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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 30 2012: I think Ms. Tran is right to remind us that one of the main purposes of the Constiitution in general & the Bill of Rights in particular is to guarantee as much personal liberty as can reasonably be allowed to every individual citizen. At the same time, the claims of absolute liberty always have to be balanced against the explicit & implicit limits on those freedoms based on a whole range of legitimate concerns about personal & public safety, property rights, and the common good. I don't know anyone who sees the requirements that all drivers should stop at red lights, drive on the right side of the road, & keep their cars insured and in good repair as serious infringements on one's right to own and operate an automobile. Those requirements are in place primarily for the protection of the people who are encountered by people in cars, & only incidentally for the benefit of the drivers themselves. It seems to me that we expect the government to protect the common good by placing reasonable restrictions on activities that can be lethal to random bystanders. A rocket launcher would be an effective means of defense against a government invasion of my homestead; weapons-grade anthrax or a small nuclear device might really teach those one-world guys in the black helicopters a lesson they wouldn't forget. But I suspect that if I had any of those things I'd be more of a threat to my neighbors than I would be to the government. And I think my neighbors would be entitled to keep me from owning any of those things.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.