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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • Jan 14 2013: I have one question that no one seems to be asking. The NRA obviously wants to present itself as an expert on everything guns, including the statement, "The only thing that stops someone with a gun is another person with a gun!" But if they are such experts and "care" so much, why have they not clearly defined difference between weapons used for Personal Self Defense, Hunting and Assault Weapons, and who they should be intended for, and limited to? Why are they not taking the lead on being responsible for all guns made. They directly Profit from Guns sales every year? Why do they not bear more responsibility for not doing what the NRA is supposed to do? And by the way...just what is their agenda, and should it be seriously looked at and critiqued as to any conflict of interest in being included on ANY legislative procedure and discussions?
    • thumb
      Jan 14 2013: Looking at where they get their money from (gun manufacturers, mostly)
      it essentially becomes an incentive to have as many guns out there as possible, any type of restriction inhibits gun sales which is exactly what they can't agree to no matter what, because its in direct violation to what they're getting money for.
      They also don't need to be responsible because if a massacre happens...Then you just have the foundation to the argument that everyone needs more guns, which is exactly what they did.

      Its just another Tea Party that substitutes zero-taxes with buy-more-guns
      under the guise that its all about liberty and freedom.
      Load of simpletons being played for fools by an industry, as usual...
    • thumb
      Jan 14 2013: Folks lets understand this is NOT about any type of weapon they want to BAN. They want to get a crack into the 2nd Amendment so they can take another bite later on! Read the 2nd Amendment there is no provision or distinction to type of firearm or weapon "STYLE" that LAW ABIDING People, US, Citizens can own.
      If you believe the NRA is supported by folks or companies that make them have a conflict of interest. then look at the groups or people behind the Anti-Gun groups You think they have NO interest in firearms being banned?
      No matter how you may look at a "Style" of weapon or firearm as it is a Legal firearm you can NOT let them be banned. Without the 2nd Amendment Protecting the 1st Amendment whats next?
      Your 32oz Soda Oh Yea that's Illegal in NYC and Salt and Trans Fats Where else do you think your rights will be!!! Stand for ALL the RIGHTS not just the ones you like! Or you may not have any!!!
      Yours in service
      James Acerra
      • thumb
        Jan 14 2013: James,
        Of course there is no distinction in the 2nd amendment regarding firearm or weapon "style". How many styles of guns do you think they had 200 years ago?

        What there IS, in the constitution, is the provision to "regulate".
        • Jan 14 2013: Also in the constitution, "the right of the pepole to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"



          infringe

          in·fringe
          [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
          verb (used with object)
          1.
          to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
          verb (used without object)
          2.
          to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
          Origin:
          1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2013: Mrs. Steen
          in the 1700's you had a variety of weapon's to choose from as to types you had Flintlocks, Matchlocks, handguns, rifles, shot guns, cannons,hand grenades, tomahawks, ax's, swords knives, halberds, pikes, bows, crossbows ect... The choice of weapons has not really changed much in the 200+ years in the 1700's their were semi-automatic hand guns that held 7 shot's and rifles that could fire 4 rounds per load not to mention the shot guns that may have as many as 7 pellets per load. More people are killed with hammers or other blunt objects or in or by cars in the US than with guns LET'S BAN CARS their not even covered by a RIGHT so much the easier!!! Please do not compare the tragic loss of life DUE TO a CRIMINAL act with the Legal Ownership of Firearms.
          As you say in the 2nd amendment as in all the RIGHTS they can be changed but only under certain Rules 2/3rd's of the Senate 2/3rd's of the House and 3/4's of the States ratifying the change! Good Luck!
          Thank you for your time and debate.
          Yours in service
          James Acerra
      • thumb
        Jan 14 2013: Does it mention law abiding, or are you already putting your own limits on the 2nd amendment?

        Perhaps there is an argument to take account of changing technology while protecting the core right.
      • Jan 14 2013: What...and please be specific is a "Legal Firearm"? Who and what decides what a "Legal" Firearm is??? Is it determined by: "Ok shoot him....yeah he's dead...its a legal Firearm!"
        I mean serious, if this is what you base you argument on then you havn't one.
        • Jan 14 2013: I would say the meaning was clear you are not to weaken, or break the right of the people to own guns.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2013: James,
        The kinds of weapons that are available today HAVE changed from what was available in the 1700s. It seems silly to say otherwise.

        You say..." LET'S BAN CARS"
        James, that is not the topic of this discussion.

        I have NOT compared "the tragic loss of life DUE TO a CRIMINAL act with the Legal Ownership of Firearms."

        It might be helpful for you to read other people's comments before making your own statements.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.