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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 28 2012: Marianne:
    Please don't take this the wrong way, however, I am not nearly as naive as you say. You don't know me except through this filter of language. Perhaps we can dialogue someday about the use of language through the perspective of Chomsky or Zizek.

    I am in fact well read (including the classics that you imply), and I do understand the phrase, which has its etymology, I believe, in Greek culture and was famously used, to my recollection, by various people, for different reasons, during our lifetime, including Frank Zappa and Gerald Ford.

    I think Zappa had it right.

    The way you use words does not belie your world view, which seems to me to be radically conservative - that is, an outlier.

    Our society is neither at the place, as Matt writes, in which "we'd all like to believe that we live in a world where non-violence perpetually solves any and everything", nor are we at another point of the multi-dimensional spectrum, at a place in which you describe, "Are we so vacuous that we need to raise a generation of people, who need to have all sharp objects kept out their reach?"

    You write correctly that the average person is not aware of the facts behind "The rule of law". You write incorrectly about their thinking ability, "That being the case, it makes sense to resist this same mob from "deciding" it's time to take your gun." By making those two statements next to each other you actually contradict yourself, do you not?

    ".... arming for urban warfare" is also a radical statement.

    Additionally, you elide my original point: no one is out to take away your guns. My point was that the Constitution does not need to be amended or repealed but re-interpreted to become valid and representative of the majority view of those in our society.

    When persons carry it makes me think that I need to carry in order to protect myself. You are forcing your world view upon my freedom to live my life gun free. Your minority view is dominating the majority view.
    • thumb
      Dec 28 2012: What you have demonstrated is that you can parse someone else's words and try to pigeonhole them, which is not really advancing the cause of communiciating with each other. In fact, I often marvel at how well my neighbors converse and share ideas even though they hold to political ideas that, on the surface, are 180 degrees from each other. However, since they both embrace their own posistion because they honestly believe that is the route to follow to get to the same goal ie "what is best for everyone"..they can talk to each other and rarely remain crystalized in an artificial construct such as "radical statement".
      If mentioning "urban warfare' is a radical statement..how much more radical is the FACT that LE trains continually that occupation? I recently had to advocate against the local sheriff taking control of a deserted fish hatchery that was being offered by the Department of Fish and Game. A local school district had also put in a bid to receive it and convert it to an Outdoor Education program when the County made a bid to train for "Urban Warfare". Cool, huh? So, sorry, my picture of things is pretty well rounded in light of what happens in front of my eyes.
      But I digress. The reason that we do not have a pure democracy, but a democratic republic is because a minority view needs to be protected against a majority rule that infringes upon inherent rights. The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are not subject to other people's attitudes or opinions.
      It is the very notion that one man or many men, can possess the authority to diminish another man's rights. That is the issue. If one man does not possess the right to take your club, which you carry with you in a peaceful manner, away from you, can many men banding together, generate a lawful right to do so? Aren't you just using force in a different manner?
    • thumb
      Dec 28 2012: yoncalla, the outlier..Rudyard Kipling..I can live with that.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.