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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 6 2013: I think we're pretty much in agreement. I reference Michael Moore as a clearly leftist voice which doesn't think gun ownership is the problem, not as the definitive arbiter of truth. The "harm" is done by someone who I generalized as "each other", not suggesting that we're all barricaded in our living rooms waiting for our next door neighbor to attack. I am adamantly in agreement with you in that I'm not prepared to surrender responsibility for my own self defense to any government agency. I think the intensity of the debate on both sides of the argument is fueled by fear in direct proportion to that fear. I believe with you that most people only shoot for pleasure. My intent was to address the intensity, not the broad spectrum of motives.

    Where we diverge a little is on our definition of terms within the first phrase. I think it's difficult to argue that our current system is "well regulated" and, to my understanding, "militia" is defined as a group of non-professional soldiers who are subject to being called up to augment a standing army. That's not what we have.

    My overall intent is to search for a middle path which serves the overall interest of all concerned parties. If a middle way isn't found, then one side will simply dictate to the other what's going to be done and that's rarely good policy no matter which side you're on.
    • Jan 6 2013: Thank you for a rational discussion. This is what's missing from the national debate on this issue. You make a good point concerning the "well regulated' clause.

      The original intent of our 2nd Amendment, in my understanding and after reviewing many of our Founders own writings, was to deter tyranny by Government. This may be an unfounded risk that many push aside, but it's happened quite often in many countries. I'm not an alarmist or see that this is on the horizon by any means, but just address the original intent of our Founding Father's.

      As to the regulation issue, we have a lot of laws on the books concerning guns, murder etc, that seem to be ignored by the criminal elements. My primary issue with the anti-gun crowd is the false information or lies being spread to incite unfounded fear and mis-understanding of the issue at hand.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.