This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
After yesterdays tragic shooting in Newtown CT and the worst year ever for firearm related deaths and mass killings , has the time for the US Government to tell the Gun Lobby it is over and repeal or amend "the right of the people to bear arms".
Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and military hardware, which makes it no longer viable on account of relevance to this day and age.
That Militia should be held to Law Enforcement agencies, Military and government controlled Para military agencies, with a show need, clause for people such as certain Primary producers etc.
Is it time to tell the NRA and the Gun Lobby there will be no more "collateral" damage no matter how much you donate to the "Party"
What would be the best way for the government to enforce such a law???
And please no Guns do not kill people, people kill people debates it was people who invented firearms in the first place.
The time has come to realise it is mainly our children who pay the ultimate price for lack of diligence in monitoring a problem that has been there for far too many years.
Closing Statement from Morgan Barnes
Firstly I would like to say I did not flag or delete anyone's comments I am perfectly capable of speaking for myelf however I did get frustrated and had some comments deleted myself.
As I write this President Obama has signed 23 executive orders inline with Colleen's post from yesterday from New York.
I have to admit I am a little disappointed that we could not of just discussed the issue in a more calm, critical and logical manner and be able to offer solutions as well as recognised the underling causes, as this is a forum for open ideas and thinking, Then again we are dealing with human nature.
To those of you from the International community thank you for your imput and allowing people to see the different views helds in different parts of the world on this subject.
I will not deny that the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights are the backbone of America, but remember it was written by man not given by god and man can take it away or amend it, if he really wants too.
I am a believer that in the 21st Century we should use it to advance humankind to address the problems of the world and improve it for all. It won't be easy but we have to start somewhere or we risk implementing our own destruction.
I hope that this be a positive start and and an even more positive step in which the US can show the way.
Once again I thank you all for your contributions
"In a progressive country change in constant : change is inevitable "Benjamen Disraeli
Comment deleted
Aja Bogdanoff 20+
Craig Shamwell
Anyone who says this Cons' Talking Point, needs to do some research and learn who has been responsible for these mass killings over the past 10 years. Its not the "CRIMINALS", its seemingly normal people, who can pass the tests, or who's parents have weapons to execute such acts, or who have a cache of weapons purchased at Gun Shows or online. This point is completely and totally not applicable in this discussion. But so often times a real discussion about the "Phenomenon" we have seen in recent years is Hijacked by Cons' Talking Points generated from TV and Radio. When was the last time a Bank Robber went to a School and Killed a bunch of kids? Sure criminals kill people too, but their intent was to get paid, not to kill just for the sake of killing.
John Frum 30+
pat gilbert 50+
John Frum 30+
timothy schlotter
Aja Bogdanoff 20+
ed car
Aja Bogdanoff 20+
Anthony Hamelle
We should have in mind the peculiar regulatory mix that has come to be with the advent of the digital world, one where Law is not the only Law, where, as Lawrence Lessig brilliantly put it more than 10 years ago, Code is Law. In such a world – and such is the world we now live in – the rights we have as citizens or consumers may be enforced through the blueprints of goods and services. When you download a song with DRM (digital rights management) features, such as one from iTunes, what you can do with it is strictly delimited and at the same time enforced by the technical architecture thereof.
What if every gun and rifle sold in the US (or in the world for that matter) came equipped with DRMs that would limit who could use them, where and when they could be used? Imagine that guns were all connected with an ID database stored in the cloud (easily feasible) where the rights different profiles of users had on different guns were recorded, this could for instance lead to different scenarios - for instance only law enforcement officers could be allowed to “turn on” firearms near or inside schools...
I don’t know if such a gun architecture scheme could be easily implemented; I certainly don’t know if it would be upheld by courts in the face of a 2nd amendment to the US Constitution that was drafted to ensure the Government had some legitimate fear of its sovereign, the citizens, and that its foreign enemies were kept at bay; but I’m thinking this would be worth a try…
Thoughts initially published here: http://www.148.io/2013/01/gun-architecture/
Colleen Steen 500+
We have serial numbers, registration, and interstate tracking systems now, which are not always effectively used. Do you think technology can advance to the level you suggest? Who knows...anything is possible, and perhaps as we evolve as human beings, this too is possible:>)
Anthony Hamelle
Morgan Barnes
As this Debate has run it's course I thank you for participating it has been highly interesting, controversial, emotional. hypothetical, conspiratorial, theoretical and even hypocritical and even shown the worst side of human nature.
We have disagreed, fought, pushed agendas and given each other insights into how each other see the Laws of the Land.
What we failed to do was agree on a course of action to improve things hopefully for the better.
