TED Conversations

Morgan Barnes

Law Enforcement Officer, government agency

This conversation is closed.

Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 21 2012: Personally I believe a governments priority should be the safety and comfort of the citizens. Not their sports and entertainments.

    So limit the ownership and thus use of assault weapons, unless one is paid to use them. To see that as an infringement on one's freedom is selfish.

    Otherwise I may just have to get a tank to drive around. Come to think.. no more line-ups.
    • Dec 22 2012: Some people think of statist viewpoints as progressive; many of us think of them as regressive (and repressive). Progressives believe that the "comfort of the citizens" should be a governmental priority. Comfort is subjective, and as such can only be dealt with by the individual. A statist is comfortable living within a controlled environment as long as the zookeeper continues to toss the food and give fresh water. An individualist doesn't want to be "kept".

      As far as the "safety" goes, some of us believe, as the founders did, in personal responsibility. Also, that the protection of it's citizenry should be broken down amongst its inhabitants: The military exists to protect the country from the world outside its borders, federal police agencies exist to deal with law enforcement on a national basis, state police exist to protect their namesake, county and local police likewise, and should conflict drill itself all the way down to my property, and should I not have the time to call on my local police, I'll protect it myself. With my guns, if need be.

      Furthermore, independent people don't depend on the government for their "sports and entertainments"; they can do that themselves and don't want the government interfering in that, either. For those of you who seem to think that the government exists to dole out "freedoms" as they see fit, who feel the need to have Big Daddy Government control your lives, you're free to lament the rest of us who wish to live in The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Do you really think that a nation that was founded on the principles of individual liberty and responsibility is going to change to meet your idealistic statist views because of your wish to be guaranteed "comfort" from cradle to grave? I hope not.
      • Dec 22 2012: Right, let's get back to the way it was in the pioneer days and call it progress.
        "and should I not have the time to call on my local police, I'll protect it myself. With my guns, if need be."
        After your wife and kids have been shot by an idiot that had no trouble getting an assoult rifle.

        In those early days individual protection was, indeed, needed. Now it is just an excuse to go excessive in all we do (and want).

        Assault rifles do not make us more human, they allow the animal to come out.

        A Merry Christmas to all!!
        • Dec 22 2012: I am fascinated by your viewpoint on this issue, so a question, if you wouldn't mind answering: Do you think the cause of this tragedy at Sandy Hook was because this mentally ill man had access to guns, or was the cause the illness itself?

          Also, what do you mean by "...get back to the way it was in the pioneer days..."? The scenario of divided security is in effect today.
    • thumb
      Dec 22 2012: the only reason you're not driving a tank around is because it is illegal?
      • Dec 22 2012: If it is than, at some point, there were people that had some sense..
    • greg y

      • 0
      Dec 23 2012: Assault weapons are not the problem, Adam could have killed those people with revolvers simple enough. Adam was the problem and his ability to obtain access to guns (any) that should have been locked in a safe. Ban assault rifles, ban high capacity magazines and the next Adam will use what ever weapon is available, be it a gun, propane tank, chemicals or fertilizer.

      I don't think the "state" is always around to assist in protecting my safety either. If an intruder broke into my house I could dial 911, but I don't know how long it would take for help to arrive. With budget cuts and too many people not wanting to pay taxes, there are not that many deputies on call and I don't live in the city. Many people live in rural areas where a response could be 30 to 60 minutes.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.