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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 27 2012: I am probably going to be howled down for being simplistic, but...

    The Second Amendment allows people to bear arms; yet, nothing is explicitly said about ammunition.

    Allow people to "bear arms"! However, (1) ban the possession, carrying, or use of ammunition (except by duly authorised law enforcement officials, etc); (2) permit any citizen to challenge someone bearing or possessing arms to "prove" their weapons, their person, and their place (residence, workplace, etc), that is, to display the breech and magazine and place to be free of ammunition.

    The effect would be to have citizens other than the bearer/possessor of the arms constantly checking the bearers/possessors until all ammunition is cleared from the country.

    Hunting? Leave the animals alone, please. If they are a pest, then have a law official deal with them.
    • Dec 27 2012: Ammunition can be made at home, we're not in the 9th century here where it's a huge mystery to everyone who hasn't spent time in the east. Also, that type of stuff generally just irritates people, when it's clearly ridiculous and under cutting.

      What's wrong with hunting by the way? Are you a vegetarian? Hunting to eat, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The natives of America did it for centuries and continue too in some areas without significant ecological impact. How about we don't try to tell other people how to live their lives because we find it personally disagreeable? Does freedom suddenly sound like it's too much to stomach?
    • thumb
      Dec 28 2012: Dear Pete,
      It's people like you that we have to keep an eye on.

      You figure out a way "around" the law to get to your desired end.

      Yes, you are correct, if you can just push a button and control one element of the thing that is causing you a problem, who needs to engage in a rational decision made in the open by the rest of the people in the community? Just look at how many of your pet goals could be achieved if only you can figure out a trick to get in the position to impose them! What a clever boy!

      By the way, the word "arms" does not mean guns at all, it means whatever a person might arm himself with and therefore includes the ammunition.

      People who think like you...are the number one reason that we need to stay alert and armed.
      • Dec 28 2012: Dear Mari,

        Isn't the law clear? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And, the Supremes have recently upheld the right.

        So, bear arms all you like, wield them like an axe, prod with them, throw them like a lance, etc; but, without ammunition, they are unable to shoot people.

        Ban the ammunition. Either that or make it PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. If $250/round is not enough, then double it; if still not enough then double it again. "Prohibition"? (or home-loading) is just the same; anyone caught is SHAMED and fined 10% of the 'cost' of the ammunition taken from them, and on each succeeding offence is fined the 10 times the previous 'cost' of the rounds. So, the dis-incentive is a sliding scale.

        Heck, make it what ever makes sense, but make it 'progressive' in scope and 'punitive' in effect.

        It would take some time, but there have been people turning in guns and ammunition in various programs already, so there is a hunger for this type of measure. That's despite the shops selling unprecedented numbers of guns.

        The USA needs to "get a grip", "bite the bullet", "have some foresight", "aim for a target"....

        Oh, and while I concede that 'arms' could be taken to mean bricks, sickles, fence posts, etc, I do not see the "arms industry" making these types of items and offering them for sale, nor people racing out to buy them in place of guns.

        I have served my country in uniform; I was thoroughly trained to use weapons, from the smallest calibre to weapons that I could fit my arm down the barrel (and "pulled the trigger" in training, and carried some of them on operations), plus various rocket-propelled devices. I feel no need to carry any weapon in my street, nor have them in my home. I can play first-person-shooter games if I please, just like I can play flight programs to scratch the itch for flying, or a golf program to test my wits at Augusta or Kingston Heath.
        • thumb
          Dec 28 2012: What's clear Peter, is that you imagine you have found a "loop hole" in the Amendment. This is not an original idea, it's been tried, and it may very well be that those who think like you will use it to filch more power to themselves.
          Try to understand if you can, that thinking like yours, where you just try to give lip service to the concept of law and finagle your way into a position to "get your way" and imagine that making more and more laws will get the desired result, is retrograde. It's backwards, a backwards thinking process.

          History has shown that the only lasting advancements in human society have taken place because of moral awareness, not because control freaks grab the reigns and force people to do their bidding. We understand that you are afraid, but you need to get a grip on life.
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: Marianne Delongi
        This is in response to your comment to me which begins:
        " Maybe we should also revisit the time before America....."

        It does not hurt to revisit history, to learn more about what is beneficial for humankind, and what is not.