Maybe that will come with time.
Hopefully the new Legislation that was passed in New York will lead the way and be an example for what some of us who live with strict firearms laws already know.
No it will not stop criminals getting their hands on firearms and those who really want them illegally and it will take a long time to see results But changing Legislation for the benefit of the people does not mean there is Tyrannical Government waiting in the wings.
So in closing I leave you with this.
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen"
Winston Churchill
Thank you again
Morgan
Colleen Steen 500+
Although some people on this comment thread do not agree on a course of action to improve things for the better, I DO believe change for the better will come in time. Change is frightening and difficult for some folks, as we've seen expressed in this discussion.
Based on what is happening throughout the USA at this time, with this issue being addressed on many levels, including local, state and federal, I have hope for our future. I do not hear many people in the USA speaking against the need for better gun regulations.
Samurai Jack
Reaction - Feed the fear of gun related crimes
Solution - Restrict the public useage of guns or effecively disarm the public
2nd Ammendmant is surely to protect the people from a potential corrupt government?
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
specs 2
- Like dismissing the ideas of fellow Americans or the democratically elected government of the people as ignorant fools, undeserving of affecting change when they don't agree with your point of view?
3 generations of human rights activism?
- Protecting or rescinding them? Perhaps it's your writing style but some of the comments you wrote on here were extremely offensive on a personal level and indicative of a personal bias that has very little regard for human rights.
That you're a very bright individual is evidenced by causing me to look at my own ideas and reexamine them, but it was hard to do that when the underlying theme of so many of your posts were so offensive, not to mention other posts that were deceptive, misleading or hypocritical..
You might have scored points had you given any indication of deliberate consideration of other's POVs but in continuing to refer to the original poster as a 'he', I suspect you didn't pause a moment to consider any of their assertions, or even your own, and often responded with a single purpose of mind.
Colleen Steen 500+
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=169389350
Morgan Barnes
Mike Colera 10+
Morgan Barnes
Colleen Steen 500+
Morgan Barnes
timothy schlotter
Comment deleted
Morgan Barnes
Marianne Delongi
Bob Shingles 10+
The second amendment is a vital part of the United States; a necessary but understandable evil by those who grew up under brutal dictatorships
timothy schlotter
Morgan Barnes
Morgan Barnes
Oh and the Queens fine thanks just celebrated her 60th Year on the Throne and expecting her first great grand-child
Kris Rosvold
As a former gun owner, US Navy Marksman, and student of the US Constitution, I agree with the words quoted above...just not the direction that you are trying to take that sentiment.
The consideration from the Constitutional point of view is that the FIRST act of every single dictator in history has been to attempt to dis arm the citizens of the nation they are trying to take over.
I've done a lot of research over the years and two very interesting facts stand out:
1) Our gun laws (about purchasing weapons) as they exist today, WORK. The have prevented felons and psychos from being able to buy a weapon. They worked in this case and they have worked with VERY few exceptions in the cases of other school shootings.
2) Virtually every single case of a psycho (yes, I KNOW it's not politically correct but if you shoot up a school or a mall, you are by definition a psycho!) shooting up a school was made possible by some legal gun owner NOT securing their weapons and said weapons were STOLEN by the psycho because they were prevented from buying them.
Here's my suggestion: 1) REQUIRE legal gun owners to SECURE their weapons whenever the weapons are not on their person with a shrouded trigger lock and or gun SAFE (NOT a display cabinet)
2) REQUIRE gun owners to take a use and safety class every 2 (two) years that is at least 40 hours.
3)Require gun owners to have liability insurance.
Every one of these school shootings, IMHO, has been a direct result of legal gun owners displaying gross negligence...
Morgan Barnes
just as an example??
Craig Shamwell
Craig Shamwell
Gary Taylor
I appreciate the potrait you have painted of decadence and salvation, but I can not help but wonder with a statement like "arms in circulation are the crux of a civil war", who is really paranoid?
West Lake
Gary Taylor
Mike Colera 10+
West Lake
Colleen Steen 500+
There is considerable fear of the concept of armed citizens by those of us who are familiar with firearms as well. I have no problem whatsoever with people who are responsible with a weapon. A frightened person with a gun, however, is a frightened person with a gun. Those who have spoken on this thread in favor of all citizens being allowed to hoard all kinds of guns in the event of the US government turning on the people, is a fear based concept, so I am more frightened of those folks than I am of all the people I know who own and use guns responsibly.
You say..."Please allow me to provide some unemotional information", and you mention your "worst fear". Do you honestly think that is not emotion?
