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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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 12 2013: The thing here is that people who live in urban areas don't understand the lives of people out in secluded rural farms. If something goes wrong, they can't just call the cops like we do in NYC or LA. When women are alone and their husbands are away (military duty for example), they should have the right to own a weapon to protect themselves and their children. In the event that the US govt decides to ban semi-automatic weapons, I believe that a large majority of people - law abiding citizens - will be stripped of their right to own a firearm when they themselves have done nothing wrong. There have been a few instances of massacre: Gabrielle Giffords, Newtown, Batman premiere, etc. But the idea holds that the overwhelming group from the NRA are responsible and can handle this power. "Don't hate the putative sinners, hate the sin." The need for firearms for personal protection in rural areas is extremely vital and people who live in cities need to realize that. Increase protection in public areas if you need to, it'll create more jobs. Have background checks. Make sure they have valid IDs. But don't take away a citizen's right to own a firearm, whether it be for recreational hunting or for protection.
    • thumb
      Jan 12 2013: I agree primary producers and rural areas should be allowed to have a firearm for protection against threats to stock and creepy crawly slithery thingys and even for having to put sick and injured stock down but they don't need semi or automatic to do that.

      We had a large property when I was kid (still do) and we always carried a rifle while mustering mainly because of snakes but also in-case some of the stock was to sick or injured to make it back.
      But we only use rifles not semi's

      some of the best shots I have ever seen are women
      • Jan 13 2013: The main adversary that would merit a gun of any type on a ranch would have to be other humans potentially coming in to do you harm. You should have the right to own any firearm you wish that would give you the confidence in safety that you are protected. This right extends beyond livestock and threats to your crops.
    • thumb
      Jan 12 2013: Alexander and Morgan,

      I do not hear anyone except a few extremists suggesting taking everyone's guns away. The focus seems to be on assault weapons. I agree Morgan, that some of the best shots are women, and we generally don't need 1200 RPM to hit our target!!!

      I live in a very rural state, there are lots of hunters and some folks have small pistols for protection in their homes. Most people are in favor of getting assault weapons out of circulation.
      • Jan 13 2013: Ironically, when I started writing on this issue on this forum, I was of the opinion that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to carry assault weapons. However, after having read and written about the issue here, I have changed my mind.

        I am now of the opinion that citizens have a right to own even a million RPM gun -- as long as they have proven that they know how to use it and store it safely.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: then lets hope no big pharma wacked out kid gets his hands on his parents gun while its sitting on the kitchen table after they have been to the range, and goes troppo in your street.
        • Jan 13 2013: Yes, John! That's the issue - because of these tragic incidents, we've condemned the right to carry firearms along with condemning those who committed those acts. It depends upon the person's ability to responsibly handle a gun. And Morgan, that's where responsibility comes in. A kid should know the consequences of a gun. If they live in rural areas, they will be more accustomed to it. If they live in an urban area, that is their parents' responsibility to tell them at length and in detail what it can do and that it's not a toy.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Interesting John!

          I haven't changed my mind, because I have been in favor of getting assault weapons/killing guns out of circulation for years.

          This discussion has reinforced my belief that we need to regulate guns even more. The folks who say they need to hoard weapons to defend themselves against our own US government...those who say it is just "fun" to own and shoot high power guns, etc. really frighten me!

          I don't perceive anyone being "condemned". I agree that it is important to be able to responsibly handle a gun....how is that working so far with those who have chosen to be destructive with the weapon?
      • Jan 13 2013: Colleen, I appreciate your sentiment.

        It should be noted that, in order to purchase "assault weapons" requires special licensing and a higher level of background inquiry. At least if it is purchased legally. Those who wish to purchase a "machine gun style assault weapon" must have a collector's license.

        That being said. There are many look-alikes out there which masquerade as the real thing. And, yes, with the right kitting, a person can change a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon.

        The reality of these issues though is this. A very small percentage of crimes with firearms are committed with assault style weapons much less rifles. And almost none are committed with the type of weapon you describe. Most crimes with firearms are by handgun. This is why we need to look at the evidence and data about the use to make informed decisions. Not discuss this issue at a time of high emotion.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Hi Everett,
          I appreciate your perspective as well. It should be noted that we can buy any kind of weapons at shows and on line, without licensing or background checks.

          The reality of this issue, in my perception, is that there are too many crimes with firearms killing innocent people.

