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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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: Two things are of interest to me in your message: As mentioned, the Second Amendment makes very clear that it is talking about the use of arms for military purposes -- hence the "well-regulated militia." I mentioned in my previous comment that firearms advocates, when discussing the Amendment rarely bring that up -- and it is absent in your comment as well. I would be interested to hear your response to that. About that Fourth Amendment, it has always struck me that it is dealing with the protection of the indvidual against governmental intrusion . "To be secure" does not necessarily mean that the individual has the right to take any specific action. If its focus was on the absolute right of the individual to protect his property, why doesn't it also mention a right to bear arms as a means to prevent that intrusion? So, it seems to me that the Amendment spells out restrictions on government, not rights of individual to "secure" anything. These are honest questions, and there is ample room for honest debate, but these points you make are not "self-evident" or absolute, at least not in the way that I read them. If they were, Warren Burger would not have labeled as "fraud" the assertion that the Second Amendment gives the right of the individual to bear arms.
    • thumb
      Dec 29 2012: The use of arms for military purpose, would, I believe, naturally align with the fact that throughout history, government has been the perpetrator of mass murder on a scale unequaled.

      The argument made here, continually, by gun prohibitionists, is that the threat of mass murder by our government is totally abated, the reason for the people to be armed is outdated.

      I think that if we are looking for context,and I agree that the text must have context, we have to take into consideration that we look at 200+ years of the American experiment and imagine that what we have enjoyed is the norm. The framers had a context that came from the first 5000+ of human history.

      Text reads:
      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.

      The text resolves the need that is identified in the first clause, by prohibiting infringements upon the people themselvs from possessing and keeping their weapons, in the second clause. The Militia is one entity, the people is a different entity. They seem to be acting as a repository for the weapons, a living armory.

      For the government to regulate this entity, (a Militia of armed people), relegates them to a division of the State, which would be anathema. Otherwise, we could suppose that the National Guards would fulfill the will of the text, which no one suggests.
      That is my understanding of the text.
      The reason I emphasize this paradigm shift, is that the idea we are granted these rights by the Government defies the principle that the only power is to lie in the electorate.

      The text creates the construct of an armed electorate.

      Currently there is a wide suspicion that the Government is turned a corner & putting in place constructs that will allow itself to perpetuate itself, in defiance of the people, if they so choose to re-establish control.
      The current interpretation of the text allows armament parity between state & the pe

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.