I respect your ability to own and use a firearm safely, just as I resapect all those who do the same. I am in favor of removing assault weapons from our communities, and many of my friends and family who own and use guns responsibly share this perspective.
Craig Shamwell
timothy schlotter
Craig Shamwell
timothy schlotter
Morgan Barnes
That to me no offence smacks of fear
timothy schlotter
Morgan Barnes
here has to be a detachment or as some have done you take your service pistol and blow the back of your head off or sink into the bottom of bottle.
Oh and Tim no cop worth their mettle ever wants to have to pull a pistol or have to shoot someone unfortunately some leave us with no choice and there is a trend that is becoming even more scary and another situation no Law enforcement Officer ever wants to be put in it called Suicide by Cop.
Be glad it is not you dealing with it.
If you regulate what is available it will cut the incidents down thats fact, it wont be easy, and theres a lot of guns out there both in legal and illegal hands. But if you make it harder to obtain it makes it safer for everyone. You, your business, your family and even us.
But Tim America is not Disneyland, Mum Apple Pie and white picket fences are no longer as obtainable as they use to be.
Killing each other is not the answer and truthfully a change has to made or there will be no one left.
We have to start somewhere so lets start where there can be a visable difference.
You see you ,like Marrianne ,can quote all the statistics you like but the average Joe Blow doesn't care about that. Those things are for academics, and Government types, they are never correct, and as soon as they are corrolated they are out of date and they are missing valuable pieces of information plus it is easy for people to pick what they want to push an agenda which has been well demonstrated in this debate.
Joe Blow watches TV and it is what he sees infront of him that he reacts to not a load of numbers on a sheet of paper. You mentioned you were in the military do you remember this
"The Shot that kills you is the shot you never hear"
Respectfully
Morgan
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Lee-Anna Johnston
It sounds like you are a responsible adult so I have no problem with you having a gun, BUT, the fact that your children also know how to use these weapons makes me exceptionally nervous. I am a Psychologist and I can tell you that children may appear responsible, however they are also prone to impulsiveness, especially emotional impulsiveness, which is why we see so many suicides by young people because they get so distressed at a breakup or being bullied that they will take a gun and shoot themselves in the head, even though they have no background of psyc problems (I work in the field of suicide prevention and postvention, so beleive me, even the most level headed child can do the most appaling act). When we look at the people that have perpetrated these mass killings, more often than not they are young people, who can become highly emotional and impulsive. I am sure your kids are great. But how do we know that the mother of the Newtown massacre didn't feel the same about her son? This is just my view and you are welcome to disagree, but I strongly beleive children should be kept well away from guns until they are legal adults.
Gary Taylor
Lee-Anna Johnston
I use the term legal adult as the age in which by law, people are classed as adults, which in most countries is 18, and we can no longer prevent them from making their own decisions on things like buying weapons, having sex, getting married etc, because it is their right under this very constition we are debating. Ultimately there is no test for 'responsible adult' and there are some people in this world who will never be responsible or mature enough to handle a weapon. Unfortunately they are the ones most likely to take lives, which is why we should at least try and determine someone's maturity and responsibility, and emotional stability. Otherwise, chaos.
Nicholas Northardt
Craig Shamwell
Nicholas Northardt
Ken brown 30+
Morgan Barnes
Your life would almost end up like someone in witness protection far away from all you know in a town and state maybe even a country that's foreign. Maybe having to change your name so people can not stalk or hunt you down.
Imagine what the hate mail is like or your twitter account going off every 2 seconds or your facebook page defaced??? What about the stigma the surviving siblings must go through at school they would have to pulled out.
Maybe even people driving past and shooting at the house or the family pet because they blame you for not doing anything.
Whatever no-one wins and there is no dignity in death even less in a violent one.
Ken brown 30+
Lee-Anna Johnston
I am from New Zealand a country that has extremely strict regulations around owning weapons (not a country that bans weapons or prevents decent, sane, non-criminal people from having them), and given that I work within the police/Ministry of Justice field, I have a much better understanding of how many murders occur and how they were killed, so I feel that I am in a position to say that guns are more likely to kill than knives or bare hands because of their lethal nature. The damage to human tissue is extreme. The wounds from a gun shot are also a lot more serious and as someone else mentioned in this discussion, lets not forget the survivors who have been shot and left extremely disabled.
I am not telling people they should not own guns, I am saying that the reality is, that in countries where there are a lot more regulations, guns are less likely to be in the wrong hands. Hands of people who go on killing sprees. If you are law-abiding, have had pyschological testing that shows a respect for life, do not have a history of violence and you and your family have been interviewed to establish that nobody in your life is afraid of the idea of you owning a weapon, and you can prove that this weapon will be locked up securely when not in use and under no circumstances will any children in the household have access to the weapon/s or the codes/lock to get into the weapons, then by all means, get yourself a gun!!! The problem is that in all of your states, there are no set or strict regulations. Some states require criminal checks. some states require nothing. For me the argument is about "Regulation." Is that so unreasonable?? Does this infringe on your rights?
