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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • thumb
    Jan 7 2013: The morning after that elementary school shooting, a similar event occured in China. A man killed 22 kids with a knife outside an elementary school. http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story

    "China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes."

    I think that puts a nail in the coffin of the 'guns don't kill people' debate. Millions of Americans own firearms for hunting and self defense, yet don't shoot up malls and schools. People want to blame guns because they already have an anti-gun agenda. They look for anything they believe might justify their views, and in this case don't give the subject legitimate thought. People don't inherently lack self control around guns.

    After the Connecticut shooting, a mother of a mentally ill, potentially homicidal child wrote this piece: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

    I found it quite moving. This article is an excellent illustration of what it's like to live with a child like Adam Lanza. Some people have serious issues. Disarming the masses is an asinine way to accommodate them.

    The second amendment isn't for hunting. It's to insure that the citizens of the United States remain a free people. It's right up there with the first amendment. The first amendment is most important to our freedom. The second should be considered second most important. They get those two points out of the way to begin with, before anything else.

    I understand that many European countries run things differently, and many US citizens would like to conform to their standards of socialism. But our founders left Europe and started a different kind of country. We have a Constitution that has ratified these different values, to insure that we remain a free people as our country changes and matures over time. The second amendment isn't just so we can fight foreign invaders, but our very own government should we need to.
    • thumb
      Jan 7 2013: when have you needed to??? When do you think you are going too??? Half your citizens don't even vote so why should you be surprised if there is a Government take over????


      Think about it, do you really think the guy in China would of shown up at a school with a knife if he hadn't known about the school shootings in America??? Okay he didn't have a gun but he still killed a number of people at a school why because its an easy usually undefended target.
      • Jan 7 2013: "Think about it, do you really think the guy in China would of shown up at a school with a knife if he hadn't known about the school shootings in America??? "

        Congratulations! You just played the hand that the Chinese government play to censor news. News kills!

        "Half your citizens don't even vote so why should you be surprised if there is a Government take over???? "
        You voted, so can I hold you accountable for all the actions of your government?
        • thumb
          Jan 7 2013: What a crock of .................. and I didn't vote for the present party but yeah go ahead if it makes you feel better
      • thumb
        Jan 7 2013: Had the US not intervened in WW2 you'd probably be living with Hitler. Tyrants are a fact of the past, present and future. Maybe you can't see an American Hitler today, but how about a hundred years from now, or fifty? The founders of the US put the right to bear arms right at the top of the Constitution, second only to the freedom of speech, religion and right to assemble. This country was designed to be free, to be governed by checks and balances and inherent freedoms, so that the people would never fall subject to a tyrannical government. I would think foreigners would want the same freedoms, especially living in the shadow of the US government.
      • Jan 7 2013: @Morgan Barnes
        "I didn't vote for the present party "
        Is that how it works now? You're to be held responsible only for the actions of the party you voted for? Democracy works only if the party YOU voted for wins?????

        "so why should you be surprised if there is a Government take over"
        Whether one votes for a party or not, the government is supposed to adhere to the constitution, and always to fundamental rights.
        • thumb
          Jan 7 2013: Actually democracy works because I have the right to vote for whom I wish ok so it wasn't for the party that won I can live with that and I knew that the party I voted for wouldn't win but I did know they would keep the other basta**ds honest. :-)
      • Jan 8 2013: Morgan, your blatant trash-talking is objectionable, because it is so obvious. You are saying that a lunatic in China killed children because a lunatic in the US killed children. This is so ridiculous it's laughable.
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: actually it's known as a flow-on effect small snippet of information that hits the subconscious and is carried out, but yes there is also coincidence
    • Jan 7 2013: Fred, the article states that 22 children were "slashed", not killed. I think you've highlighted a great example of why gun control is a good thing, if he had had a gun then they might very well have been killed. No one died in the attack you mentioned.
      I will admit that at the end of the article It does state that "In 2010, nearly 20 children were killed and 50 wounded in a string of copycat incidents around central China." Just imagine how many would have died, had guns been involved in those 2010 attacks.
      YES, people all over the world are crazy and go around killing other people, lets not make it easier for them and give them easy access to weapons that can fire 800 rounds a minute.
      • thumb
        Jan 7 2013: Wow nice catch. I read that article a few weeks ago and didn't reread it before posting. I guess I have to hand it to you. :)

        Perhaps China is a great example of gun control. It has a powerful government that protects the people and everyone is guaranteed a job. Excessive surveillance keeps everyone safe. Just imagine how much more violent the Tiananmen Square protest would've been had the citizens been armed.

        I think the big difference between the US and China is that we're a free people. We have the right to bear arms in our Constitution. Whether or not you'd like a world with round corners and soft edges, our founders gave us this right for the same reason they gave us checks and balances in government... so we don't become like China.
        • Jan 7 2013: I am not saying that you should get rid of all your guns, but where do you draw the line? Should citizens be allowed to own hellfire missiles? They can be classified as arms can't they, why can't you bear them on your light aircraft? Surely if you were to rise up against the government you would need something a bit more powerful than an 50cal?

