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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • Dec 31 2012: I see many sides to this discussion. Some want assault weapons banned and for others all weapons. Some of us say that our mental health institutions need to be changed and perhaps given more funding. Others point to video games and violent movies as the culprit. Some even have gone as far as wanting armed guards in all of our schools.

    We need to stop kidding ourselves that just one of these ideas will fix the problem as a whole. If we really want to see change, to see less of these shootings, then we will need to apply each one of these measures. Assault weapons should be banned or limited to some extent, there is absolutely no reason to have such a weapon unless your getting ready to fight a war. In the US in 2009 for every 100,000 of us, 10 people died from gun related crimes. In the UK, which does not allow private gun ownership, .25 people died for every 100,000 citizens in 2011 and for Japan, that number is down to .07 deaths for every 100,000 people in 2008. And lets face it, our movies and video games glorify violence, our children are growing up in a world where there told killing people is bad, but then proceed to pay a game where killing people is the goal. As for the armed guard in every school, while this is an extreme measure, having at least one armed guard in some of our more major schools may not be such a bad idea.

    Most of us can agree that our Mental Health Institutions need more funding and support, and some new programs should probably be instituted. However the demonizing of the mentally Ill should not be allowed to continue, and while not everyone is doing this certain groups are. It reminds me of the Nazis, using a scapegoat to blame all their problems on. Finally we need to take a good look at our society as a whole, what should be acceptable and what shouldn’t be tolerated. We will only see change if we want change, and we will only see progress if more than just one approach is followed.
    • thumb
      Dec 31 2012: There is no need to amend the Constitution in order to address these problems.

      All the hard stuff has been largely ignored, I know, I am a street fighter advocate for the mentally ill.

      Each time these events happen, there is an outburst of public furor over guns and the rest of it is largely ignored, people go back to their old habits, their gross ingestion of violent slop.
    • thumb
      Dec 31 2012: Well said Jarred, and I wholeheartedly agree, that there are many underlying issues that need attention. I believe one of the first things we need to do, and the topic of this discussion, as you insightfully recognize, is to get assault weapons out of circulation.
      • thumb
        Dec 31 2012: And if you can get the assault weapons ban in place FIRST, then you won't really have to take care of any of the other underlying problems that your generation have allowed to fester in plain sight.
        • thumb
          Dec 31 2012: Marianne,
          I have been working for over 60 years with abused women and children, with offenders who are incarcerated, facilitating empowering workshops for ALL people, mediating with convicted felons, volunteering in shelters, family centers, guest lecturing at the university on the topic of violence and abuse in relationships....bla.....bla....bla.

          STOP being sarcastic....STOP blaming and START becoming part of the solution!
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: Colleen,

        The reason that many posters here are bringing up the same issues is not as obscure as you pretend.

        It's as if the prohibitionists have taken the 2nd Amendment and equated with the root cause of the shootings in Conneticut. In their minds, they are judge and jury and the posters here are being brought in to help with the sentence. Then like a lynch mob, pose the question to the group "Should we shoot him or just whip him?'
        Well, the non-probitionist side is making their case, that "you have the wrong man", and you are letting the real guy get away.
        So to continue:

        I don't think any of us can remember a time where there hasn't been a bureacracy and a social worker assigned to everyone of our social ills. I hope you did good in your career. It is probably easier to do so in a smaller communtity where there might be more resources.

        However, it has also been long known, since as far back as the Peter Grace audit of the Federal Budget to the GAO reports, that a mere smattering of dollars that are appropriated for these problems, end up as measureable services or in the hands of the people or i who need it, with 80-90% being absorbed by the bureacracies themselves.

        Some rogue thinkers don't ascribe to the idea that Big Daddy government has all the solutions to all the social problems. The Torah model for taking care of people & famliies who fall out of the economy, is to get them back on their feet in one fell swoop while the policies of the government programs have done little but faciitate the poor languishing in the lower social economic conditions for generations, where they become a breeding ground for violence & crime.

