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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • thumb
    Jan 2 2013: Everybody buys guns to defend themselves but later on they not only kill themselves but also others with same gun they bought. I have never heard a news in the media that a gun has saved a life but it has always killed.

    My apologies if my thought is not what is requested in the question.
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2013: Fact is that guns provide no defense. Only a reactionary offence. It's a tool designed for one function, to make something dead, not to prevent death. Target practice is practice to make something dead. If you use a gun incorrectly, something doesn't die. No analogy can be used in accidental gun deaths when defending a gun because it's the only tool with a single function to kill stuff...

      That being said, I enjoy hunting mule dear and elk in the Rocky Mountains and know how important hunting is to some states.
      • Jan 2 2013: From where I'm standing, guns have two uses: defense and offense. Guns can sometimes serve either function without a single shot being fired.
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2013: John,
          A good offense is a good defense? A good defense is a good offense? How does that happen without a single shot being fired? Are you suggesting that simply having the guns stops the use of the guns?

          I suggest that if there are two people carrying guns, facing each other in offense/defense positions, each will try to get the first shot. Could that be what Jesse is talking about with "reactionary offence"?
      • Jan 2 2013: @Colleen:
        Joe could rob a store by threatening with an unloaded gun. That is considered an attack. If Bob, the shop owner, in trying to protect himself, shoots Joe dead, Bob is neither legally nor morally considered a perpetrator.

        Mary could be carrying a holstered gun in plain view, when walking home late at night. The gun may be unloaded, but potential attackers would hesitate to mess with her. It is quite like the way many countries use nuclear weapons as defense. No one plans to fire them, but the potential attacker knows that if they use it, the entire world will obliterate them.
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2013: Hi John,
          That scenario would create a good argument in court in favor of the store owner. The shop owner has no way of knowing if the gun is loaded or not. The perp is threatening because of trying to rob the store AND brandishing a gun...not knowning if it is loaded or not would be an excellent defense for the store owner, and I believe there is indeed enough cause to consider the perp still a perp!

          I agree with you that some countries may use the threat of advanced weapons to try to hold other countries at bay:>)
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2013: Rafi, Jesse,

      I'm so glad to have you guys here!
    • Jan 2 2013: @Rafi Amin:
      You're from Afghanistan, right? Don't you have a problem with tribal warlords? Don't you think that if the civilized men and women started to take their own defense seriously, the warlords would think twice about attacking? Don't you think your government is clearly ineffective in keeping innocents safe?
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2013: Providing weapons to the people of an unregulated state would only create more warlords... Just take a quick look at Africa.
        • Jan 2 2013: Where in Africa do you mean specifically? I know a few cases where the government armed people to fight wars on its behalf. Is that what you meant?

          I can say, for sure, that if I were in one of those areas, I'd arm myself to the teeth. With bombs, rocket launchers, and what not.
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2013: @John Frum,

        In my country people were given guns to defend themselves from Soviets & it was accomplished, but later on they started to kill themselves and thousands of others which now everybody call them warlords.

        Now in your country(i assume USA) who has invaded that you are giving guns to defend.

        Defense from 100 yard away neighbor ?
        • Jan 3 2013: I guess the Soviets, the Americans and the Afghans themselves must all share the blame for the broken-down society that Afghanistan has now become. If I were in such a society, I would surely have all kinds of weapons. Even the girls in India are realizing that they have to take their own security seriously, because the officials certainly don't. At least the recent, highly-publicized tragedy there is teaching them that.

          I'm neither in the US, nor am I from the US. I'm in Europe, but my own personal history is far too complicated to write here. Let's just say that I don't associate myself with any country. But coming to your point, I don't carry weapons of any sort. The police here are quite effective in keeping crime levels very low. I've been in this town for 5 years now. The locality that I lived in when I was a student was so safe that no one bothered to lock the front door, even when no one was in the house. Not everyone among my acquaintances have been that fortunate. Two of them have been robbed when walking in an isolated area. And then there was a case of a young man who tried several times to molest women, late in the night, in an isolated area. The offices in that area increased surveillance significantly during that period, and the young man got caught. If I were a woman, and had to work until late at night, I would have definitely carried a weapon with me, during that period.

          "Defense from 100 yard away neighbor ?"
          The police here are good, but they can't be everywhere. There are always dysfunctional people now and then.
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2013: Rafi

      You are NEVER going to hear that a gun saved a life. But absolutely did by virtue of the incident that did not occur. A number that by probability would dwarf the incidents that caused harm

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.