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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

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.

  • thumb
    Dec 30 2012: I could not agree more. And I'm serious when I say, If only the rest of the country could be more like Vermont. . .
    • thumb
      Dec 30 2012: Thanks....I'm generally pleased with our legislation, environmental laws, concern for people and our rights, etc. Most of our legislators are down to earth, reasonable, responsible people who genuinely listen to their constituents. Perhaps it is our small size which helps facilitate this? Perhaps it is the fact that there are not too many places for our representatives to hide!!! LOL:>)
    • thumb
      Dec 30 2012: I think you have inadvertently hit close to the root of the problem, Phillip. It would be idyllic if the rest of the country could be modeled after Vermont. I don't mean because it is 98% white or predominantly female. I am also fairly certain that if you checked, Vermont will have a higher than average college education level. But the factor I am referring to is the density of population being the 2nd least populous., It is hard to overestimate the value that those conditions have on the quality of the collective conversation.
      Unfortunately, there is nothing afoot in the current plan that will move more of the population into those types of living arrangements. Land use laws all over the country now work towards coralling the population into the cities & in the same voice reject the wise stewardship model tarring it with the label "urban sprawl". I know, I live in a state where over 80% of the land is held by a public agency.
      If we had the Vermont model, it would be idyllic to sit down & discuss all the post-industrial revolution, non-intentional, effects that we live with & address all the de-humanization that has occurred & decide how we would like to undo it. In the meantime, it is unfortunate that to some citizens, (myself not included, I live a semi-pastoral life) their situation has already become dire. Most of the population lives in cities, which encourages a rat-like mentality. If you find a way to inject honest Vermont reasonability into the conversation, starting at the top..our legislators, let me know.

      Would you entertain the idea that it is unjust to start at the bottom simply because you can require the mass of people to surrender their gun/rights, while you may have no tools with which to require the wealthy & powerful to conform to the same level of civility? The kids will still be medicated, the mentally ill will still go untreated & killed by law enforcement at a rate 4 times greater than other perps. Where is the wholistic conversation?
      • thumb
        Dec 30 2012: Vermont is "predominantly female"? 50.8% female, 49.2% male....looks pretty close to me!

        Land use laws in Vermont encourage high density, AND anyone is free to buy land and build OUTSIDE the high density areas.....just like in other states. No one is "coralling" anyone Marianne.
        I am on the regional planning commission and regional project review committee. We see people ALL the time making these choices.

        Marianne, I know lots of people who live in cities, by choice, and they DO NOT have a "rat-like". mentality.

        If you genuinely want to have a "wholistic conversation" Marianne, you need to contribute to that kind of conversation.
        • thumb
          Dec 30 2012: Colleen,
          I think you are missing my point. The density alone in Vermont makes it an ideal situation for quality living. I also live in a low density, higher education enviorment and I thank providence every day for that, seeing as I am not wealthy enough to buy myself out of the city if I found myself there.
          I have also been involved in land use planning and the national trend, which is reflected in the Smart Planning agenda, definitely does have goals to keep the population in urban areas and to resist allowing any more land to become populated.
          These people who you know in cities and live there by choice, are they living in the blighted areas of Akron or Detroit?

          Even your capital city, is the least populated capital in the US.

          It has been largely recognized that "over crowding" is considered a detriment to humane living conditions.

          How does it detract from a wholistic conversation to introduce these accepted realities into the conversation?

          When you have a shooting in a pastoral community, the community reacts with horror that their world is shattered. But the rest of the year, a city like Akron will have 27 murders and call it normal. In Akron you can expect 209 violent crimes per square mile in one year. In Montpelier you had 34 crimes per square mile & zero murders in 2012. Don't you think most people would chose the Montpelier model if they could? And don't you think that if you want to dictate standards for everyone...that it would be good to reflect a moment on how some of your fellow American's live?
      • thumb
        Dec 30 2012: Marianne,
        This topic discussion is:
        "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"

        This discussion IS NOT about land use.
        It is NOT about who lives in cities and/or who does not
        It is NOT about "rat-like mentality".

        You ask..."How does it detract from a wholistic conversation to introduce these accepted realities into the conversation?"

        Marianne,
        What you are indroducing over and over again on this comment thread are NOT "accepted realities". They are apparently YOUR realities, and often not even close to reality.

        ANYONE AND EVERYONE reacts to a shooting with horror Marianne...whether in a "pastoral community" or not. The death of children and innocent adults gets the same reaction EVERYWHERE.

        I am very aware of how, many of my fellow Americans live....in fear. That is why I am in favor of banning assault weapons.
        • thumb
          Dec 30 2012: Colleen,
          I can't imagine one participant would want to arbitrarily decide what anyone else wants to bring to the discussion. It is an "accepted reality" that overcrowding diminishes the quality of life.

          The discussion does include prevalent land use trends, because they are congruent with all other aspects of how people live and what leads up to violence. The discussion does include these issues because I have chosen to bring them up and I am part of the discussion

          You state the death of innocent children gets the same attention everywhere, I know people, personally involved in the murder of inner city black children, that would take issue with that statement.

          As for the trend towards making less and less land available for people to live on, it is a stated goal of all Smart Growth policies which have become the model in every state. This is common knowledge to anyone involved in planning issues.

          I am sorry that you do not recognize that overcrowding in blighted innercities contributes to the murder statistics, but it is part of the conversation because these people do not want to relinquish their gun rights to an ideal that they can not realize: a world where they are not threatened by criminals (with guns).



          Wiki excerpt on Smart Growth, emphasis on the last sentence on how the inventory of developable land is systematically reduced by current land use policies.

          " The most widely used tool for achieving smart growth is the local zoning law. Through zoning, new development can be restricted to specific areas, and additional density incentives can be offered for brownfield and greyfield land. ....
          Related to zoning ordinances, an Urban Growth Boundary is a tool that several U.S. cities now use to contain high density development to certain areas. Some believe that UGBs contributed to the escalation of housing prices from 2000 to 2006, as they limited the supply of developable land"
        • thumb
          Dec 30 2012: I take it all back, Colleen, let's adopt Vermont's gun laws and add Vermont Constitution's interpretation to the 2nd Amendment.
          WIKI EXCERPT from Vermont Gun Law article
          Vermont has very few gun control laws. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse.

          State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.[1]
          The term "Vermont Carry" is widely used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement, however this term is being replaced by the term "Constitutional Carry". Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont.
          The Vermont Constitution of 1777, dating well before the Bill of Rights to a time when Vermont was an independent republic, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."[2]
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Dec 30 2012: I withdrew my earlier comment because you are determined not to entertain a wholistic conversation about violence and the factors that contribute to it. It is easier to imagine you can treat the nation like small children and simply take away one of the symptoms of the problem and not addres the underlying problems.
          Do you deny that overcrowded living conditions are widely recognized as detrimental to humane living conditions? Is this the statement you wish to take issue with?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.