        Marianne, many of your comments seem to be coming from a great deal of fear, frustration and anger.

        " the Chinese Communist government media Xinhua called for Americans to be disarmed..."
        "... population control "might not be enough" to fix things on the planet....“Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change.... significantly reducing current human numbers... may be necessary in order to do so.”

        It seems like you are trying very hard to induce fear, and your arguments do not seem to adequately or reasonably address the topic.

        One of your comments I totally agree with is this:
        "we should probably take a deeper look at all the precepts that went into the making of the system"........well said Marianne!
        • thumb
          Dec 28 2012: Hi Colleen,
          Anyone who speaks with conviction or authority on an issue will be challenged as having too much passion. I never assume that any passion comes from fear. It may be that a person can be passionate about the law..and dreads seeing a shift from the rule of law to the rule of men.
          My statements are merely giving sound reasons why we need to always be diligent if we are to forward a civil society.

          In my opinion, much of what is being posited today into the public discussion, such as the slight shift from population control to population reduction is retrograde.

          What is also throwback thinking is the idea that we make laws to cure our social ills because there isn't time or resources to facilitate morally persuasive changes in our society.

          It isn't a great exercise in connecting the dots to acknowledge that as the conversation becomes more retrograde in it's content, then the society will follow. That reality, in turn throws cold water on the idea that the public should give up it's arms because we are now "officially" a civil society.

          By the way, who else is being taken to the woodshed over the shootings in Conneticut besides the 2nd Amendment?

          The staff of the school that allowed the boy to attend the school in some type of protracted mental torment, without taking any preventative measures? The pharmaceutical and medical industries that have been implicated in the previous school shootings? The lack of funding for mental health?
          I advocate locally for the mentally ill and for law enforcement policies geared to the mentally ill. I am passionate that we should be insisting that our collective resources should be used to address these collective issues. That being the case, I am well aware of how most of the community will go right back to supporting the status quo and ignoring the deeper issues that continue to result in these barbaric acts.
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: Marianne,
        Passion can indeed manifest in the face of fear. On what "authority" do you address this issue? I totally agree with you that sometimes a person may dread seeing a shift, or a change, and that sometimes causes passionate fear.

        You say your statements are giving "sound reasons'? Really? That the Chinese government has asked for US citizens to be disarmed? You bring in population control and suggest that this is the reason some folks want to disarm other folks? Climate change? Really? Sound reasons for encouraging people to have weapons? Well, I don't agree.

        I believe the 2nd Amendment is questioned and revisited because it directly relates to the shootings. I don't perceive anyone "taking it to the woodshed". People are questioning whether or not an amendment might be in order. This, of course would only address one part of the issue, having to do with guns.

        I agree with you that all relevant issues should be addressed, and that has also been discussed. The topic of this particular discussion is:
        "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"

        I believe everything is interconnected, so I understand a little bit of where you may be coming from.
        • thumb
          Dec 28 2012: My point was that passion isn't always a reaction to fear. If you want to keep hitting that button as a means of diluting what I am saying, it's your perogative.
          If you have to ask what "authority" any free man has to address this issue, you may be revealing more about your own paradigms that you are aware of. I may as well ask by what authority you challenge my authority.
          However, I was only referring the facts that are self-evident, namely, that the system of laws that are now being criticized as outdated are responsible for the single most monumental shifts towards the advancement of human rights that can be charted on the history time line.
          Quite frankly, where would you find the same caliber of men and minds today that would safely allow you to revise it?
          Step out in the street and ask the next 100 people you meet to give you a single coherent paragraph on the subject of the rule of law.
          Or are you depending on the elite to re-fashion the Bill of Rights?

          And if you are depending on the elite, then it is definitely time to visit what principles the elite are currently using.
        • thumb
          Dec 28 2012: I'm sorry Colleen, I didn't catch the first time that you "really-ed" the idea that "population control" would be a good reason to refuse to give up your right to bear arms. Sorry for nitpicking, but I made a point of using the phrase "population reduction" as opposed to "population control" (the devil's in the details)

          My statement referred to the paradigm shift from "population control" to "population reduction" as a significant reason to ask what other agendas could be facilitated by disarming the public.

          I have to ask you, do you see the difference in the two concepts?

