Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Texas A&M Law Professor

(sorry if this is a re-post)

I've met some great folks from Texas.......Rio7, Kaywoodie&Family, Curdog4750, Birdwatcher and others that I'm not remembering at this time. These folks have to be shaking their heads when someone in their great state hits the news with something like this;

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/11...he-second-amendment/#Rjyx39glXZCXDpTs.99

All I can ask is; "WTH is up with Texas A&M having a law professor spouting this kind of rhetoric!??" .

There are gay liberal college professors in every state. Look at her resume. She stands for everything I don't. I'm betting she is a die-hard "O" voter.

Ed

We end up hauling high school kids to A&M at least a couple of times a year for competitions and whatnot, sometimes I pull that duty. I have a t-shirt I bought on the A&M campus maybe ten years back, one of them by-now faded and worn things, it says "Whoopstock" and shows the outline of the head and shoulders of a concert crowd, arms in the air.

For those who do not know "Whoop" is like the Aggie version of the rebel yell.

I bought it on account of I thought the pun was funny, the price was right, and it is of good heavy cotton construction.

I came to find out some time later it was for a homosexual celebration on campus, a "diversity festival" (heck, no one around here knows what it is so I'll still wear it while doing chores occasionally).

Right across from campus on the main drag in the Northgate area are two student bars; the Dixie Chicken and Duddley's Draw. The 'Chicken was and still is a C&W themed place, Dud's was just the best sort of college bar; an eclectic crowd with the added plus of about twenty motorcycles out front most nights. Students, grad students, professors, bikers, townies, peple from all over the world. The heavy wooden benches and railings out front on the porch were classics; completely carved and gouged with peoples' names and dates. It was a great place to hang out.

Now it turns out that Duds has "Gay nights" (Wednesdays??) and last time I was there the benches had recently been replaced. One was still untouched except for a big heart outline, carved as large as possible, with two overlapping female symbols inside; some lesbians had marked their territory. The bar got rid of the motorcycle parking out front too.

Times and places change, but not always for the better

Really, considering Texas A&M as a whole, I dunno if there's any significant difference between them and Austin.

Birdwatcher

Such news is grevious. But I've been seeing A&M slump for more than 30 years. It is not what it was.

There is no state safe from the influx of socialists and liberals in this country - Texas is no different. They've taken over the educational system and the government, slowly indoctrinating the young into their corrupt ideas. We have to be vocal and challenge them every time they speak - or your state will turn "blue" too.

On a bright note, she isn't arguing the nature of the 2nd amendment, i.e. it must be everything I/we say it is, if this wingnut thinks it needs to be repealed.

I'd use her liberal-ass dumbphuckitude against other liberals.

Those those of you bemoaning the downfall of Texas A&M over this, read the last sentence in the article:



She was not hired by A&M.

Thanks for catching and noting that she came with the 'soiled laundry' of the recent purchase.....time to do the laundry. Of course in the world of academia she's probably gained 'tenured' status and will be there till retirement.

Her thought process just proves college professors don't need to be intelligent nor possess common sense. Just another idiot blaming an inanimate object instead of the human being perpetrating the offense.

Methinks her career outlook did not improve when the administration was taken over by A&M.....

While there are always liberals on every college campus, and some are lib havens, Texas A&M simply isn't one of them. A&M is consistently ranked as one of the most conservative universities in the US. I've seen polls ranking it as high as #1 most conservative, but always in the top 50 most conservative. This "ranking" obviously involves some subjectivity, and anytime you have a student body numbering in the tens of thousands, there will obviously be some of all kinds of people represented. Nevertheless, student body polls provide a pretty good snapshot of the political leanings of the campus. Taken as a whole Texas A&M is far from a "liberal" university, unlike the left-leaning University of Texas in Austin.

https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/most-conservative-colleges/

http://poetsandquantsforundergrads.com/2014/07/24/universities-with-the-most-conservative-students/

As an A&M alum, the father of a kid who just got accepted to A&M, and someone who lives 45 miles from the main campus in College Station, I assure you without hesitation that this woman's views are in the TINY minority there.

Frick, I'm fine with what she said. And what she said was breathtakingly simple yet seemingly difficult for some of you to understand. LET THE STATES DECIDE.

If you don't like what your state decides, move to one you like. If Taxeschussets wants to outlaw everything but BB guns, fine. But if Texas wants to allow everything short of tactical nukes, that is fine too. Freedom wins.

