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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 31 2012: I don't read full Conversations anymore as I find much of the commentary tiresome.

    However I have picked up that some consider the fully/semi automatic guns to be the issue. So I'd just like to say this: the more bullets you're able to shoot the higher is the risk of killing a fellow human being. This does not mean that single round firearms aren't able to kill, they just don't do it as effectively.

    Nukes are perhaps the most effective way of killing people, then we go to canons and bombardment, down to (I'm skipping many steps here) assault rifles, pistols and lastly knives.
    Of course hands also kill people but taking people's fists is just unreasonable (and inhumane) as they are also used for good.

    So, you should ban all firearms and weapons in general, that includes machetes, swords and knives.

    This is not a conversation about poverty or homophobia, making the argument that we should focus our energy on only the worst things is totally invalid as it's all connected. We should fight to get rid of all that harms man.
    • thumb
      Dec 31 2012: ... You tell Pat what he shouldn't contribute. Then you say you find much of the thread tiresome? You do not read the whole thread then you reply to me and speak for the group? ... "of course hands kill people but taking people's fists is unreasonable"? ... Whoa, you're just to smart for us Jimmy.

      I'm glad you choose to not use weapons, good for you,and maybe if no one felt the need to, it would be a wonderful world. But, alas, people do like their weapons, so, that's life.



      ... machetes, knives, swords ... you got to be putting me on.
      • thumb
        Dec 31 2012: You notice that they are not really proposing anything that would have stopped an armed intruder from actually getting through the door of the school, like an armed guard.
        Notice also how they are trying to make you address the argument in a vacuum?
        They seem to be afraid of examining the question in any wholistic way.
        It's as if these posters have come to rely on a rabble reaction rather than presenting sound comprehensive reasoning.
        It reminds me of a police agency who, when some horrific murder is committed and the public turns to them to catch the predator, they drag in a likely suspect and everyone feels better. But, in their haste, they have done sloppy work and allowed the real kiiller to escape and kill again.
        This time, as in the other mass shootings, they have the wrong culprit.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: Ehm, taking all the weapons away would stop an intruder from being armed...!

          Colleen has answered the rest.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: @Marianne Delongi (post further down.)
          I'm all for positive change, you go out and achieve that. I'm trying everyday.
          Well, I don't know if there are that many "I don't care" in my statements... The thing is I used to take the neutral path, which left everyone else right in their own minds.
          I've chosen to take a stance against against what I think is wrong, you obviously believe that everyone has the right to own tools for killing, I don't. And I really don't care for your arguments as our logical standpoints on this matter have such a wide rift. Debating this question really does seem like a waste of time to me because you're set in your ways (as am I). I've read some of the debates you've had with others and where I see clear logic you see "logical vacuum".

          Some things shouldn't be allowed. Even you have to agree to this.

          And I say this again! I am NOT authoritarian, I wish for a world where all of mankind governs all of mankind, but we will always come to consensus on what is right and wrong. Would you consider laws against murder or rape to be authoritarian?
          NEITHER am I a prohibitionist, I believe that every human being should be free to do as they please, AS LONG as it doesn't damage others!
          Please stop with the ad hominem.
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: @Gary

        I didn't think that his note to self about invading Sweden was in accordance to the terms of use.
        You attack the whole group, I defend it.
        I'm just trying to level with you.

        I don't really care what people's preferences are, if it hurts other people it shouldn't be allowed.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: Fortunately the moderators understand I was using metaphor to make a point and not a violation?

          Literal thinking is not really thinking.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: Lot's of "I don't care" from your posts. Finished off with a "shouldn't be allowed"...it isn't "allowed", already, so it might be time for the authoritian, prohibitionists to take some time off and allow for some more meaningful changes to take place.
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: To Jimmy S.
        It's easy to "be for positive change" but making a change in the United States Constitution requires some very serious considerations.

        It isn't enough to have good intentions, some of the most hideous mass murders in the world have been undertaken at the behest of Utopians who believed that if they could just have a bit more power to enforce their vision, the world would be a better place.