          I believe I provided the name of the popular Professor in good standing from the U of Colorado. Do you need references beyond what I have provided?
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: Marianne,
        I agree with you that passion is not always a reaction to fear, and sometimes there IS a passionate reaction to fear. I am not trying to "dilute" anything Marianne. You are the one who brought "passion" into the discussion, and I am addressing YOUR concerns, as YOU "hit" upon YOUR concerns.

        I ask about "authority", because you clearly stated...
        "Anyone who speaks with conviction or authority on an issue will be challenged as having too much passion"........
        You speak about this as the reason you are being challenged on this comment thread, and that is simply not true.

        I am trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, as other people on this thread have done, and that seems difficult with you. You kind of jump on ANYTHING anyone says. That is why I said you seem to be demonstrating fear, anger and frustration.

        Nothing to be "sorry" about Marianne. I totally understand what you suggested with your references to population control, population reduction and this being a reason NOT to disarm people. The topic of this discussion is:
        "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"

        It seems clear that you do not want this to happen. Your arguments, however, do not support your preference. Now you are suggesting that I am "depending on the elite". Where the heck did THAT come from!!!
        • thumb
          Dec 28 2012: The question seemed clear enough, who would you recommend revise the Bill of Rights?
          Bill Maher? Louis Farakahn? Professor Philp Carhalo? Can you name someone?

          I am encouraged that we have 2 Senators in Oregon, both of whom voted NO on the NDAA, along with 11 others, out of 200. This was the upgraded and enhanced version of the Patriot Act which was supposed to be sunsetted. Not, in my opinion, a good time to open up the Constitution for revision.

          I speak forthrightly, and I deplore tactics that are aimed only to diminish the person, not their arguments. So you will never find me saying "You seem to be coming from a place of fear (or anger, or frustration)" or "You are a right wing nut" or "You seem to be a brainwashed liberal"..because that diminishes the potential to communicate with the other person. I will, however, when I find those tactics being used, stop, brieftly to uncover them for what they are. And I will never use the royal "Really?" :)

          To continue: In any civil society, there needs to be a standard applied to who can contribute to the conversation. For example, most people don't want an Adolph Hiltler to contribute to the discussion, but currently, we find that Mao is now acceptable to quote. We don't want Dr. Mengle, but we do allow Professor Paul Cahalo with his "population reduction" posit.

          Since uncivilized men, with uncivilized goals and uncivilized agendas are allowed to sit at the table and contribute to the discussions on issues like the 2nd Amendment, that is a good reason to not act towards diminishing anyone's rights to have guns or anything else.
          There is more than one poster here, that have openly suggested ways to simply "get around" the law in order to accomplish what they see as an ultimate goal. They have no respect for anyone else who holds and opposite position.
      • thumb
        Dec 28 2012: I also "deplore tactics that are aimed only to diminish a person", Marianne, so why do you do it?
        "You seem to be coming from a place of fear", does not diminish a person...in my humble perception.

        Telling a person s/he is a "right wing nut" or "a brainwashed liberal" is disrespectful, and I agree with you...it diminishes the potential to communicate.

        I am not sure why you bring Adolph Hitler, Mao, Dr. Mengle or Professor Paul Cahalo into the discussion...it does not seem to support the topic question in any way.

        I respect an opposite position, and it helps to support one's own position with relevant arguments.
        • thumb
          Dec 29 2012: I can't connect the dots for you Colleen, my sentences are not incomplete. I'm not going to devolve into a "I'm rubber and you are glue" argument.

          You are not qualified to know whether a person is "coming from a place of fear" by what they write. You might fall on your own carnard if it is unwrapped any further, seeing as you support reducing freedoms to make yourself safer.

          I can live with freedom and allow my fellow men freedom. I do not advocate taking away one right after another in order to convince myself that I am now safer, or have made the world safer for my children.

          Nobody here is offering a universal burning of all weapons. If that were the case, we would be in that line. In fact, we celebrate that concept in Judaism every year when we teach our children that we strive towards a time when all the swords will be beaten into ploughshares.

          However, what is being suggested here is a uni-lateral disarming of the people on the bottom of the heirarchy by those who will continue to posses arms. That is sort of like a turkey voting for Thanksgiving.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Dec 29 2012: Thank you Colleen, I hadn't realized that we were only to reply "yes" or "no".
          I would hate to point out that you might be a bit of a control freak.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.