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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • Jan 3 2013: my view is there will always be weapons whether it be a gun, a sword, or a rock. killings have always happened throughout history. while the weapons are allowing us to kill more people making laws against the people that obey the laws is not the answer a criminal will get it one way or another when you make a law against guns the ones that will have them are the law because they have to control the criminals if the criminals did not have guns the law would not have to have them just because drugs are illegal and driving drunk is illegal it has not stopped by taking away the guns you are giving law breakers the upper hand against the people who obey the law. for instance in new york a newspaper released all the addresses of the people who had gun permits if i was a criminal my first thought would be now i know not to rob them lets get one of these other houses. it will be a lot easier and safer that way
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2013: "while the weapons are allowing us to kill more people making laws against the people that obey the laws is not the answer a criminal will get it one way or another when you make a law against guns "

      Not to say that this is impossible, but most developed countries don't allow citizens to have guns and also have very low gun-crime rates aswell.
      Its true that if you ban guns that only certain criminals may have access to them ,but if you allow everyone to have guns then you're guaranteeing the criminal to have one. Someone who's probably more ready and willing to use the gun than yourself.
      • Jan 3 2013: Switzerland has a lower gun crime rate than many countries that guns are illegal and everyone there is required to own a gun by law my opinion would be instead of restricting guns put more education into using them and using them safely and wisely
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: 'Switzerland has a lower gun crime rate than many countries that guns are illegal'
          Yes and no..
          There are about 30 developed countries that don't allow guns and have a lower gun-crime rate.

          Also switzerland is not similar to America for 5 reasons.
          1. Switzerlands army is an unofficial militia. Americas isn't.
          2. Only very specific guns are allowed to be owned
          3. The gun system is heavily regulated and you even need permits to transport them
          4. All those with the guns have undergone military training.
          5. The government maintains a record of all owners of the guns

          So theres a very big difference here.
          Especially as Switzerland requires extensive training and assessment prior to owning one, thus maintaining a much lower gun-crime rate than America, even though Americas training and safety is available (but optional).
    • thumb
      Jan 3 2013: That may be true, however look at turf wars and gangland violence, criminals rarely are deterred by the threat of violence but instead enter into an arms race using bigger and more lethal weapons on each other. In the scenario you described, if the criminal was desperate enough or thought the risk was appropriate and still wanted to rob the person despite them being armed, they would take bigger guns to intimidate, or act violently first to eliminate the treat to themselves.

      This is shown in the many thousands of armed robberies of shops, banks etc. in the USA each year despite the shop owners/ bank security carrying guns themselves.

      And while I agree that there will always be people who are capable of killing, I personally if faced with someone intent on ending my life would prefer to defend myself against someone with a rock that someone with an sub-machine gun.
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2013: Do you think hedging your bets by eliminating sub-machine guns, so you may only have to face a rock in a confrontation is grounds for terminating the choice of another person?

        How does it or would it make you feel when other people, who do not know you, tell you they know whats best for you and you have no choice but to obey?
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: No, I would eliminate anything with the sole purpose of causing death.

          Just about everything in your life is in some way or another decided for you by the society that you live in. Laws relate to crimes, which are acts that your society has deemed unacceptable and have therefore put measures in place to prevent you from perusing that behaviour.

          I think that as a collective of individuals you should strive to make decisions that benefit the most individuals. And, while I personally would not want to be confronted with a gun, I make gun control comments from a belief that no one would like to be confronted with a lethal weapon, and that the limitation of guns would benefit more individuals that it harms.

          My final thought is that I would say that in certain circumstances ‘terminating the choice of another person’ is perfectly justified if it serves a purpose, such as removing serial killers choice to end lives, and removing dictators choice to possess weapons of mass destruction. And that by in doing so saving even one innocent child’s life would be a good justification.
      • thumb
        Jan 4 2013: hmmm ... it seems this is becoming two different views on safety. One the responsibility and right to protect one's self and keep loved ones safe. The other, a way to potentially save some lives.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.