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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • Jan 5 2013: Well in terms of the 2nd Amendment, the people who claim it to be perfect and a reason that the gun market should not be regulated overlook something. The 2nd amendment within the first four words require regulation and organizational affiliation. "A well regulated militia." The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be changed or repealed in the least. It just need proper enforcement, which means that the supreme court needs to finally, and clearly so that the words could not be misunderstood, define what constitutes "a well regulated militia".
    • Jan 6 2013: Excellent idea : to clarify what a "well regulated militia" , means, but I don't think you will like it. It means being able to shoot straight , and do the "Manual of Arms", i..e. maneuvers for volley shooting muskets. What it definitely does NOT mean is a Federally or State controlled Army unit. Milita men were NOT selected, any more than voters are.
      • Jan 6 2013: True. Militia men were not selected. They were volunteers as you implied. However, they were organized, as I said, and trained, as you implied. And were often of sound mind and body. I'm not saying add unreasonable restrictions to firearms. Just add a clear legal definition to "well regulated militia." One bringing up education, training and responsible use.
        • Jan 7 2013: J i'm sure you mean well, but if you start making Federal or State requirements for militiamen, you are creating opportunities for corruption. i.e. take the "Poll Tax": purportedly to see to it that voters were well educated, but actually to harass Blacks. Take the State "National Guard " units. They are in no way a "Militia"; they are carefully selected, not everyone is accepted, etc. and they don't have to stay "home". Al;so, please note that the classic Militia were NOT volunteers. A volunteer can be rejected: the great thing about the militia was, that as in Switzerland now, every man was in it, and every man was supposed to be able to shoot straight, as well as provide his own gun. Their is nothing in the history of guerilla war to suggest that they could not hold their own in a conflict, in their own neighborhood. It iis said that one reason the Japanese did not contemplate any invasion of continental US territory during WW2 was that they heard about just how many Deer hunters turn out every deer season.
    • thumb
      Jan 6 2013: The amendment creates a standing armory, armed citizens. If it is regulated by the state, it ceases to perform the function of an independent force that stands ready to defend the people against all enemies.
    • Jan 6 2013: Your wish has been granted ! The Supreme court has finally and clearly defined what constitutes "a well regulated militia"

      In 2008 the Supreme court decided in the “Heller case”

      Antonin Scalia for the majority in Heller, stated:
      Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.