John Frum 30+
Ken brown 30+
John Frum 30+
Just in case someone brings it up... I don't think blind people should be allowed to own/use guns either.
Ken brown 30+
Then something happens and the call goes out for all people by the people to be evaluated.
You were joking weren't you?
John Frum 30+
I do see how kids in the US get branded as something they are not, just because the school can make claims for extra funding for each "challenged" kid they host.
However, a few of my friends are psychologists. Not in the US. I have been told detailed stories of all kinds of strange cases. I also have two friends with bipolar disorder. A relative of another friend thinks that all his neighbors are plotting (some bizarre plot) against him.
The question remains: how likely is a person to endanger other people out of sheer recklessness. Some mental disorders (or physical ones, like blindness) render a person with a gun a risk to bystanders. Adam Lanza was one such person -- though all the diagnoses that he was bestowed turned out to be incorrect.
Lee-Anna Johnston
What I mean by family being asked is essentially your close loved ones, people you share a home with. The may even be a room mate. My experience of the process of getting a gun licence was when my flatmate just wanted to renew his, as he grew up on a farm and enjoyed hunting. Because I lived with him and would essentially be living in the same house where there was a gun, a policeman came over to interview me and asked me a lot of questions around how I felt about knowing there was a gun in the house, how I felt about my flatmate having a gun, whether I had any concerns etc, whether I was every afraid of him or if he showed any violent tendencies, so they really made sure that everyone in the house was ok with him having a gun. We were, as he was a lovely guy with a very gently nature. I had no problem with him having a gun because I was completely comfortable and safe with him.
Ken brown 30+
Isn't there laws that require you to be a vetted gun owner to purchase online guns?
Colleen Steen 500+
As far as I know, there are no regulations or requirements for purchasing guns on line or at gun shows. In fact, I just heard a varification for this information on the news.
Ken brown 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
Gary Taylor
Ken brown 30+
West Lake
Colleen Steen 500+
You sound like an intelligent person, so you probably know about the "gun show loophole", which extends to the internet, backalley and anywhere private buyers and sellers do business. It is estimated that 40% of gun sales take place in an unregulated private market that enables anyone with cash to secure any kind of weapons.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/better-background-checks-are-first-step-to-saner-gun-laws.html
Hope the facts help focus the discussion.
Savvas Lithopoulos
The 2nd amendment made sense when the US did not have a large standing army in the 18th century, but that is no longer the case.
Mike Colera 10+
I would question your explanation.
It's not about the shortage of liberties, it's about the most.
Further, the" sense" of the constitution is not about standing armies.
Gary Taylor
Having a cowardly mentality, extremist paranoia, wanna-be Rambo, uncivilized, primitive thinkers, cowboy and indian mentalities, wild west mentality, lack of care for children, stubborn and gun-crazy, selfish, zealots .... we have a complete disregard for life, we have been duped (= we are impressionable and silly) ... so much for a respectful conversation.
Oh yes, I forgot my favorite, Angry Blind People.
John Frum 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
With all due respect, we also know what YOU have called people on this comment thread, so how about we not accuse others....those who live in glass houses should not throw stones?
Gary Taylor
Funny thing is in a way I am on both sides of the debate. The freedom of choice for each individual creates a better quality of life for everyone. The more people believe they're opinion is what everyone should adhere to, the worse off all Americans will be.
Colleen Steen 500+
I am not responsible for respect or disrespect coming from any individuals....not responsible for letting "disrespect slide".
Gary Taylor
Colleen Steen 500+
Majority rules, and I think that is what a democracy is all about:>)
Gary Taylor
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Colleen Steen 500+
I don't know what you think democracy means....here's the definition:>)
" a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
This question... "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"...is being discussed throughout our country, on local, state and national levels. I have confidence that the outcome will respesent the wishes of the majority.
Morgan Barnes
If it stayed up it would of looked like a recruitment ad for the KKK or ANP it is a shame that pro-gun and some of it's loudest defenders are hate groups. That in itself should be worrying that those groups also have a say.
John Frum 30+
Morgan Barnes
I know both sides have slagged each other off quite significantly and I have copped a decent share of it so no argument there :-)
Craig Shamwell
Gary Taylor
A person's choice should not be taken away because you or anybody else feels that children will be safer by enacting a useless ban. You do not know what is best for the entire country. Your opinion does not matter more than mine or anyone else. Your opinion shall not be used to pass judgement on people you have no knowledge of.