          Here in Australia we have tight restrictions on guns, I myself have a gun license and enjoy shooting, it's great fun. Do I wish I had an AR15? Sure, I bet they are a hoot! However I completely understand why they shouldn't be in the hands of even the most responsible citizen, because heaven forbid they fall into the hands of some nut job.
          Do I lose any sleep over not being able to have an AR15? No, because essentially they are toys, toys which we can LIVE without.
          I would hope that we have a lot of other checks and balances in our respective constitutions that help steer us away from becoming anything like China. Oh and don't worry the patriot act allows you to be very well surveilled to ensure of your safety ;)
      • thumb
        Jan 7 2013: Oh AR15's are a hoot. And really no different than any other hunting rifle when sold in the US. Bushmasters are popular for hunting over here.

        The founders of our country gave us the second amendment so we could remain a free people. So personally I wouldn't draw the line at all. Over the century the interpretation has been gradually stripped to "these guns" without "these parts" and such, but the amendment has remained the same. If we're really to remain armed against a potentially tyrannical government, we need real weapons of war. That means hellfire missiles.

        Is it realistic for an armed citizenry to take on our current regime? I could ask the same of your country or any other, military and all. Could you take on the US? Could Europe, without a nuclear fallout? This is an increasingly interesting thing to think about as we watch the US orchestrate the planet to "make it safer for Americans and American business". The fact is the US is a power matched by no other country, a global hegemon that already feels fine publicly assassinating dissidents and extraditing foreigners for copyright infringement. Our guns aren't toys, they're a check and balance to this extraordinary power. As it stands today, the feds would need Blackwater to stand against it's own armed citizenry and 50 state governments. A handgun ban here would bring about only chaos. Repealing the 2nd amendment as the OP suggests is a laughing matter. Even the pending assault weapons ban only bans sales, all previous owners are grandfathered in. Martial Law would need to be declared to confiscate anything. The US is definitely not the UK.

        Our civil war was very well organized. The rebelling states had a union with a president and a capitol. I believe that's one advantage we would have in such a scenario... the state governments maintain some level of autonomy. How that measures against UAV's, well other countries have them too. Our revolution against Britain was partly due to the French.
    • thumb
      Jan 7 2013: You've misguided people who don't read that article you posted, it says the man slashed the kids and some were seriously injured but I couldn't see anywhere where it says he killed someone.
      And your 2nd amendment is about hunting, it's also about self protection in the days when law enforcement were just too spread out to be totally effective.
      Also the right to bare arms is a very ambiguous statement and that's why your gun lobby loves it. But under scrutiny it really doesn't say right to all arms or any specific type, Obama could ban all guns except hand guns with a 5 bullet clip and a 2 second release reloader catch and that would still be constitutional
      Europe isn't socialist by the way, it's dominated by countries who currently have right wing leaders
      Also I'm from Northern Ireland and I'm reminded every day of what happens if someone who wants to kill has a gun,
      And surely if we're working towards a peaceful future and Americas to be the leading light then surely you'd want no guns at all
      • thumb
        Jan 7 2013: Sam pointed that out to me in his comment above. I apologized for the mistake.

        It seems a lot of foreigners think our second amendment is for protection against foreign nations in the old days, or was meant to fill the void of a police force. Really it's to maintain our rights and freedoms that our founders granted to us, to rise against any future tyrannical government, a century from now or tomorrow. America was born out of colonists wanting freedom from the British empire, and was set up in a marvelous way to keep us a free people with a decentralized order. Unfortunately these checks and balances, inalienable rights and freedoms aren't extended to foreigners or our foreign policy. If you're looking to America to be a "guiding light", hate to say it, you'll probably end up really disappointed.
        • thumb
          Jan 7 2013: It seems all to probable that given the date of the second amendments adoption that it was to protect citizens from attacks by natives, fights with Mexico etc
          And the rise against argument will never work, even if every US citizen had guns but the army stayed loyal to the gov the people would be decimated, to defeat the US gov you'd need missiles, tanks, warships, subs, emps, trained forces, planes, bombers, fighter jets.
          Which comes to the next argument, what is an "arm"? In the 1790s it was a single shot musket, the assault rifle would make their weapons look like stones (relatively speaking). So would Americas founders retract what they said in repulsion at what this bill has become.
          Or if they stuck by it would they argue that if someone can afford it they've every right to own a functioning tank, scud launcher, jet,
          And why not? These objections all become plausible under the freedom argument.
          To everyone looking into the US this is the one piece of statute that everyone thinks is out of date
      • thumb
        Jan 10 2013: If you think the fights with Mexico are over you should visit LA.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.