TED Conversations

Morgan Barnes

Law Enforcement Officer, government agency

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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

+25
Share:

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.

  • thumb

    Morgan Barnes

    • +1
    Dec 20 2012: Yep I know what it says David I also asked if should be repealed or AMENDED , as it was written in 1793 , which was different era and written for a completely different set circumstances some how I do not think you are going to get a load of English troop in red coats and flintlocks trying knock down your door.

    Would you agree that it needs to address the issues of the 21 century
    • thumb

      Marianne Delongi

      • 0
      Dec 20 2012: The purpose of OUR 2nd Amendment is completely relevant today as OUR local law enforcement continues to arm itself to the teeth daily with military ordinance and vehicles supplied by our Federal government.
      The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the playing field even against government tyranny as well as other domestic threats.
      Do you have any empirical evidence that the threat of armed government tyranny has completely abated in the US? Because we have recently had massive changes in our laws that have significantly diminished our rights to legal redress. Just because they don't wear red coats when they come through your door, when they puncture a front door with their new "urban warfare" toys, doesn't mean the nature of government tyranny has changed.
      The constant fear mongering and the note you have played up here: that we can legislate more safety by giving up more rights, comes from an well worn playbook.
      • thumb

        Morgan Barnes

        • 0
        Dec 21 2012: Remember yours is not the only country who's laws have had massive changes that diminished peoples "rights" the world changed when the Planes went into the towers that effected everyone not just the US. What about the fear mongering that went on then.

        Fear perceived or real motivates people to react first and think later and has always been used as tool by Govts. and organisations.

        Could we not use this tragedy in CT as starting platform to reduce the fear??????
        • thumb

          Marianne Delongi

          • 0
          Dec 21 2012: Well, let 's see how it's played out. First the public are convinced that they need to fear all Middle Easterners and that they present a real and present danger, then they agree to allow their local police agencies to receive military armaments from Federal agencies to make them feel secure about the perception that some Middle Easterners among them are on the verge of rioting? they allow police road blocks, TSA invasions and anything else in their need to shed this fear that has been magnified by the powers that be, media & government.
          The thing I can't ignore, is that they government did actually move military style vehicles and ordinance into our small rural community. We have zero evidence that any of us are embarking on any civil disorder...so we have to open up that conversation first, and find out what our local men in blue are scared of. We have had a list, recently, from Homeland Security that includes ex-military, ex-law enforcement, lone wolves, as well as Christian Fundamentalists, Middle Easterners and outspoken Right Wing people, to name a few that are "too be feared".
          If we could just get our "fearless leaders" calmed down, I think the rest of us could probably handle it.

      • greg y

        • 0
        Dec 23 2012: I don't think the purpose of the 2nd amendment was a counterbalance to government tyranny. If you look at how the militias were used around the time of the bill of rights it was actually to put down uprisings and riots within the 13 states, sort of the opposite of what you imply. The Government didn't have a standing police force or even Army like we do now. The Militia was the police force.
        • thumb

          Marianne Delongi

          • 0
          Dec 24 2012: Everybody and his dog is trying to 'interpret' the 2nd through the glass darkly of their own slice of historical understanding.

          Such an interest in the Constitution, we must be having a revival.

          Regardless of any Monday morning quarterbacking, our rights are not "granted' by the 2nd Amendment, only delineated there as peculiar rights that are inviolate. That means, can not be diminished

          .When the Bill of Rights came up for discussion, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists were against quantifying our natural rights in the Bill of Rights, because it could be interpreted as applying only to rights listed, or that these were being granted, thus the addition of the 9th Amendment.

          Once we agree to let you work away at the words "shall not be infringed" there is only one result to expect, and that because, this amendment isn't coming under the scrutiny of anyone, to be parsed or 'understood" more accurately, except to arrive at the conclusion that the right to bear arms can be infringed upon.

          Now isn't that what you are getting at?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.