          I totally agree that we need to look at the evidence and data to make informed decisions, and not discuss this issue at a time of high emotion. BTW, I have been an advocate of getting assault weapons/killing guns out of circulation for many years, so I do not feel that my emotions regarding this issue are any higher now. How about you?
      • Jan 13 2013: @Morgan Barnes:
        "then lets hope no big pharma wacked out kid gets his hands on his parents gun while its sitting on the kitchen table after they have been to the range, and goes troppo in your street."

        What exactly are you saying here?
        1. I always hope to be safe.
        2. Anyone could be wacked out. Could be a kid on big pharma, could be a cop on big pharma, could be a cop not on big pharma, could be an adult not on big pharma, etc. What was your point, again?
        3. "sitting on kitchen table"? Well, if the adult in question has had proper training on safe storage, he is less likely to leave it sitting on the kitchen table, isn't he?
        4. If a wacked out person (kid, adult, cop, whatever) goes troppo on my street, I hope someone close by (citizen or cop) has a gun within reach to take him out quickly. What was your point, again?
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: The point is it only takes one little lapse for something to happen eg Comes home from the range with all good intentions of locking firearm away yet there maybe a call of nature, phone rings, door bell kids fighting, cat attacks the dog firearm left in reach and ..............................................

          does that help clarify?
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: The legislation is to limit the type of firearms Marianne not allow semi auto and autos into the hands of ordinary citizens who really do not need them.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: I love the term "ordinary citizens"...what are the other type?
      • Jan 13 2013: Colleen, I am responding here as the "reply" does not work quite well does it.

        I respect your position, and knowing truly nothing about you, you seem to be a person of principle and purpose. That is commendable.

        If the gun laws are followed, then the purchase of "machine guns" at shows is illegal. Fully automatic weapons for purchase are not allowed except by special permit. However, I know that is not being followed and there are loopholes as well.

        The information I have seen, from the FBI, is that the actual use of firearms, of rifle style is a low percentage of those used in crimes. Assault style weapons is an even lower percentage of the total crimes. The actual deaths of individuals by firearms, committed on another is also low in relation to other crimes.

        That being said, I am not a strong advocate for all types of weapons being in the hands of individuals. Assault style weapons are not necessary for the average person. I don't know the answer to the problem, but I know more needs to be done.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Everett,
          Not only am I a person of principle and purpose....I also do my homework, and obtain accurate information:>)

          Yes...you are absolutely correct....there are "loopholes".

          You say..."The actual deaths of individuals by firearms, committed on another is also low in relation to other crimes."

          You are comparing deaths to "other crimes"? Well you are probably right.....there are not as many deaths as burgleries. Do you want to be the one to tell the loved ones of those who are killed, not to worry because there are a LOT more B&Es?

          That being said...I agree with you...assault weapons are not necessary for the average person. I will continue to support removal of assault weapons/killing guns from our communities.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2013: Colleen, the number is 1200 RPM, as you insist on using accurate information.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Thanks Gary...you're right....I made an error and wrote 12,000 instead of 1200....thanks again....I corrected my error:>)
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2013: Not only do they not take into consideration rural gun owners, all non-criminal gun owners are to be subjected to the regulations that they say are only aimed at preventing criminal acts that criminals perpetrate.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2013: Same rules apply to Rural gun owners as well shouldn't they except for the fact that can show more cause to own a firearm than someone in an urban environment.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Ultimately, the rationale for the prohibitions don't produce the result you imagine. Actually, the problem that you imagine is a mirage, created by selective elements examined in a vacuum.
          The total number of victims of these mass murders worldwide is less than 400 persons in the last 30 years. That is less than the murder victims per year in Chicago. Violence is decreasing in America. Your solutions are the throwbacks.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2013: And what about the other victims Marianne the ones who survived the shootings the people left in wheelchairs due a bullet in the spine, the ones who are blind or brain damaged because of a bullet to the head or brain, those missing limbs that had to be amputated , those who survived who are emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives, what about those people Marianne???? I think you will find your stats will show it will close to 5x more than the mortality rate from firearms.

        However you attempt to justify it ,firearms kill and wound and the wrong types of firearms are too easily accessed by people who shouldn't have them and don't need them and I don't care what country you live in that is the fact.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2013: Crime might be decreasing but it seems to be getting more violent.

        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: And although I was unable to open this link, citing statistics inside gangs or inner city blacks and attempting to use guns as the causal agent in those crime rates, is disingenuous.

          To wit: The total number of people killed in mass shootings in Azebajan, Australia, England, Norway, Finland, USA, Germany and the rest of the world is 352 in the last 30 years. Less than the number of people murdered in Chicago this year. The city of Chicago has laws more restrictive than the Illinois laws, which contain most of the provisions that the prohibitionists here are touting. Cook County and the city of Chicago have separately banned the possession of "assault weapons", and of magazines that can hold more than 10 or 12 rounds of ammunition respectively. Automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and silencers prohibited in Illinois and Chicago.

