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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 4 2013: Think of having a well-armed civilian population as part of America’s check and balance system.

    I propose the reason the US has not been threaten with the possibility of military rule is because we have an armed police and civilian force, and likewise a strong military and civilian force prevents a police state. And no mob rule because we have both military and police forces.

    And you have to also consider the deterrent of having three layers of defense has made to foreign occupation.

    With US politics being in the state its in, is now the really the time to change the military/police/civilian balance?
    • Jan 5 2013: As if armed civilians were a comparable force to the army... I do not think there is a need for armed civilians from a checks and balances point of view at all.

      The US military is controlled through its members and their moral. If the generals and soldiers of the military would have a common will to take over the country armed civilians could not stop them!

      Luckily the US military is a very complex, patriotic and diverse body with high loyalty to the people of the US and their political system so that the fear of a military rule in the US becomes a ridiculous idea. Civilians do not need weapons to prevent this from happening apart from their inability to do so in case.

      The military and a lot of other stuff nowadays is much different from the colonial era and so should be the ways of how to protect our citizens.
      • Jan 6 2013: Mathias: the reason that dictators have always favored Standing Armies is that they follow orders. It has been demonsrated throughout history that to rely on the common decency and human feelings of the troops to keep your government honest is simply inadequate. If ordered to shoot, they shoot . Perhaps you are old enough to remember "Kent State". Or do you think that there was actually a Communist Plot?!
      • Jan 6 2013: Mathis:
        I support Don Andersons' comment “ Think of having a well-armed civilian population as part of America’s check and balance system. “

        The framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation.

        Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
        “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens”
        Noah Webster similarly argued:
        Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

        The British could not subjugate the colonists because there was a gun behind every bush. The Colonists won because they demoralized a superior force.

        The shoe was on the other foot when we entered into Vietnam. Politics aside we were the superior power, defeated by an inferior force, through the use of small arms to demoralize our will to fight.

        At the time of the colonists, a civilian had the same available firepower as the army musket versus musket. The balance of power is today very lopsided as you suggest “ As if armed civilians were a comparable force to the army...” Could a well armed militia defeat a modern army? This is actually playing out in the world today. Syria's Assad Regime has tanks, planes, and the full complement of trained military. He is trying to suppress a population who has decided that they will not tolerate the oppression of his regime any longer. Any guess as to how that will turn out ?
        • Jan 6 2013: In Syria Assad cannot win because the core of his miltary turns away from him. I think that soldiers are generally moral people and thus the best and only possible way to control a military is from within. If the syrian army would stand united against the population theyd win easily but they dont because the soldiers are the people dreaming of a better system like anyone else.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.