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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 6 2013: Mr. White and Mr. Taylor seem to be assuming that the individual right to "bear arms" trumps any reasonable consideration of public safety. If that is the case, why stop at automatic weapons? Why can't I put a dozen landmines in my front yard in order to discourage the deer and the neighbor's dog? Why can't I booby-trap my front porch so that any unwanted solicitor gets a faceful of Sarin or anthrax?

    The fact is that the unregulated presence of automatic & semi-automatic weapons in a free & open society will inevitably lead to the deaths of some innocent bystanders, & that the availability of automatic & semi-automatic weapons to the general population means that those numbers will continue to rise with each passing year. If you believe that the country's gun laws should be left as they are, then you must acknowledge that this is a price you are willing to pay.

    Gun advocates often raise the spectre of an armed takeover of the U.S. by some internal or external foe, but this is a fantasy, not an argument. There is no rational or plausible narrative that would get the US from where it is now to the point where it would make sense for any large military force to invade & then to impose martial law on a country of this size. Instead of watching old Patrick Swayze movies, people who think this is a realistic possibility should read a book or two about military history or military strategy.

    So I agree with Mr. White--let's leave the emotions out of the discussion. Let's look at the likely public-health costs of leaving the current gun laws in place, & weigh them against the likelihood of the general population of the US surrendering either to its own government or to an invading power at any point in the foreseeable future.
    • Jan 6 2013: Jody, landmines and other weapons of war are not addressed in our 2nd Amendment, so this argument jumps to extremes.

      We're talking about semi-automatic weapons, but many are injecting military automatic weapons into the argument. This is not helpful to a proper discussion.

      There are many more murders caused by other means than lawfully owned firearms. Why don't we focus on what might reduce the killing, not the means with which to kill? If a killer chose to ram a school bus full of explosive fertilizer into a school building, how will a new law banning guns help?
      • Jan 6 2013: Hi, Larry. You're right that the argument jumps to extremes. That's because I was trying to make the point that we already accept some limitations on the absolute right to bear arms. Because the Second Amendment doesn't say "the right to bear small arms" or "the right to bear muzzle-loading muskets," the country as a whole has had to decide which arms we can tolerate in our midst & which ones we can't.

        You & I simply draw that line in different places; you want to keep ARs & SARs but presumably would be uncomfortable if someone in your neighborhood had a 50-caliber machine gun nest in his attic. I think that automatic & semi-automatic weapons are weapons of war, not weapons of sport.

        I really have no problem with people who want to own handguns, rifles, & shotguns. I come from a family of hunters, & I enjoy a venison steak as much as the next guy. But I'm pretty sure that my brothers don't really want to share the woods with someone who thinks you should go hunting with a Bushmaster & a 30-round magazine, because it suggests a lack of perspective & a lack of skill that would be dangerous with any kind of firearm. And if you're just target shooting, I don't know why you'd need a 30-round clip--after all, that target's not going anywhere. Calm down, take a breath, reload.

        Regarding your last paragraph, we actually do have regulations about fertilizer these days. The kind of fertilzer used to make bombs now includes (by law) a chemical fingerprint so that (if necessary) the police can figure out where the fertilizer was purchased. I can't remember offhand whether this law was partly in response to the Oklahoma City bombing or whether it was on the books earlier, but either way, it makes good sense to me. Would you support a similar law calling for mechanical / chemical fingerprints on all ammunition?
        • Jan 6 2013: I don't support everyone on the block owning a .50 cal machine gun, but I do support the current licensing and control placed on those that would like to own them.

          This discussion is primarily about semi-automatic weapons. Many average hunting rifles function the exact same way as the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle.

          As far as a 30-round magazine, I agree a good hunter need only one well placed shot. I just don't think it matters whether a killer carry's a 30-round mag or 3 10-round mags. Again, the criminal will always ignore the law so why have ineffective laws on the books. Who are you to decide, or the government to decide, what we law abiding citizens need or want. It's like choosing a red Corvette vs. a black one. It's our choice, but in this case it's addressed in our 2nd Amendment!

          Personally, I just enjoys shooting, and this includes a 30-round mag at the target range. If I were still hunting I would chose a nice bolt action 7mm Mag, and not a Bushmaster .223 Cal with 30-rounds. If the ant-gunner had their way, they may determine that a 7mm Mag is overkill and outlaw that.

          Your right we have placed controls on fertilizer, but there are many other choices for the would-be criminal to use to kill. No, I personally don't support mechanical imprinting i.e. micro-stamping as this only adds undue cost to weapons for no gain.
        • thumb
          Jan 7 2013: A good friend of mine hunts with his bushmaster, and he's quite skilled. He bow hunts during bow season and uses the AR during rifle season, and his muzzle loader for muzzle loading season. But his 30 round mags aren't for hunting... they're definitely for people. This is a free country and we have the right to defend ourselves.
      • thumb
        Jan 7 2013: Perhaps you should look to other countries to see how violent America is in comparrison. We have a saying outside of America. "Only in America", because for most of the world, school shootings just do not exist, kids killing other kids, people going on sprees with automatic weapons, this is extremely rare, because as a rule, we deal with problems in a non-violent way. Americans are so used to violence that you see it as being normal for that kind of thing to happen. Open your eyes!!! Look outside of your borders and ask yourself, why is this happening in your country? You talk about using fertilizer bombs instead of guns!! You know what, the problem maybe isn't guns, it's American's attitude towards the use of violence in any form. It's interesting that the largest population of serial killers and psychopaths reside in America. Why? There are many people posting about how it should be your choice to own firearms. But you know what, I do not think that everyone should have that choice, because too many people have proved that they cannot be trusted to own a firearm without victimising someone. Gang members should not have the choice, known violent offenders, anyone with a history of family violence abuse should NOT have that choice. Like many other countries around the world, people should only be able to have guns if they have a firearms licence, and getting a licence should be made to be difficult where police checks are done, family violence checks, and interviews with family members on their safety before someone should have that right.
        • Jan 7 2013: I could go into a bunch of statistics about how crime in America is lower per capita than many, many other smaller countries, but I think it would fall on deaf ears.

          Our country has 310 million vs. New Zealand 4.4 million citizens.
          http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

          Our country has the only Constitution of it's kind and has done very well for our country for 234 plus years! Our Constitution establishes, in the Bill of Rights, guarantees for our freedom and liberty. This is at the core of American history and tradition.

          If you've never studied the United States Constitution, I suggest you do. It's very enlightening. You would have to read the Federalist Papers, and other documents written by our Founders to truly understand the context and meaning.

          Bottom line, it's easy for the uninformed to interpret the 2nd Amendment, but America having been born from the tyranny of the English King, this should be understanding enough!
    • thumb
      Jan 7 2013: I believe the discussion is about the right to bear arms, not murdering solicitors or slaughtering dogs.

      As for gangs, MS13 doesn't patrol LA with registered hunting rifles. This is the problem with liberalism. Liberals are idealists, progressive citizens who look to create a peaceful, easy to live in world. In pursuit of their lofty goals they fail to see realism. Government regulation isn't the end all for utopia. Practically every government agency and power has been exploited and abused, because the people running them are no different in nature than the people being regulated. Let's assume it would be great if every government dropped their guns and there was no more war. A gun free America is no more realistic, and attempting this only cripples and further controls a people who are supposed to be free.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.