          The criminal statistics that you present do not apply to the bulk of the population of the US. Therefore, using the scientific method, you have not isolated the reason for the murder and mayhem that exists in these inner city crime areas, even when you pull at our heartstrings with images of wheelchairs.

          What you do is present for lynching, the wrong culprit. And if you and the others succeed, you will be like a lynch mob that demands that the wrong person be hung, while the real culprits go free to kill, rape and maim, within these communities that are largely being allowed to self-destruct for want of real social reform .

          The victims of these huge and truly disturbing numbers of crime, deserve some real answers and not emotional breast beating by would be do-gooders throwing cheap, emotional tantrums.

          You say you don't care what country I live in? There is a lot more you don't care about and that is finding the real causes for the problems you have been emoting about on this thread.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Appealing to sentiment while ignoring the hard facts, is just that, trying to whip up public sentiment to over ride facts or reason. Also, the prohibitionists simply give themselves a pass on answering questions that follow the norms of logic, such as: Chicago already has the gun laws you propose and it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. So why do you think more of a failed policy will get different results? Answer...an emotional outpouring and garbling together of numbers selectively chosen to lead the ignorant to a forgone conclusion of your own making. Barnes had asked for no "guns don't kill people rhetoric, while he has been unable to produce much more that a "guns kill people" offense backed by emotional outpourings of sentiment for selected social wounds. And I should say extremely selective social wounds when one compares the numbers of people killed in very rare mass murder tragedies to the blood that flows daily in the streets of overcrowded, despair holes called inner cities which has become an acceptable norm in the America.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2013: try the link now
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Morgan,
          The link works fine. I think it is interesting to observe who is writing about "throwing cheap, emotional tantrums"!!!
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: emotional tantrums are usually designated by using 3 exclamation points, I rarely use one.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2013: Hey Marianne unfortunately it is coming down to your level


        and I might put some stock in your fear mongering theories
    • Jan 13 2013: Alexander, even in a city it can take 5 minutes or more for the cops to show up, if they respond at all. Typical response rates are longer. So, while I understand the issue with the rural communities, it is not limited to rural communities.
      • Jan 13 2013: You're right. It's extremely difficult to reach there in time. That's also assuming you have the capability to call the authorities. Many people don't have the chance to because of the fact that they couldn't defend themselves...
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2013: Hi Alexander,
      I was curious about how many times you have been attacked on your rural property?? It sounds like it must have happened many times for you to feel a genuine need to defend yourself against the massing criminal element lurking about your property. I hope you and your family are ok!!
      • Jan 13 2013: Hahaha! Actually Lee-Anna, I myself do not live on rural property, but having studied and having heard stories I believe that it is a legitimate concern (esp. during war time). Also, being from a relatively hostile communist country where basic rights are severely limited (right to free speech, right to vote, etc), I firmly stand for a person's right to do anything they wish for them to achieve happiness so long as they are not hurting themselves. This is coming from philosopher Thomas Hobbes' concept of "social contractualism."
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: Alexander,
          Your comments sounded like you are a US citizen, and your profile does not offer information regarding where you are from. Thanks for clarification. Knowing that you are
          from "a relatively hostile communist country where basic rights are severely limited..." as you say, helps me understand your perspective on this issue.

          I agree with you, and the concept of a person's right to do anything they wish for them to achieve happiness so long as they are not hurting themselves".

          I will add that when people hurt and kill others, we, as a free society, have the right to revisit the laws which allow the abuse and violation of rights of the people who live in the society.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: There are no laws in this country that allow murder. There are no laws in this country that condone rape or assault. Which laws are you talking about?
      • Jan 13 2013: Actually, Colleen, I realized what I wrote might be misunderstood. :) I'm a US citizen who has lived in Vietnam, to be specific. I reside in the United States as of now, and because of my origin and lifestyle there, and the stories of how wonderful life was before the fall of 1975, I am sensitive to the issue of losing certain rights.

        Granted, your statement on being able to revisit laws is completely justified and reasonable. I just hope that legislation will not hurt those who abide by the law and are therefore unjustly punished for the doings of a small few.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2013: We are all sensitive to our rights Alexander, and I understand where your sensitivity comes from.....thanks for that information. I don't hear or see anything about "punishing" anyone Alexander. It is suggested and supported by many, that assault weapons (guns that kill people) be taken out of circulation in the general public.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.