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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 8 2013: Amernding or repealing the 2nd Amendment is not required, and it has zero chance of happening. The 2nd Amendment is generally used by the leadership of pro-gun advocates to cloud the issue-precisely because they know there is zero chance that the Consitution will be changed. The fact is we already have limitations on gun ownership, but they are incredibly light, and those laws clearly need to be revisitied in light of facts. The NRA and other gun rights advocates do a fantastic job for their constituents, but the unfortunate outcome is that more people die in the US.

    As an example, Canada is sometimes called the 51st state because it is demographically very similar the US. A young, new world country that watches the same TV, movies, and internet, and plays the same video games as people in the US. Similar in every way, except in the US there is nearly unfettered access to weaponry. The same in virtually every way, yet we are more than 5 times more likely to be killed by a gun homicide in the US. (.5/100k in Canada to 2.9/100k in US).

    When we are so similar to our demographic Canadian friends in so many ways, but different in just one, doesn't it make sense to take a look at the one difference-especially when we are talking about life and death?

    Think about it for the next 2 days, and while you do, statistically about 48 people will be killed by gun homicide in the US while 1 will be killed in the Canada. While you are cogitating, think about the fact that more people were killed by gun homicide in the US just last year than US citizens killed in the entire 10 years of the Iraq war and 11+ years Afghan war COMBINED. We rightfully mourn those losses on the battlefield, but the mourning at home quickly becomes hypothetical discussions about rights and feared domino effects of common sense legislation regarding deadly weapons. We need to stay focused on the facts as a country, and not get distracted by paid lobbyists on either side.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2013: Comparing US and Canada is not a good barometer of anything regarding this argument. But the fact that the US does have roughly double the murder rate of Canada does prove the point that the issue is much bigger than gun control.
      • Jan 9 2013: Please explain why comparing the US to Canada demographically is incorrect? Similar peoples, different outcomes. But, if you don't like Canada, pick another developed country....and to be clear, the difference in gun homidice rate is about 5x US/Canada, or 7000 more shot dead per year in the US than if we had the Canadian kill rate. (Or you can do the numbers on some other developed nation if you don't like Canada) I agree with you that on the margin it is much larger than gun control, but those are distractions . Where the rubber hits the road is at the time of killing, and the difference between America and other developed nations is that we kill each other much more effectively when there is violence. Limiting weapons won't end violence, but it will limit the death rate that results from that violence. As I said earlier, Americans and Canadians are much the same(TV, movies, internet, news, ETC.) but have a much higher gun homicide rate. Why is that? If you don't think it is the guns that are killing please tell me what you think it is.
        • thumb
          Jan 9 2013: The simplest response to the first part of your question is that Canada demographically is very different from the United States, with less population density and much more rural areas. Violence obviously escalates when people are in close proximity to one another.

          I completely disagree with your statement " Limiting weapons won't end violence, but it will limit the death rate that results from that violence". One I just think it is factually inaccurate, and two why in the world is that a better scenario? You prove the point that the problem has nothing to do with guns and with the issues that cause the violence in the first place. The whole gun control argument is based in illogical thought. Guns do not cause the issues that lead to the violence and massacres, removing guns from lawful owners would only serve to strengthen those who would try to rule by fear, allow the criminal underbelly of society to flourish, and stop a free market economy at the most basic local levels.

          It's a problem in america that the "easiest" issue to fix is often blamed for some of the most serious problem facing our society today. More often than not "fixing" this issue leads to more and more problems in the future. It's like putting a band-aid on a seriously infected cut......
      • Jan 9 2013: As I said in the orignal post, if you don't like Canada as a peer, pick another developed nation, and the numbers stay true. (About 5x the rate of other peer nations, or 7000 extra shot dead per year in our country.) You disagree with the idea that limiting weapons would limit the death rate in times of violence. I'll support with an example....the Conn. shooter without semiauto/auto weapons likely would have bludgeoned his mom to death and hung himself or attempted suicide in another way (statistically he would have failed in one or both, but let's assume he completes the act) 2 dead is a tragedy. But in the US, although clearly mentally unstable, he has access to high kill rate weapons and is quickly able to kill 26 more. That is what I mean regarding limiting weapons would limit kill effeciency in times of violence. If you disagree with that, well, I have nowhere to go. You are correct that "guns don't cause the issues that lead to ...massacres". Guns just multiply the actual killing.
        I understand that there are underlying problems that lead to violence, and those should be addressed, but we can't pretend that unfettered access to weapons isn't an issue. Better mental health access would help in the abstract (it didn't in Conn, the young man had wealth and access to excellent mental health care and used it.) and other social issues certainly play in. But those are not exclusive to sensible changes in gun laws, and I don't see anyone saying that just changing guns laws will change everything. Would making modifications to guns laws mean we couldn't address the issues you allude to also? I am sympathetic to the those who cite their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as meaning that they can have a Hellfire missile-in theory. The problem is, the reality is resulting in about 7000 needless gun deaths a year in the US every year. This is life or death, not theory. If 19 extra dead a day is OK to defend the theory, then just say so. I think not.
        • thumb
          Jan 9 2013: As I stated in an earlier post, if killing people quickly is at the heart of your argument then maybe we should pass legislation that controls and prohibits the materials that a suicide bomber would use. The point is that if a person wants to cause death on a large scale it is possible without a firearms (assault or not).

          As far as measuring the US against other nations its like comparing apples and oranges. There is no nation that can be logically compared to the United States in this argument. As much as you assert that Canada is similar to the United States it just is not.

          Do you think that the murder rate would drop significantly if guns were banned completely? My feeling is that it wouldn't and, perhaps, would even have the opposite affect.
      • Jan 9 2013: 1) We do have laws on the books that control and prohibit materials for suicide bombs. Only makes sense.
        2) Wow, you should get out more. We in the US aren't that different from other places.
        3) I never proposed banning guns completely, I suggested a review based on facts.

        I am former military and rated an expert shot....but my brain still functions.
        • thumb
          Jan 9 2013: 1. Bombs big enough to kills hundreds if not thousands of people can be made out of household products.
          2. We are very different as a society from any other nations. With a cultural melting pot that can't be found in other places. This leads to people with very different point of views living in close proximity to one another. Most other countries save the UK maybe, don't have the same density and forced interaction that is found in the US. Not to mention the media and advertising sectors promoting violence as a acceptable way to conduct ourselves.
          3. I'm all for regulation to prevent people with mental illness or criminal history to own a gun, but the problem is that this regulation has nothing to do with the larger issue of what causes these tragedies to keep happening. The media and proponents of gun control skew the issue so terribly that it ingrains the wrong ideas in public opinion and masks what is really wrong.

          edit: I just looked into the population density of different countries and I'm actually pretty wrong to say that the US is the most dense, we are actually like 76th on the list. My argument about population density is baseless it turns out. There is no correlation that I can find that shows a higher murder rate to population per square mile.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2013: More authoritarianism from the same government entities that flood our culture with hypocrisy and corruption on a daily basis, seems like a very dumb trade-off.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.