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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

+26
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.

  • Dec 23 2012: If you're not a USA citizen there's no point in even expressing your opinion here. You have no right, no vested interest. It's not your country, please leave us to our own. If your afraid of us and our guns, stay where you are in Australia...penal colony.
    • specs 2

      • +1
      Dec 23 2012: Actually we do have a right and a vested interest. Guns are so prolific in your country that losing one is simply a minor annoyance for most people. The stolen gun can easily be replaced. The problem is many of your stolen guns then make their way into other counties. 9 out of every 10 guns crimes committed in Canada involve a gun that came from the United States.
      • Dec 23 2012: That's a Canadian border control problem. We can't guard OUR borders and yours. If you're not a citizen here, you have no right to argue USA laws.
        • thumb
          Dec 24 2012: Dear James,
          It does not seem very neighborly to tell folks they cannot participate in an international, public forum!

          We KNOW that guns are transported interstate and internationally. As a person living very close to the Canadian border, I am aware of the United States AND Canadian border patrol working together to stop the illegal transport of guns across the border. Don't you think it might be helpful for all people in our world to work together, rather than "leave us to our own"? My choice, as a US citizen is to work together, which includes being open to ideas from people in other countries.....ESPECIALLY our close neighbors, who are directly impacted.
      • Dec 23 2012: Oh, forgot to mention. Your comment just proves revamping OUR 2nd amendment or adding new gun control laws will do no good. Criminals will do what criminals do. Break the law to get what they desire.
        • Dec 23 2012: I'm sorry - I guess I missed the disclaimer about this being an Internet forum and available worldwide but only US citizens have a right to express opinions. Suggest you just ignore the rest of this.

          You don't need to ponder where those criminals get what they desire. Just as well - that would require more than a knee jerk response. If you were to consider it though then you would conclude they get their guns mostly from the homes of legally registered gun owners of course. Lets face it -for any criminal down there, he has a smorgasbord or arms available to him at most any house on Main Street. Maybe if less houses had firearms stored n them then the criminals wouldn't have so easy a time of it?

          And why is it our border control problem when the US takes actions against Columbia and Mexico just to name a few but declares it to be their fault drugs are making their way across the border.

          .
      • Dec 23 2012: It's a Canadian border control problem guns are entering Canada because it's your responsibility to actually "catch" the bad guys with the guns going IN to your country. WE(USA) catch the bad guys going OUT of your country into the USA. Pretty simple really.
        • Dec 23 2012: When illicit material from other countries is entering the US.on a regular basis the US expects those countries to do their part in controlling that illegal trafficking across the border and into the US. The US demands that the authorities in those other countries step in and help. Why shouldn't Canada then expect the US then to step up their responsibility in reducing gun trafficking into Canada?
        • thumb
          Dec 24 2012: Actually James, we (USA) do not catch all the "bad guys", and the ones that are caught, are often caught because of the cooperation of US and Canadian border patrols.
    • thumb
      Dec 24 2012: So why didn't an "American" post the question ?? to afraid of the backlash it would cause????


      Oh and I like the way you picked the one year that crime in Australia hit it's highest peak that was a nice and selective piece of information for you to find shame you didn't follow up because been down hill since then the rest has been steady and as for the rape the majority of that has actually been sexual assault committed in the own home. Oh and its Institute not Bureau.

      . Also just some useless information for you not all settlers in Australia were convicts some of us are from free settling families like mine.
      • Dec 26 2012: I know, the first "folks" to live there(Australia)date back 50,000 years or so. Then Cook showed up with guns and started shooting them.
        I didn't pick the one year, I gleaned what information was made available to me. Same information is free for you to see and research.
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: Trust me Morgan,
        The 2nd Amendment has been the whipping boy of the day from the moment the news from Conneticut hit the airwaves.
    • thumb
      Dec 26 2012: James, you are lowering the level of the debate. If you can't argue your point of view maybe you shouldn't be here. This is not youtube, you know.

      I find it striking that you support the right to guns, but apparently not the freedom of speech.
      • Dec 26 2012: Sorry, I was enjoying a holiday. Sure I support debate. But why would I debate with someone who has no bearing, can't vote, can talk all they want about the USA but really can't do a damn thing to help...or hurt.
        Talk all you want, but your opinion is mute unless you're a citizen of the USA. Sounds like wasted breath if your not. Like me telling the Canadians to quit harvesting timber because I hug trees...why waste my own time?
        We, as USA citizens wouldn't have a country if it weren't for weapons. Early citizens were required to have the latest in modern firepower, read military hardware here. The more "State-of-the-Art" the better.
        • thumb
          Dec 26 2012: You seem to have misunderstood the concept of debate and how ideas emerge. Through the exchange of viewpoints we evolve our opinions - your own and ours. Whether that opinion is from an American citizen or not does not affect the quality of the statement.

          How do you respond to a comment where the nationality of the commentor is undisclosed? How about an American citizen who lives abroad but doesn't have any contact with the American society? Following your logic you and I could not have a debate about the situation in Syria.

          Don't say that it is a matter of time efficiency, when clearly it's not. You have written at least three comments about how the opinions of non-American citizens are obsolete. You apparently have time to debate why you don't have time to debate.

          I find your comments about Australians offensive.

          Your tree hugging argument is a rhetorical trick to adapt your opponents point of view in a distorted way in order to make it sound implausible and expose it to ridicule. You could have said that it would be similar to telling Mexicans to control their drug cartels and immigrants in order to stop the drug and human trafficking across the border to the US - but you chose to use tree-hugging as an example. It does not progress the debate.

          You wouldn't have a country without imperialism either - or war for that matter. It is not a valid argument.

          The authors of the constitution did not have the slightest idea about the weapons of the future. They could only have talked about the "state of the art" firepower at their time. Do you really want every American to have "state of the art" military hardware today?

          And don't you think that we have a better moral compass today than in the late 18th century? Obviously they had very little respect for human life back then and believed that you could own another human being.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.