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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • thumb
    Jan 3 2013: On the subject of intent, it is ridiculous to bring death figures for various alternate means of death into this debate, as one million deaths caused by cancer, do not change the injustice of a single child shooting.

    If the argument is that because there are more deaths from other causes, guns should remain freely available, that is a ludicrous and unrelated hypothesis, as in that instance the government should ban ‘old age’ as this is surely the leading cause of death in the USA.

    It is obvious that people can make bad decisions that have adverse effects their health or even cause death, and a government should act to prevent companies from exploiting and encouraging these bad decisions. So in that regard, cigarettes are a bad choice that need to be considered. But GUNS are for KILLING and making a bad choice with one of those doesn’t just have an adverse effect on you, but instead focuses on causing maximum harm to others who are not able to choose whether or not to interact with the gun.
    • Jan 3 2013: So back to my question which no one has yet answered: What is the logic to support radical legislation that only could possibly impact a life every 22 days and does nothing to address the real issue of mental illness?
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2013: Ivory Babble,
        Mental illness is not the topic of this discussion.

        The topic is:
        "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"

        It would not be "radical legislation" to adopt a law banning assault weapons, which is what we had in place previously. The logic to support the change is that assault weapons are used to kill, and many of us would like to stop at least some of the killing.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: "Because many of you want to stop some of the killing". You honestly believe that is a good enough reason to take the choice of owning a semi-auto gun from people. A good enough reason to make a very important decision for another person? Why is it you know whats best for all those people?

          Is there no truth in "Be the change you want to see in the world"? To lead by example, not force.

          What do you feel about people who own these guns? Do you know any?
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2013: Ivory Babble, You cannot look at a person and decide he/she is mentally ill. Why is it so difficult to understand a mentally challenged person is more dangerous when having a gun in his hand than empty handed?
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2013: Yes, absolutely Gary! Stopping at least some of the killing is a VERY GOOD reason to adopt laws to work toward that goal.

      It is NOT a decision for "another person"....it is a decision for our whole community. I do not "know what is best for "all those people". I can only express my preference, and if there are enough other people who share the same preference, there will be regulation/laws that support our wishes as a majority.

      YES.....ABSOLUTELY....BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD".....well said Gary! YES.....LEAD BY EXAMPLE...NOT FORCE....well said Gary.

      Yes, I know many people who own guns....I've said that several times on this thread Gary. It doesn't seem that you read other people's comments, and that certainly would help with discussion:>)
      • thumb
        Jan 4 2013: Colleen, we have a failure to communicate :) I understand your brother and father was a cop. I guess I didn't consider them in my question, though I wish you knew at least one person , a Regular Joe not law enforcement , that owned an assault rifle.

        Anyway, I get ya on the yes and the majority stance, all I that comes to mind and what I want Xavier to understand, is some communities have different realities.
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2013: Yes Gary, I did address your question about knowing gun owners before....yes....my father and a brother were law enforcement officers, my five brothers and LOTS of friends are hunters, so they have lots of guns. I have friends who keep small pistols in their homes for protection. I used to shoot skeet, and was pretty good in the competitions....if I may say so:>)

          The only people I know who have used assault weapons are military friends and relatives....lots of them.....and they feel that assault weapons should NOT be in the hands of "regular Joe's". They are in favor of regulating assault weapons because most regular Joes do not have enough training and these weapons are used primarily for killing people. When they are available in our society, they can, of course often end up in the hands of people who want to harm/kill others.

          I also understand your concern about having your rights taken away. When a law is passed, however, it has to be accepted and passed by a majority, so it is passed by a group of people in our society...not one person taking away the rights of another person. We need to trust that the people we elect to represent us listen to the MAJORITY of their constituents, and act, based on what the majority wishes.
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2013: Gary,
          This is in response to your comment to me which begins...

          "Because many of you want to stop some of the killing". You honestly believe that is a good enough reason to take the choice of owning a semi-auto gun from people."

          Yes Gary, I honestly believe that putting a stop to the killing is a good reason to ban assault weapons from the general public.

          "A good enough reason to make a very important decision for another person? Why is it you know whats best for all those people?"

          I personally do not know what is best "for all those people" Gary. I think it is important to look at the facts, and make the best decisions we can make as a society. I perceive the removal of assault weapons from our communities as "giving" rather than "taking". It may allow "giving" of more life.

          "Is there no truth in "Be the change you want to see in the world"? To lead by example, not force."

          Yes, in my humble perception, there is indeed truth in "Be the change you want to see in the world".

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.