually responsible for the relative peace that we have enjoyed here on the American continent!!

    Like Joe biden said when he entered the fray as the VP,,, “Don’t worry, the Neanderthals are gone, the good guys are here!”

    They believe in their heart of hearts that they are responsible for good in the world,,, my impression from actually going to the wars they start, is that the American leftist is why the world hates us. For instsance in Afghanistan, Bush executed the war correctly, then the politicians took control and it stalled, then Obama took control and we lost,,, then the people who trusted us, will be murdered and the country will regress,,, the Taliban is reborn!! Whether you LOVE and Adore Obama and his peace prize, the man has us in action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Egypt and 3 countries in Africa.

    That is the Intelligence Factor of a liberal,,, “Because we mean well, and are really really smarter than you, then even if we save or create 3 times the wars of GW Bush,,, it is ok, because WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING, and we ARE the GOOD GUYS!!!!””

    However if you are out there fighting them you don’t feel as though you have been killed fairer or nicer, if you help them their betrayal stings even worse,,,,

    But do NOT kid yourself, these people WILL fight,,,, war is coming to this country,,, I just hope I get to meet the “First Connecticut Professors Brigade” on the field.
    The Col

  12. The Constitution is not the inherent word of God – it was written by 18th century patriots, politicians and war veterans. You’ll be hard-pressed to find another westernized democracy that has held on to a constitution for 200+ years. Most nations adapt their constitution as the times require, much like the individual states have done. Personally, I enjoy and feel secure in having an overarching federal constitution that is more or less unchanging; however, it is important to remember this is not the only functional method of government in a freedom-oriented society.

    Now, while I don’t wholly subscribe to the ideas of Prof. Penrose, if you actually listen to her lecture you will hear that she is essentially advocating for a state-solution model, which is the argument at the heart of most conservative federalism mantras, and something most readers of this site would probably subscribe to. The essence of her idea: allow an interpretation or revision of the Constitution that gives as many rights as possible to the states to decide their own legislation. You can’t deny the social pressure and temperature for gun control legislation is very different in Connecticut than it is in Texas. That’s the beauty of the state-solution model. What’s that Hawaii? You want gay marriage and heightened firearm restrictions? Cool. But I’m going to stay here in Texas with guns and traditional marriage restrictions.

    Unfortunately, people hear “2nd amendment rights” and their defenses automatically shoot up so high that many times they can’t listen with rational thought and consideration. I encourage you to actually listen to her lecture, with at least a desire to be educated on various opinions regarding the right to bear arms and other Constitutional issues.

    • I did listen to her, and still disagree, what I see is an attempt to control states on a smaller scale and then from the federal level to all states,,, incrementalism,,,, I prefer to stop socialists, communists, and enemies of the constitution at the gates,

      One reason for our success, that you seem to ignore, is that the constitution has changed very little, and is extremely difficult to change…. that is good, or we get into a pattern of reactive leadership,,, and that, if you have never experienced is destructive.

      No,,, her ideas have ZERO merit

      the Col

  13. This Law Professor is so ignorant when it comes to the Law. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. NONE of the first 10 Amendments can be repealed in any way shape or form. It is not open for discussion. The founding fathers were smart in doing this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *