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Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?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Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and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

  • thumb
    Jan 14 2013: Hang in there Tim, all that you are being accused of is what your critics are doing themselves. You will hear definitions of the 2nd, that question various words and phrases by these people that have their own agenda. Your understanding is wrong and theirs is correct. These assault rifles being discussed are for the most part are replica's of the military M4 .223 cal. All the discussion of assault rifles and deer hunters. I am one and I nor no one I know uses assault rifles for deer hunting. Ballistics of the .223 is all wrong for most deer hunts. What I do know is that millions of American veterans whom served in Viet Nam, Iraq, Iraq2, Afghanistan, all all the places in between used the .223 Military weapons in a number of variations. Many of these vets owe their lives to this weapon, many of these vets enjoyed firing these weapons, many of these veterans have legally bought these replicas... Because they wanted too.
    Now we have all this discussion, because a deranged minor, committed matricide, took a legitimately obtained replica rifle, went to a local school and murdered 26 innocents before taking his own life. Right away it was the assault rifle. Like if the were no assault rifles, this never would have happened. Myself, I am waiting for the autopsy reports to see if drugs were involved.
    Like the local TEA party guy said "All we need for a perfect life is for the government to take more taxes and cut more liberties and life would be perfect..." I think he was being sarcastic... too!
    • thumb
      Jan 14 2013: Mike,
      You say..."a deranged minor....took a legitimately obtained replica rifle...murdered 26 innocents...right away it was the assault rifle".

      In my humble perception, the assault rifle was not the only cause of the deaths. However, if the assault rifle had not been available so easily, the outcome would cerrtainly NOT have been the same.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2013: Hi Colleen,
        Yes, as I remember, by time the 6:00 PM news came on, there was the call for the restriction of the assault rifles by many politicians, too many to list here. I would challenge your conclusion that " the outcome would certainly NOT have been the same"incicent How could you be so sure? The only thing I am that sure about is death and taxes .... att. Will Rogers. I do believe all through this comment stream the discussion has been about the 2nd amendment abolition or modification about specific weapons, etc. the motivation seems to revolve around the Connecticut incident. Why I am so critical about all those comments including some that you have made is because... where is all this concern about the rest of violence around the country. Last year over 20 grade school children were victims of homicide in LA. Last year in Chicago, 25% of homicide victims were minors. No big news there. No debate on national TV, the President didn't set up a commission. Why is that?
        The death of these children are not as .... as the deaths in Newton? So, I ask everyone who agrees with the terms of this string, would any changes made to the 2nd effect these deaths in our cities?
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2013: Mike,
          You ask...How could I be so sure the outcome would have been different?
          If THOSE weapons had not been available, the shooter COULD NOT have used THOSE weapons to kill 26 people.

          My motivation DOES NOT "revolve around the Connecticut incident" Mike. I have been an advocate of a ban on assault weapons for years.

          I also have been guest lecturing on the topic of violence and abuse in relationships for years, co-facilitating cognitive self change with incarcerated men, volunteering in shelters and family center with abused women and children, etc. etc. If you want to be critical about my comments....so be it. I AM CONCERNED about violence, and I have been participating in many programs for years to help curb violence in all aspects of our society. That is NOT what this comment thread is about.

          The topic is:
          "Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"
          I have been addressing the topic question. And I have continually stated that the 2nd amendment could be "revisited". I support a ban on assault weapons, and I have supported that for years. The 2nd amendment was not repealed or amended the last time we had a ban on assault weapons, to the best of my recollection, and it probably would not have to be repealed or amended for a ban on assault weapons at this time, nor would it have to be repealed or amended for more regulations, because the constitution allows for "regulation".

          Any more questions?
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2013: There is no doubt that people just hopped on the ban-wagon following the Connecticut incident. The traumatic loss of life must be getting to close to home.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2013: `Yes,
        I am confused. It may be my age.
        Are you saying that if there was no "assault rifles", there would have been no attack at Newton?
        Or that the carnage would have been inflicted with another weapon. If it is the former, it was reported that he had other weapon on his person. If the latter, we are way too tight in semantics.

        I can admire your dedication in the curbing of violence in society. I am a strict constitutionalists.
        I believe the right for you to swing your fist stops at the beginning of my nose. There is no right to violence in the constitution. I am of the opinion that violators of rights do not receive the punishment
        deserved. We can discuss capital punishment in another venue.

        What even vexes me more, is your focus on assault rifles. the term refers to 4 characteristics of a weapon that does not address caliber, ballistics, range or any function that makes it a weapon.
        I have seen an assault rifle that shoots ping pong balls.
        The only assumption I can make is the Newton shooting. Am I wrong? You stated you have supported a ban for years. You say you are following this thread, OK, but there are many variety of guns used in violent crimes... why assault rifles? The Newton tragedy?
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2013: Mike,
          Sorry you feel confused. I believe I have been very clear with my comments.

          I am not, in any way swinging my fist at your nose my friend. We are having a discussion, and if we do not agree, it is ok.

          I am sorry a focus on assault rifles "vexes" you, and that must feel terrible, since there is a focus on assault weapons on local, state and national levels throughout our country. I don't know what to tell you that might help relieve your vexation.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.