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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

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: The whole anti-gun position is that of a Statist who not only believes the government should, but wants it to have the sole responsibility of keeping the peace. Such an expectation justifies and often requires complete and total oversight into our lives- cameras at every corner, logs of every event and an infrastructure capable of intelligently analyzing all this data.

    With this we move farther away from a self-ruled society and establish an even more privileged higher class, one that has the right and duty to micromanage our safety. It's the child and parent mentality, superimposed over a class of unlikable bureaucrats and the rights of every day citizens. If you'd like to see the utopia you're aiming for check out Cuba. No guns, no homeless, everyone has a job and the State does a dandy one at that.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2013: We can not be sure if the populace all still agrees that a system that is required to kill some of it's own people to achieve one of their utopian schemes, is wrong.
      • thumb
        Jan 11 2013: I big reason a lot of people here don't agree is because they live in a country that's already like this. Maybe their country has always been this way. America was born from rowdy colonists breaking away from the King. We established our country in such a way to be free of one- our federal government is set up with a system of checks and balances that has become the model for a lot of other nations. Not only do we have powers working against each other within our government, but we have State governments ruling sometimes in complete defiance. In our recent election where Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in defiance of federal law, such a thing would never happen in many European nations.

        Our mentality as Americans is different. In our eyes we're a free people, and our government is something to keep in check. We insist on our liberties, Europeans ask why!? They don't see themselves and their government in the same way.
        • thumb
          Jan 11 2013: I don't want to state the obvious, but many of the responses here are nothing more than "It can't happen here.". An ironic phrase that was coined as the precursor to it "happening here".
          However, maintaining a position that "it can't happen here" when it has "happened here", defies explanation except for the shopworn comparison to the ostrich.
        • Jan 12 2013: Huzzah! Fred, I agree 100%. I do not believe this talk can go any farther as the ones initiateing it are for the U.S. giving up our rights to please them, and put us in the same barrel. To use the language they expect, "us por mericans aint got any cents"
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2013: Read the statement Repealed or amended?// There is a choice
      • Jan 11 2013: Marianne, do you feel that as an american you are part of the governmental process? Your posts constantly refer to "them" and the "government" as if you have no say or ability to effect change. But then you refer to court cases that adjudicated some of your issues in your favor, how you support current law, etc. so you must have some faith (a little?) in our system? I am not so sure. You bring so much anger and dire predictions of the awful hypothetical future we face, and you make them with such a broad brush and such certainty when predicting the future, a future nobody can be certain of. This topic is about making changes in public policy from the status quo in one specific area, but you have broadened your responses to such a level that it makes me wonder if your posts are about the topic at hand, or if you would be against any changes that involve governing or government. Try to keep it realistic in your response if you could-we aren't Cuba, or Hitler's Germany, Cambodia, or any of the other scare countries that have been brought up. We are a representative democracy, one that is attempting to fix a problem through thoughtful discussion by the people and their representatives. So do you think any changes to gun laws that could be interpreted as more restrictive to the general US population should not even be considered?
        • thumb
          Jan 11 2013: Characterize it any way that serves you, the fact is that the only reason to bring up the 2nd Amendment is to diminish the rights of citizens to be armed.

          It is a demonstrable fact that local law enforcement agencies are on the receiving end of military ordinance, training and vehicles from the Federal Government at a time when violence is at an all time low in the United States.

          It is also a demonstrable fact that innocent American Citizens were killed at both Ruby Ridge and Waco by United States Government agencies who acted illegally and later destroyed evidence and lied en mass at the Senate hearings.( In the case of Waco the government did pay off on a wrongful death suit. However there was no redress of grievances for WACO to restore the rule of law.)

          Whether or not we are a nation where the rule of law is upheld, depends upon whether or not the people hold that to be a non-negotiable principle. In my experience, there are entire sectors of our society that can not differentiate between the rule of law and the rule of men. Foremost, it is important that our President believes in the rule of law. I find him unconvincing in that arena.

          In a conversation of thoughtful discussion, some of the facts that have to be considered, in this case, are very ugly. They are as ugly as the list of dead at Waco. They are brought to this discussion in this progression:

          Q Why do you think you need guns?

          A The people reserved the right to themselves to armed revolt against the government.

          Q How can you think that the US Government would do such a thing? We are not Cambodia.

          A They did it at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

          And your response is what? That those events didn't happen?
          We shape our own future.
          Nobody here has suggested a bilateral disarmament, only a disarming of the people at the bottom of the power structure.
          So, it's a completely different conversation that what is wrong with the Adam Lanzas and what we need to do to stop this from happening again.
        • thumb
          Jan 11 2013: And Sean, I am not big on how people "feel" about important issues as much as what they intend to "do".
          However, if you feel that you, as part of the electorate, still occupy the top rung of the social contact that we live under..please take me up on my invitation to invite the Federal an local LE agencies to stand down and begin this Messianic disarmament which will spring forth from their inner desire to tone down the violence and fear that they disseminate on a daily basis. Let them openly repudiate their "secret" Homeland Security memos that were issued against the advice of their own Civil Rights Division. See if you can get them to stack up their military ordinance that they purchased for Urban Warfare, into a big pile in the middle of the street and burn it. Oh, and while you are at it, make some regulations that require Big Phama to only administer their dangerous potions to people who are safely locked in institutions..and reinstate the funding for those institutions, whose funds were diverted elsewhere from 1960 to 1980. Can you also ask Hollywood to stop filling the cultural cesspool that children drink from? Make all parents responsible and make sure that all public schools require the children to practice the golden rule?
          Sure the most advanced nation in the history of the world can accomplish some of these tasks.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.