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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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: Then we agree on 3 of the points, mostly.
    Gary's point ignores the meaning and intent of our Constitution. Self defense is an "unalienable right," endowed by our creator. I'd rather keep my God given rights vs. having a human dictate my rights. If the government gives us our rights, that can VERY easily take them away
    This is a federal rights issue and not a state or local issue.

    On your last point, the term assault is misleading and wrong! The semi-automatic weapon, which you choose to call an assault weapon, is functionally the same as most of the current hunting rifles on the market.
    • thumb
      Jan 6 2013: Larry,
      This looks like it might be a continuation of our conversation....out of sequence?

      I do not believe Gary's point ignores the meaning and intent of the constitution. His point seems to reinforce the meaning and intent....are you familier with that document?

      Self defense is an "unalienable right" endowed by our creator"...a "God given right".....wow....OK!
      You prefer that god dictate the gun laws, rather than "a human dictate" your rights....ok....good luck with that my friend:>)

      You say it is a "federal rights issue and not a state or local issue". I'm sure you know that states do indeed have certain authority to regulate firearms? I believe the constitution allows that right.

      There is certain criteria defining assault weapons. If you are not aware of the criteria, you can find that information on line:>)

      I think you're right...we DO agree on several issues, and it's a matter of looking at valid information.
      • Jan 6 2013: I've read the Constitution many times. It clearly states, and has been clarified by a recent Supreme Court decision, that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

        The states have passed, very questionable gun control laws, that may or may not really be Constitutional. They just haven't been challenged all that much.

        Yes, I would rather have my natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

        The term assault rifle is primarily associated with a "select fire" capability. The weapons in this discussion are semi-automatic, not select fire.
    • thumb
      Jan 6 2013: I do not understand how my post ignored the meaning and intent of our constitution.

      The point I have been trying to get across throughout this debate is: No group of people, government or public, should decide they know whats best for the entire country. Each individual has the right to choose to own firearms. Its a personal choice, not a choice to be made for me.
      • thumb
        Jan 6 2013: I understand and respect your point Gary. That being said...it was a "group of people" who wrote the constitution for the entire country....was it not?
        • thumb
          Jan 6 2013: Yes it was Colleen, ... I do not believe we need a constitution to tell me I have the right to defend myself and bear arms. This is fundamentally human, been goin' on long before any rights were written down.

          Its kind of Larry's contradiction. He wants his rights from his god. Yet he needs the constitution, written by humans, to exercise said right.
        • Jan 6 2013: Even an atheist would agree, I think, that having our rights given to us by an unseen or un-believable being is important. The alternative is that the King will decide what rights you get and can quickly take them away. Or the next regime can do the same!

          Right on Gary. On this issue, no group of people should have the right to tell citizens what type of gun they choose.

          Colleen, a group of people did write the Constitution, but elected representatives ratified it. They represented the people as a whole, at the time.
      • thumb
        Jan 6 2013: You're right Gary...we have the right and ability to defend ourselves and that has been goin' on long before any rights were written down.

        It seems like as we grow and evolve in our societies, rules have been written down to make it clear what is acceptable in that particular society, and what is not acceptable. In the USA, it is the leaders that we elect who have written the rules since our country was founded.

        You are now saying..."I do not believe we need a constitution to tell me I have the right to defend myself and bear arms". What do you propose we do with the constitution, which has been in place for a couple hundred years?
        • thumb
          Jan 6 2013: Colleen, If the point of the constitution is to guarantee our unalienable rights, then I say leave it alone. The constitution is not the problem.
      • Jan 6 2013: Gary, our Constitution doesn't grant our rights, it guarantees our rights! This coupled with the Declaration of Independence secures what are the peoples rights.

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

        And, what is not addressed in our Constitution is deferred to the States or to the people. This is why I say that many gun control laws on the books at the state/local levels are un-Consitutional. If they were challenged in court they would most likely be stricken from the books.
        • thumb
          Jan 6 2013: I get you now. The U.S. is so broad and varies greatly, I was just thinking of a way to keep the national government and people in certain areas from choosing what is right for everybody.
      • thumb
        Jan 6 2013: Gary,
        This is a response to your statement:
        " Colleen, If the point of the constitution is to guarantee our unalienable rights, then I say leave it alone. The constitution is not the problem."

        I totally agree, which is why my preference continues to be... no repeal/no amendment. The constitution provides for "regulation", which may guarantee "unalienable rights" to ALL of us:>)
        • thumb
          Jan 6 2013: No document can guarantee a person will live. ... But I see your perspective.
    • thumb
      Jan 7 2013: Larry,

      "I'd rather keep my God given rights vs. having a human dictate my rights." Do you mean to say that the constitution was written by God? Or how are your rights God-given?
      • Jan 8 2013: Jimmy, please re-read my previous post, as that is not what I said:
        *******************
        Gary, our Constitution doesn't grant our rights, it guarantees our rights! This coupled with the Declaration of Independence secures what are the peoples rights.

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

        So basically to sum it up, wouldn't you, even an avowed atheist, rather have you rights as a human being granted by a power you don't believe in vs. a human that can snatch them away?
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: Just to clear it up for anyone reading this post, the reply is for Jimmy. I'm not an avowed atheist.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.