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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 29 2012: It strikes me that the resistance to any gun-control laws rests on the single-minded focus on the main clause in the Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But that clause is placed on the foundation of the introduction: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . ." We do not have militias in the same sense that that the founders viewed them; we now rely on a national army. (We might argue that the National Guard constitutes a kind of militia, and while we may say that the National Guard is highly useful, would we argue that the National Guard is necessary to our security?) But the term that gun advocates seem always to overlook is "well-regulated," which, it seems to me, introduces the prospect that the constitution does accept the possibility of regulation of arms. At this point, relatively few people I know have advocated an outright ban of guns. Most would allow Mr. Taylor his shotgun to protect himself in his home or to hunt. But for the rest of us the issue is all about assault weapons, which, as the name implies, provide a function that goes considerably beyond defense.
    • thumb
      Dec 29 2012: There is a certain shift in paradigm that the gun prohibitionists fail to recognize. That is the inference that one individual has the authority to "allow" another man to carry arms.

      To wit your statement: "Most would allow Mr. Taylor his shotgun to protect himself in his home or to hunt"

      This implies that Mr. Taylor is granted permission by someone else. The Bill of Rights delineates rights as peculiar rights that are not subject to diminishment by future acts. The right is recognized in the Bill, but is not granted by the Bill.

      The problem with carrying out gun prohibitions on lawful men is that it also violates their 4th amendment right to be secure in their property.

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    • thumb
      Dec 30 2012: You bring up some good points Philip...

      I agree that the constitution may provide the possibility of regulation of guns, which is why, in my very first statement on this thread I suggested "revisiting" the articles regarding gun regulations. To the best of my recollection, nothing was repealed or amended when the law banning assault weapons was previously adopted. I think that was done relatively easy within the existing regulations. It may not be necessary to amend or repeal the existing regulations to again adopt a law banning assault weapons.

      I am not aware of anyone who advocates an outright ban of guns, and I agree with you that it is mostly about assault weapons, which, as you say, provide a function that goes beyond defense.
    • thumb
      Dec 30 2012: Assault weapons provide a function that goes beyond self defense. Arbitrary. ... That should not be enough to strip people of the choice to own an assault weapon. ... I hope I am making it clear that my argument is deeper than assault weapons. It should not be easy for a group of people to take away a choice of another group of people in the United States without a good argument and serious consideration.

      So, it has to be more than, "I feel assault weapons are unnecessary or the Second Amendment might mean" ...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.