No one is making a decision to sacrifice a child in order to own a certain type of gun. That guilt trip will not work. There is no truth in it.
I have not attacked anyone, Craig. I was just pointing out what people assume to know about other people.
Craig Shamwell
Gary Taylor
Craig Shamwell
Mike Colera 10+
Now we have all this discussion, because a deranged minor, committed matricide, took a legitimately obtained replica rifle, went to a local school and murdered 26 innocents before taking his own life. Right away it was the assault rifle. Like if the were no assault rifles, this never would have happened. Myself, I am waiting for the autopsy reports to see if drugs were involved.
Like the local TEA party guy said "All we need for a perfect life is for the government to take more taxes and cut more liberties and life would be perfect..." I think he was being sarcastic... too!
Colleen Steen 500+
You say..."a deranged minor....took a legitimately obtained replica rifle...murdered 26 innocents...right away it was the assault rifle".
In my humble perception, the assault rifle was not the only cause of the deaths. However, if the assault rifle had not been available so easily, the outcome would cerrtainly NOT have been the same.
Mike Colera 10+
Yes, as I remember, by time the 6:00 PM news came on, there was the call for the restriction of the assault rifles by many politicians, too many to list here. I would challenge your conclusion that " the outcome would certainly NOT have been the same"incicent How could you be so sure? The only thing I am that sure about is death and taxes .... att. Will Rogers. I do believe all through this comment stream the discussion has been about the 2nd amendment abolition or modification about specific weapons, etc. the motivation seems to revolve around the Connecticut incident. Why I am so critical about all those comments including some that you have made is because... where is all this concern about the rest of violence around the country. Last year over 20 grade school children were victims of homicide in LA. Last year in Chicago, 25% of homicide victims were minors. No big news there. No debate on national TV, the President didn't set up a commission. Why is that?
The death of these children are not as .... as the deaths in Newton? So, I ask everyone who agrees with the terms of this string, would any changes made to the 2nd effect these deaths in our cities?
Colleen Steen 500+
You ask...How could I be so sure the outcome would have been different?
If THOSE weapons had not been available, the shooter COULD NOT have used THOSE weapons to kill 26 people.
My motivation DOES NOT "revolve around the Connecticut incident" Mike. I have been an advocate of a ban on assault weapons for years.
I also have been guest lecturing on the topic of violence and abuse in relationships for years, co-facilitating cognitive self change with incarcerated men, volunteering in shelters and family center with abused women and children, etc. etc. If you want to be critical about my comments....so be it. I AM CONCERNED about violence, and I have been participating in many programs for years to help curb violence in all aspects of our society. That is NOT what this comment thread is about.
The topic is:
"Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"
I have been addressing the topic question. And I have continually stated that the 2nd amendment could be "revisited". I support a ban on assault weapons, and I have supported that for years. The 2nd amendment was not repealed or amended the last time we had a ban on assault weapons, to the best of my recollection, and it probably would not have to be repealed or amended for a ban on assault weapons at this time, nor would it have to be repealed or amended for more regulations, because the constitution allows for "regulation".
Any more questions?
Gary Taylor
Mike Colera 10+
I am confused. It may be my age.
Are you saying that if there was no "assault rifles", there would have been no attack at Newton?
Or that the carnage would have been inflicted with another weapon. If it is the former, it was reported that he had other weapon on his person. If the latter, we are way too tight in semantics.
I can admire your dedication in the curbing of violence in society. I am a strict constitutionalists.
I believe the right for you to swing your fist stops at the beginning of my nose. There is no right to violence in the constitution. I am of the opinion that violators of rights do not receive the punishment
deserved. We can discuss capital punishment in another venue.
What even vexes me more, is your focus on assault rifles. the term refers to 4 characteristics of a weapon that does not address caliber, ballistics, range or any function that makes it a weapon.
I have seen an assault rifle that shoots ping pong balls.
The only assumption I can make is the Newton shooting. Am I wrong? You stated you have supported a ban for years. You say you are following this thread, OK, but there are many variety of guns used in violent crimes... why assault rifles? The Newton tragedy?
Colleen Steen 500+
Sorry you feel confused. I believe I have been very clear with my comments.
I am not, in any way swinging my fist at your nose my friend. We are having a discussion, and if we do not agree, it is ok.
I am sorry a focus on assault rifles "vexes" you, and that must feel terrible, since there is a focus on assault weapons on local, state and national levels throughout our country. I don't know what to tell you that might help relieve your vexation.