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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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.
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.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Marianne Delongi
One defiinition of an aspect of the word is
"Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws" from Wikipedia
Some people do not recognize that by it's very nature, a Militia must be immune from regulation by the State and that is unfortunate, because it means that those people no longer recognize the monumental importance and sea change that occurred for the better, in human events, when once it was resolved to form a government that obtained it's authority "from the people".
Everyone is so very sorry that children were once again killed in a school by a mentally deranged person. However, you can not secure the community against one evil by inadvertently opening the door to another, more sophisticated evil.
Leave the Constitution alone and use the tools of a free society to craft a better, non-violent society.
Jimmy Strobl 50+
Marianne Delongi
Jimmy Strobl 50+
Jimmy Strobl 50+
You say that we should use the tools of a free society to craft a better non-violent society. I FULLY AGREE! but can't we build a new foundation for this, or strengthen the one we got?
Jimmy Strobl 50+
John Frum 30+
If you modify the constitution to take away guns from ordinary citizens, how exactly are you planning to achieve the "taking away"? What if I refuse to give them up?
Marianne Delongi
verb (used with object)
1.
to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law: Smoking is prohibited here.
2.
to forbid the action of (a person).
3.
to prevent; hinder.
Synonyms
1. interdict. See forbid. 3. obstruct.
Jimmy Strobl 50+
Marianne Delongi
However, the prohibition of guns does not directly address the person that broke the law but instead, demeans all legal gun owners to the status of a potential perpetrator.
The proof of what I speak of, is, one glaring example, is that this "Government by the people" caused slavery to become illegal in the Western Hemisphere. That many lives were saved by this act of legislation should be evident. This was, imo, the most monumental event in the progress of human rights. The advancement of which rights, I consider to be the tool by which we evaluate any community by. Note that I say "Western Hemisphere" because they did not initiate a ban world wide. By comparing the death by tyranny for the last 2 centuries of the Western Hemisphere to that of the Eastern Hemisphere, I think you will get a demonstration of what I have stated.
Marianne Delongi
I think I understand you. I think you are well meaning. But every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that as true in lawmaking as it is in physics.
The perfect law is for all people to govern themselves in such a way as to cause no harm to others. If that is not the case, we have a remedial law to address the violations of the first law. Where there are no violations, the need for the remedy no longer exists. This is the ideal.
However, laws that prohibit something like gun ownership, that is not, on it's face value, a criminal act, are neither primary or remedial, they are prohibitions backed by force.
I believe, and can most likey demonstrate it with actual numbers, that millions of lives have been spared brutal living conditions and death because of the establishment of the concept of man's sovereignty to govern themselves. To carelessly effect this course, when you can not even prove that the prohibitions of firearms would have been prevented any of the madmen who committed these crimes, is reactionary and incongruent with living in a free society.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
Jimmy Strobl 50+
I'd like to make this example then.
When someone rapes another person, is "force" used against the rapist not justified?
Could you please demonstrate the proof of what you speak of? The burden of proof does not lie with me, how could I prove something that's never been tested?
Jimmy Strobl 50+
verb (used with object)
1.
to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law: Smoking is prohibited here.
2.
to forbid the action of (a person).
3.
to prevent; hinder.
Synonyms
1. interdict. See forbid. 3. obstruct."
I would like to: Prevent, hinder people from attaining weapons.
John Frum 30+
With reference to your comment on rape: the issue here is only the initiation of force, be it with rape or with any other violent crime. Once a person initiates force, the person is made to pay a penalty, as a deterrent, and as a way to keep innocent people safe. In case of a rapist, it includes invading his home, and taking him to court, for trial. If found guilty, forcibly incarcerating him. But in this case, the police are not *initiating* force.
So, in a just society, the more force one initiates, the greater the penalties for it.
Any initiation of force is a violation of rights, whether done by the police or by ordinary citizens.
Unlike most libertarians, I am comfortable with *some* initiation when someone is indulging in activities that put other people at imminent risk, like experimenting with explosives in dense neighborhoods, or driving a car without knowing how, or handling firearms without knowing how to do so safely.
Jimmy Strobl 50+
John Frum 30+
Sure, reckless driving certainly puts people at risk, just like drunk driving. I don't see the need for jailing such people right away. Increasing fines for every offense, and then other penalties such as taking away the permit to drive for a fixed period of time is usually deterrent enough. However, if the person was driving way too fast in a school zone or in a densely populated area, I think jail for a short period of time is OK. For people who do not learn from their mistakes, I think taking away their permit, for good, is fair. The objective is to make sure that the culprit does not put other people at imminent risk.
I would be a bit more strict when gun owners put other people at risk. Because it is easier to be reckless with it, and it is easier to cause great harm.
But just for that, I believe it is wrong to treat every gun owner or every car driver as culprits.
Jimmy Strobl 50+
I would also like to be more strict when it comes to gun ownership as I feel that all guns put people at imminent risk.
I do not wish to treat gun owners as culprits, but here I find the potential of them accidentally (or intentionally) becoming that, and the suffering it would bring, is too great for gun ownership to be allowed at all...
John Frum 30+
The potential for risk can be minimized through training. See this, for example:
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
Switzerland is a much safer place than the US.