        There really was no reason for me to call you a control freak. But how many posters are you currently telling that their input is outside the scope of the subjet?
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: I'm not "pretending" anything Marianne.

          There is no lynch mob or pose here Marianne.....it is a discussion on TED.

          The topic is:
          "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: That is the question asked by Morgan Barnes, but it is not honest to ignore that the question is posed as a reaction to the shootings in Newtown.

        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".

        Without actually making the case, Morgan Barnes has found the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership culpable of the shooting event. That is the same as a lynch mob mentality,because Barnes hasn't made the case, he jumps to a conclusion that he has not established.

        The prohibitionists are demanding a shallow solution to a complex problem, which seems to be "Do Something that Violates the 2nd Amendment"...

        That is a disservice to the people who will be killed in these horrific mass killings of the future.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: There is no "lynch mob mentality" here Marianne.

          Many folks are respectfully addressing the question:
          "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"

          Most responders seem to know that there are other issues to be addressed, and getting the assault weapons out of our communities is only one part of the solution.

          No one suggests "violating the 2nd amendment"

          "A disservice to the people who will be killed in these horrific mass killings of the future"???
          Oh my goodness......think about that statement Marianne!!!
    • Dec 31 2012: Well since no one appears to be even close to it, I'll just offer one that I know to be true, and shouldn't offend your delicate sensibilities. It's fun. Handgun's, rifles, submachineguns, heavymachineguns, assault rifles, explosives, all offer a different experience. Don't know why, not prepared to say, but explosions are REALLY fun. Considering fun and excitement on it's own isn't a big problem with this country, or people in general for that matter, it seems unlikely to me that this isn't a legitimate reason.

      For me, mental health is the only issue here. All answers with people are derived from... you guessed it! People.
      • thumb
        Dec 31 2012: I suggest Matt, that if you ask the loved ones of those who have been killed, they would not agree that it is "fun"..
        • Jan 2 2013: Of course not, however, not every assault gun carries with it a tag indicating the # of confirmed kills. I can't get behind this kind of thinking, we as a society give these same weapons to 17 year old kids of all backgrounds without worry. Other countries do it as well, without issue. Training is important but there are SEVERAL cases in your local papers across this country that has veterans losing it and killing people with assault rifles while other ones, like me, don't have a problem. Clearly the answer is not so simple, we have a purely reactionary society and it's quite good at overreacting, if this wasn't children it probably wouldn't have had as much attention.

          Mental health is the only issue at stake here.
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: Some may consider anything to be fun, including stealing, raping and killing. The fun argument is invalid.
        • Jan 2 2013: The majority of people would agree that those three are not fun. That's how society works of course, the majority decides whether or not a minority pushes them to.

          I completely understand the people that want them removed on principal alone, they don't go to the range, they've never had to use one, they don't want to, they have no interest in them. All those personal choices doesn't change the fact that it is somewhat fun to fire more and more powerful weapons, particularly for young males.

          I've heard it echoed over and over here that there is no reason to "need" the weapons in question (I hate that wording by the way, to need weapons, you could say the same thing in varying factors about just about anything else. Instead ask, why do people want them), but people want them for reasons we've discussed or at least introduced here and this one which is wholly ignored, probably because people aren't interested in shooting. Now, is that an invalid reason to own weapons?
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2013: Matt,
          I don't see people arguing for "removal" of guns "on principal alone". You don't really know what the reasons are, unless you genuinely read and try to understand the comments, which it appears you are not doing.

          Your argument... "somewhat fun to fire more and more powerful weapons", feels kind of frightening and not a very good argument.
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2013: I agree Matt..."not every assault gun carries with it a tag indicating the # of confirmed kills."

        How is that related to the topic question?

        You say..."we as a society give these same weapons to 17 year old kids of all backgrounds without worry."

        What 17 year old kids are you refering to?

        I agree that some people "overreact".

        Is that what you are doing because you think guns are "fun", as you stated in a previous comment?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.