        Prohibition is force and force is always backed by violence, the ability to use violence against those who will not comply with the prohibition. Prohibition of weapons in order to prevent weapons being used against the innocent, is still meeting violence with violence.
    • thumb
      Dec 31 2012: To JS,
      I'm surprised that someone who wants to contribute to world improvements wants to discuss the disassembling of the American Constitution's Bill of Rights in a vacuum.
      As far as I know, anything that a participant brings to the discussion is part of the discussion. That's how it works.

      You might take a minute to reflect on how ineffective prohibition has been in the last 200+ years. Of course, before the American experiment in government by the people, all you needed was force.

      I don't understand why the same proponents who can only offer force as a solution to every problem, keep insisting that they represent an enlightened posture.

      This ability to think for oneself, it is rather taking off on a global scale. It was bound to happen, all this freedom stuff just out there in the cosmos where any man can grab at it.

      To more and more people, the authoritarian solution is becoming an anachronism or a parachronism.

      Were you aware of that?

      It has even been opined, that the need to take away other's arms is a movement by the authoritarians to ease their own fears about a free society, and they just use these very rare and isolated incidents as an excuse
      to indulge in the one tool they understand, force.
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: I'm not Authoritarian, but for you it might seem that way, I simply want a consensus to not allow things that (possibly) harm others. Very many Americans seem to think that all and any laws are bad, that everyone should be allowed to do as they please. Our views on Liberty differ quite largely, if you are free to do precisely as you wish you will take liberty from others. I just wan't reasonable equality.

        Yes, prohibition is very ineffective when you speak of alcohol and drugs, but is it the same for weapons? My country shows that it's not.

        I don't understand why you would need to use force against your own government. Aren't the people the government, why kill your own - from either side? But then again I do not share your viewpoint, the last time it happened here was in 1932 - 5 persons were shot. It's just so distanced for me. Here the police don't pull the gun on you just to be on the safe side, here you're innocent until proven guilty. Always being ready to fight and kill or be killed doesn't seem like a good way to live.

        The thing is, upon reading your arguments once again, I can't really make sense of them, therefore you probably feel the same way...

        Anyhow, reading the last part makes me really sad... you seem to fear your government when it should be the other way around. And government's fear for their people should not come from the threat of violence, it should come from the people's ability to give and take away the governments power.
        • thumb
          Jan 1 2013: Fearing the potential of any government, in light of the history of the world, is probably prudent. Afterall, it's undeniable that governments have been the greatest mass murderers throughout history. As we speak, my government uses the drone to take out targets and issues apologies for the deaths of innocent chlidren in much larger numbers than those killed in Newtown. Are all child deaths equal? Are these the "government agents" that I need to trust for their great paternal love off the people? At best they are slobs, at worst they are cold blooded killers.
    • Dec 31 2012: Been reading Stalin's diaries again have we?

      I could kill you with a pen, scissors, even my toenail clippings too (don't think size so much as quantity)! That's going to be one massive ban list Jimmy!
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: No, haven't read Stalin's diaries... What i'm saying is that things that can ONLY be used to harm should be banned. Sure, it's a list but then again shouldn't we have rules in our world for how people can and can't behave?
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2013: The flaw Matt, by the prohibitionists is the assumption that they have an inherent power to make these choices for everyone else. They have laws prohibiting what happened in Newtown, but it didn't stop it.
        The Constitution prohibits them from infringing upon the rights of men to bear arms, they just need to get that out of the way. They are the very people that the Amendment was written to constrain. Of course, they do it for the "best of reasons".. but I contend they are more akin to a lynch mob, they can't kill Adam Lanza, or his mother, so they go after a perception and they want to punish something. Never, in a million years would they see themselves as a tool for the Pol Pots in this world, Indeed, they probably think that they have written a law somewhere that "banned' that kind of thing happening "ever after".
    • thumb
      Jan 1 2013: JS WROTE: Ehm, taking all the weapons away would stop an intruder from being armed...!

      Great, you have the power and authority to begin the confiscation of all guns? (Why let our Constitution get in your way, when you are on a roll?.) Here's the deal, you start your program by taking all the guns away from criminal and potential criminals, then the State Militaries that kill on a daily basis because they can't find solutions to their conflicts, (you can probably stop by and fix all of those conflicts, too, in your extra time)...then last, the lawful gunowners and local law enforcement will disarm on the same day. Call us when you are ready.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.