Do it that way and maybe the damned puritanical Yankees will stop trying to take away my guns or tell me that I have to give two queers maternity leave.

This board is schizophrenic. Many of you constantly bemoan the idea that the country as a whole is lost to those who think mostly like as that demographics are against us, yet you refuse to consider any options that might free us from the country as a whole or allow us to counter the inevitable swing of demographics.

While I agree as it applies to many things, your argument is irrelevant when it pertains to rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. States rights don't trump the Bill of Rights guaranteed to every American citizen, regardless of where they live. Period.

The Bill of Rights does not guarantee any rights. It simply says what the Federal government cannot do. Period. That is all it was intended to do. Only after the War of Northern Aggression did the damned Yankees pass and begin using the 14th Amendment to try and tell the states what they can and can't do.

And with that, you get all kinds of pernicious laws and regulations restricting the behavior of free men.

Wrong. While the Constitution was indeed designed to limit Federal power, the Bill of Rights were included specifically to guarantee personal freedoms in order to address the concerns of Anti-Federalists, who originally opposed signing the Constitution. As this particular discussion applies to the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd is an ENUMERATED right, meaning it is specifically mentioned as something that all Americans are guaranteed and "shall not be infringed," and thus are not subject to nullification by individual states.

McDonald vs. Chicago reaffirmed that the 2nd Amendment also applies to the states per SCOTUS.

I'm all for states rights, but states cannot legally make laws that violate basic enumerated freedoms.

Wrong, the illegally passed and unconstitutional 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

Ok, we can argue the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment ad nauseum, but it's meaningless to this topic, which is this law professor advocating for the total repeal of the 2nd Amendment. If that were somehow enacted, it wouldn't then be a victory for "states' rights" per her convoluted logic, it would invite the first left-leaning administration in power immediately thereafter to enact very severe Federal restrictions or complete prohibition of firearms ownership. While I agree that the events surrounding the "passing" of the 14th are controversial, and a strong case can be made for it's unconstitutionality based on that, the meaning of the 14th has been greatly distorted. Its sole purpose was to give Congress the power to enforce the Civil Rights Act. It was never meant to give the
federal gov't any usurping power over states' rights, EXCEPT to the extent it did extend the due process clause contained in the 5th Amendment to the state level. While you're correct that the BOR wasn't originally intended to bind the states, it was intended to reaffirm the basic rights citizens of the United States were supposed to enjoy. The 2nd (which is the topic here) was always considered one of the "natural laws" --the right to life and the right to defend life -- that the Framers universally agreed all free men had without question, and all states reiterated these natural laws within their state laws. Therefore, all states agreed to uphold the basic freedoms in the BOR even if the Constitution didn't enjoin them to do so.

Fast forward to 2010, where the SC declared that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states in McDonald vs. Chicago. Whether or not the legal justification behind the court's ruling was constitutionally flawed, the unavoidable fact is, if it had gone the other way, a precedent would have been set for other states to follow illinois and further restrict the 2nd Amendment. And they would have. Like it or not, major legislation involving "rights" is seldom ever handled by the states anymore, so given that, I'm very glad that at least SCOTUS ruled on the side of more individual freedom in McDonald vs. Chicago.

As for your assertion that the 14th was a tool for the federal gov't to "try and tell the states what they can and can't do" and that it "applied the Bill of Rights to the States," read this:

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2...t-really-incorporate-the-bill-of-rights/

Call me hypocritical or a heretic, but I'm a pretty big fan of the concept of neither the fed gov't or the state being allowed to deprive me of life, liberty, or property without due process, in principle if not in practice.

And you expect the federal government to use coercive tools to do that? You expect the federal government to protect you from the federal government?

No, not at all. I expect to have legal protections in place so that there is some legal basis for my attorney to use to hopefully defend my rights in the event they're trampled by either the state or the fed gov't. Notice I said "in principle, if not in practice." I'm in no way under the delusion that the gov't will honor the Constitution or respect my rights when doing so conflicts with its agenda, as this current administration demonstrates.

Do you just like arguing?

Back to the topic... this law professor is just a typical lib that exist on all college campuses, and Texas A&M is about as conservative as universities can possibly get.

Hell, on Sept 28 & 29, A&M held "The Texas Shootout" archery tournament...ON CAMPUS PROPERTY. That would have never happened at someplace like UC Berkley. They'd be hosting a gay pride parade instead.

From the article:
Well, of COURSE the legislation hasn't been successful. Every gun law passed so far has been aimed at disarming the honest citizen, not preventing crime.