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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 11 2013: 1000 posts and still going.

    After reading a few of the most recent there seems to be a divide between those who think having more access or unlimited access to weapons might make society safer, and those who think being armed any way you want helps protect yourself from criminals or government that might turn on their citizens.

    Suggest there is a different dynamic between an individual being armed and better able to protect themselves in a specific threatening situation, and then looking society wide. Guns may help in individual situations, but overall having numerically more, and more powerful weapons around would seem to make people less safe overall.

    Agree there are other issues, not just what weapons are available, as root cause, but I would rather face a crazy who didn't have easy access to automatic weapons, just like we have speed limits, and limits on the type of vehicles you can drive on public roads.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2013: "Suggest there is a different dynamic between an individual being armed and better able to protect themselves in a specific threatening situation, and then looking society wide. Guns may help in individual situations, but overall having numerically more, and more powerful weapons around would seem to make people less safe overall."

      There is absolutely nothing to support this statement in any SCIENTIFIC analysis of data. Its comments such as this that really skew an uneducated public opinion in the wrong direction. Posing an argument in such a way that sounds like it "makes sense" without any data or research to support the statement.

      I could just as easily say that the more citizens who are armed in a society deters criminals because they know that there is a better chance of encountering an armed citizen and therefore it would seem that more guns would seem to make people more safe.

      Seems to "make sense" and supports the opposite side of the argument but in reality no one knows how the number of guns affects violence or crime.

      Point is it's easy to make arguments by being a wordsmith, but making arguments willy nilly without having any backup is not useful and is, in fact,, counterproductive to coming to any meaningful resolution. People get mired down in arguments that can't be won by either side and nothing ever sees a resolution.

      edit: This is why the media and lobbyists on either side cannot be trusted as sources. The do this ALL THE TIME.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2013: I agree Obey....more guns does not necessarily mean more safety and peace. In fact, I believe it causes the opposite.....the more assault weapons circulating in our communities, the greater the chance for people to use them inappropriately.

      You are right Paul, that all the statistics and data varies, so it is difficult sometimes to get accurate information. I have done a search of data on this issue, as you say you have done in another comment.

      There is absolutely NO evidence that the US government is trying to turn on the citizens of this country, and that is an argument that runs through this discussion as a good reason for the citizens to arm themselves.

      THAT is the kind of inaccurate information that "skews an uneducated public opinion in the wrong direction", as you insigjhtfully say. This kind of information, is indeed "willy nilly without having any backup... not useful and is, in fact, counterproductive to coming to any meaningful resolution". That kind of inaccurate, unsubstantiated information simply creates more fear, and unfortunately, I think that is what some folks are trying to do in an effort to support their argument that having more guns is better.

      I do not honestly believe that we are going to come to a "meaningful resolution" here on this comment thread. We CAN however, move toward sharing our perceptions, perspectives, thoughts, feelings, ideas and opinions respectfully, with accurate information.
      • thumb
        Jan 11 2013: I would have to agree with your reasoning here. The only thing is, and I may be in the "uneducated public opinion" group here, hasn't the past shown us that, given too much power, fallible men will use any advantage they may have over the masses to further their own ends? My thought here is that we know, from history, that governments and those in power are easily corrupted by power. Our forefathers knew this ugly side of human nature and built in safeguards to our governments (checks and balances) and the constitution as a whole.

        I'm assuming you would agree with me and I would then want to pose a question in response to your post....

        Knowing what we know about the nature of government and those in power, do we cede power (i.e. the ability of the government to disarm its constituents) and have faith that our government has not proven (yet) that they are willing to to turn on it's us?
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2013: Paul,
          I agree that given too much power, some people use any advantage they may have over the masses to further their agenda.

          Which is why it seems reasonable to get assault weapons out of circulation in our communities.

          Yes, those in power are sometimes corrupt.

          Which is why it is good for all of us to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. When we are genuinely engaged in our government, to whatever extent is possible for each of us, there is less corruption.

          Yes, our forefathers may have been aware of this side of human nature and built in safeguards (checks and balances) in the constitution.

          Which is probably why there is a clause in the constitution which apparently allows for "regulation" of guns. When we had an assault weapons ban in the past, nothing was repealed or amended, and perhaps our forefathers were wise enough to know that technology would advance, and conditions in our country may change to the point where this issue needed to be revisited.

          I do not perceive anyone wanting to "cede power" or wanting to "disarm" constituents. There is no evidence of that idea whatsoever. There is no evidence that the US government is "willing to turn on us"......the citizens of the US. I believe this to be a fear tactic, spread by a handful of frightened people.

          Being afraid of a government overthrow, and hoarding masses of guns because of that fear, when there is no evidence whatsoever, is a frightened knee jerk reaction, which in my humble perception, simply causes more fear. A frightened person with a gun, is a frightened person with a gun, and has no ability to think or act reasonably. I am frightened of the folks hoarding assault weapons because of their fear.

          We have a situation locally... a guy has not paid taxes for many years....believes this country still belongs to England... made his home into a bunker....gated... assault weapons....etc.....that's how he and his family have lived for years...nothing has happened.
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2013: OOPS.....I forgot......something tragic DID happen. The teenage son killed himself by laying on the traintrack and letting the train run over him. Can you imagine how frightening and confusing it was to live in that environment....afraid of the government, a home that was a protected bunker, assault weapons all around....incredible fear. Apparently, letting a train run over him and ending his life was preferable to the way he was living.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.