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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • thumb
    Dec 26 2012: I do realise it's a sensitive subject, but a compromise would be to only allow guns with the same functionality as the guns that existed at the time when the constitution was written.

    This way the restriction can in no way be accused of being unconstitutional nor can it be in violation with the intentions of the founding fathers.
    • Dec 26 2012: That's amusing, considering the second amendment took great pains to stress quite pointedly and clearly, that Americans are only to arm themselves with flintlock rifles and pistols. And that there was no invasion from the British after the war, I wonder how that war would have fared had the militia stayed with the old technology, perhaps they would have seen an invasion for a third time? Rather amusing wouldn't you say?
      • thumb
        Dec 27 2012: Are you expecting a British invasion any time soon?

        If so I am pretty sure that America has a functioning military that is able to cope with such an event.
        • thumb
          Dec 27 2012: Actually the peace loving, human rights folks on China also came out for disarming the American citizens.

          Wonder what they see as an advantage in that move?

          Maybe they just want to keep their big, fat, tyrannical foot on the necks of their own people and find that Americans set a bad example to the rest of the enslaved people of the world. Or maybe they imagine landing troops to collect their debt.

          What I do know is that all the tyrants of the world would love it if freedom loving Americans had their g-d d-mned (sic) rights shoved right down their "freedom loving" throats and the light from the city on the hill was extinguished once and for all.

          I am not arguing for my guns, I am arguing for my rights as a free person.
    • Dec 27 2012: So, Faisel, with this logic then it would be acceptable to say that we can ban Mormonism or Scientology as they weren't around when the constitution was written. Look at in in these terms and you see how they are taking away our liberties.
      • thumb
        Dec 27 2012: How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Whatever it is - it is not logic.

        You make a complete false and meaningless comparison and then try to point out the injustice.

        My point is that since the resistance towards gun control is founded on the second amendment and the ideas of the founding fathers have a significant cultural meaning in the US this would be a compromise that would not violate any of them.

        You must admit there is some restriction in the rights to bear arms as it is now. A healthy society should be able to have a debate about the nature of these restrictions.
    • thumb
      Dec 27 2012: The flaw in your premise is in the words "only allow" which implies that the larger community has given the right to bear arms or can diminish the same. The 2nd doesn't mention guns, only arms. So playing with the 2nd only serves to dilute the efficacy of the rights that are delineated therein.
      • thumb
        Dec 27 2012: Hi Marianne

        Your argument is of a semantic nature. Call it restrictions, allowance, ban or something else. It does not change the fact that there are some weapons that you are not allowed to own. What we are discussing is where to draw that line for the benefit of the society you live in.

        In a society with large marginalised groups, poverty, despair and people with mental issues who don't have access to health care you better get used to these shootings as a recurring event.

        One can choose to see this as an acceptable price to pay in the same way that we in every society accept a certain death toll in traffic. Or one can have a debate about what role firearms play in the society.

        Personally it is beyond my comprehension what function the possession of firearms have in a modern civilised society and a lot of people in the US share that view. But I do recognise that there is some cultural and historical value for a lot of people that can't be ignored.

        My proposition was stated as a compromise between those two groups.

        The second amendment is not a law of nature and it is written by people that are fallible. For instance they did not really oppose the idea of owning other other people.
        • thumb
          Dec 27 2012: Hi Faisel,
          You throw in the words "modern, civilized society" as if that should be taken for granted. American's are largely law abiding, peaceful people who are dependent & take for granted that they live under the protection of the rule of law.
          However, it is possible that a sophisticated noose can be drawn around a society's neck, similar to the one that citizens of the UK wear.

          Unfortunately, the corruption & petty ambitions of the "leaders" in this country have eaten away at the protectoins of the laws that allowed us to thrive into a civilized society.

          The reaction to this shooting is a perfect example.

          The impetus is on making more punitive style, top down laws to solve this festering wound in our society,

          That reaction furthers the decline in public confidence that they can act better on a whole. Civil society is not founded on everyone being restricted in such a way that the citizens have no option except to live decently. A civil society comes about because the citizens act according to principles and are diligent to make their institutions a reflection of those principles. American's have largely had to take a cynical attitude towards their schools taking a course that is not representative of the values they teach in their homes.

          Common sense would have told you that the boy should never have attended that school?

          You can see by the quality of the leaders that have been elected, from both sides, their duplicitous faces and their corrupt dealings, that we are not advancing towards that end. You can see by the complicity that all classes have with the billion dollar gratuitous violence industry that we are not advancing to that end. You can see by the blind eye being turned towards the pharmaceutical peddlers that we are not advancing towards a more civil society. Those social indicators remain as a strong motive for the public who wish to arm themselves, to do so. The only semantic argument I have is, "do you understand the word 'NO"
        • thumb
          Dec 28 2012: Actually Faisel,
          What you call semantics is a huge paradigm shift, because you have assumed that you have an inherent right to either "allow. ban or restrict" anything that I might wish to own or use legally.
          The 2nd amendment states you do not have that right, and that might right to bear arms can not be diminished by your desire to control me..get it? control me?
      • thumb
        Dec 27 2012: In response to "Actually the peace loving, human rights folks on China also came out for disarming the American citizens."

        If you are fearing a foreign invasion you have very little confidence in the strongest military in the world. It is a completely unrealistic scenario.

        If you fear your own governemt, that is what elections are for. You have very little confidence in democracy.

        I think tyrants are quite indifferent to whether you have a gun or not. I think they'll see the American military as the main obstacle. However I think a lot of terrorist groups are quite pleased with the current gun laws in your country as it results in frequent mass murders of Americans.
        • thumb
          Dec 27 2012: Hi Faisel,

          I think you are missing my point. What the Chinese imagine could transpire in the future and reality might be two different things, or not. People like to believe that technology will determine the outcome of every scenario..but can it defeat human nature or the pattern of human events? or does it just change the props?

          I think when you have a large voting part of the populace who are in lock step with the leaders in China (who have never repented over the millions of their own people who were killed in order to seat them in power), that would throw a monkey wrench into the thinking that any majority vote, represents a wise or moral step, In truth, a majority vote, while representing the "will of the people" also can represent the fact that you can often get the highest number by hitting the lowest common denominator.

          In this case, the lowest common denominator is FEAR.
          Thankfully, out nation is not merely a democracy, it is in fact a Democratic Republic, which means that the population can not vote into existence, a rule that breaks the law. They can not vote to break a lawful contract that their City or State has entered into. They can not vote to deprive you of your right to your property. They can not vote to deprive you of your right to due process.

          Notwithstanding that we both know this function of law is slowly being eroded by casual arrangements with the law that come from our corrupt legislators, there is no reason to jump on a bandwagon and hasten the destruction of the Constitutional system. In fact, it is just one more reason to maintain every vestige of every right you have.

          By disallowing this lazy society to use guns as the scapegoat, you leave them the option of making deep improvements in their communities.

          Don't you think it's time for Americans to take responsibility for their own moral dereliction regarding the mentally ill? the mind-bending social conditions in their schools & their reliance on punitive laws?
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: Dear Marianne

        You lost me when you started talking about how large part of your countrymen are in lockstep with Chinese leaders.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.