Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Does the Second Amendment need to be fixed?

By Howard B. Owens
Jeff Allen

Apparently the answer is yes. It needs clarification that the right to bear arms was intended for CITIZENS, not just recognized militias, military, and law enforcement. If someone proposed legislation strengthening and clarifying the Second Amendment, I'd be all for it.

Apr 15, 2014, 8:15am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Seams clear to me too, and yet here we are constantly fighting this battle with those who believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" as well as those who retroactively impose false intentions of the Founding Fathers onto it.

Apr 15, 2014, 8:40am Permalink
John Roach

I voted yes. While I think it is clear we have the right to own arms, we always have to fight to keep this right. I think we need language that makes it clear we not only have the right to bear arm, but we do not permission (permits) or restrictions on what we may own or restrictions on being allowed to carry them.

Apr 15, 2014, 10:04am Permalink
John Stone

The only thing regarding the Second Amendment that needs "fixing" is all of the erroneous misunderstanding of it. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to the rational mind, so the only possible "fix" is to illuminate and correct the irrational mind... (Those who think guns kill people and think We the People shouldn't have them)
Over the weekend, we saw EXACTLY why the framers included the people's teeth... Learn all of the facts, and you will see that Patriots managed to stop an illegal activity by the overbearing government from being accomplished, and we are watching for any need to return there, or go to any other places where this kind of thing is happening...
The "silent majority" is starting to murmur a bit. Pretty soon, if the collectivists continue to try to destroy this nation, they will see how deep the water actually IS underneath them... The only reason they have such confidence is because they think they own the media narrative. (and they do) It's just that we are becoming aware that they are actually just a very LOUD minority, and that's an EASY fix!

Apr 15, 2014, 10:51am Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Learn all of the facts, and you will see that Patriots managed to stop an illegal activity by the overbearing government from being accomplished, and we are watching for any need to return there, or go to any other places where this kind of thing is happening..."

All the facts -- being a crackdown on a rancher freeloading off the government teat for twenty years? If it were welfare fraud, they'd be seeing the interior of a jail. But if it's simple theft, the yahoo 'patriots' stream out with weapons drawn. That's the ticket to real freedom. An armed mob.

Apr 15, 2014, 11:09am Permalink
George Richardson

What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with no guns involved? If I want to grow a massive beautiful herb in my backyard should my neighbor be able to stand his ground in a deer blind and shoot me? What about a DEA Agent and ten Jackbooted thug SWAT scumturds smashing the door in at 5 am? It hasn't happened to me and never will, maybe, but what if? Do you think the Second Amendment would protect me if I try to protect myself.? Hell no, I would be dead just like everyone else who thinks the Second Amendment would protect them.
It's a nice thought but don't push it or you will be dead. Verdad!

Apr 15, 2014, 1:44pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

As a conservative Christian I have continually listened to the argument "stay out of my bedroom, my lifestyle has never hurt anyone" or "Keep your religion to yourself, my faith or lack of has never hurt anyone" or "Stay out of our public schools, it isn't hurting anyone that God isn't there anymore" or "Stay out of/off public buildings/places....etc., etc. Well Anti 2nd Amendment folks and/or gun grabbers here is your logic, "Stay out of my gun safe, my firearm has never hurt anyone"

Apr 15, 2014, 6:17pm Permalink
Bob Harker

Scott, you are either not aware of, or to choose to ignore several facts.

1.) Just over a year ago Harry Reid's son went to work for a Chinese company that wants to develop that land (and 1000's of other acres) into the worlds largest solar farm - and good ole Harry has already voiced his approval of such a project INCLUDING tax payer subsidies to help build it. I wonder how concerned he will be with the tortoise's well being then?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041414-697150-cliven-bundy-fed…

2.) Bundy has stated from the get-go that he follows the laws of the state that owned the land before the feds said they were taking it over. This is something that should be decided in the courts - not cop wannabe bureaucrats. He has also stated that his family's grazing rights were granted BEFORE the establishment of the BLM in 1946. Again a matter for the courts.

3.) The same government that claims it wants to protect the tortoise from meandering cattle doing what nature supports has detonated countless of nuclear weapons on in the same desert.

4.) BLM contends that Bundy owes them $1,000,000 in grazing fees dating back to 1993. That's just shy of 48K a year - for what? They have invested 0 dollars into the land.

I submit that it's much more than a coincidence that Reid steps in after all that time. He's been the senator in that state since 1987. And this becomes an issue only after his boy's company wants the land.

Apr 15, 2014, 6:37pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Bundy has stated from the get-go that he follows the laws of the state that owned the land before the feds said they were taking it over."

Bundy doesn't get to choose the laws he's subject to. If Bundy wants to deny the jurisdiction, legitimacy, or even the existence of the Federal government, whose land he's essentially squatting on, he's sadly deluded. He's also outnumbered. And outgunned.

"This is something that should be decided in the courts"

As it has been. Twice. Two federal court orders, no less.

"That's just shy of 48K a year - for what? They have invested 0 dollars into the land."

So Bob, how much money do you invest in property you rent?

Apr 15, 2014, 7:45pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

"He's been the senator in that state since 1987. And this becomes an issue only after his boy's company wants the land."

This became an issue in 1993. The first court order against Bundy was issued in 1998. I don't think Harry Ried's son, who as you say was employed just over a year ago, has anything to do with it.

Apr 15, 2014, 8:02pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Bob, take a deep breath and walk away from Fox long enough to read this. Go to www.kcet.org
Scroll down to Rewire and Chris Clarke's commentary "Sorting Fact From Fiction on Chinese Solar in Nevada".
Not a long piece, but enlightening.

Apr 15, 2014, 8:56pm Permalink
Bob Harker

Bea, you ask me to walk away from a conservative news site and in the next breath provide me with a link to one of the founding members of left wing PBS and based in California? And an op/ed piece at that.

Yes I log onto foxnews.com once or twice a day. Also thebatavian.com msnbc.com and numerous other news sites. I am a conservative and tea party/libertarian leaner - depending on the issue. That does NOT mean I don't listen to other points of view.

As far as Scott's comments, he missed my entire point. Whether or not a "law" is legal is a matter for the courts - all the way to SCOTUS if necessary. And I CERTAINLY reject the assertion that Reid doesn't have his own agenda in all this. Even a liberal such as yourself has GOT to recognize this man is a liar and a cheat.

Have a good night.

Apr 15, 2014, 9:20pm Permalink
Bea McManis

So, Bob, you consider the 'op-ed' piece fiction? The solar project isn't 200 miles away from Bundy's ranch? I find it amazing that those backing Bundy are the same people who loudly proclaim their hate for freeloaders Help us understand, Bob, tell us where the article is wrong.

Apr 15, 2014, 9:49pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

"Bundy doesn't get to choose the laws he's subject to" Neither did Rosa Parks. Civil disobedience has a long and storied history in this country as far back as the Boston Tea Party. Bundy isn't protesting paying fees for his cattle to graze, he is protesting to whom he is required to pay it and as a citizens who are watching our government encroach further and further into both our lives and pocketbooks, his act of civil disobedience is long overdue.

Apr 15, 2014, 10:35pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Neither did Rosa Parks. Civil disobedience has a long and storied history in this country"

Yes, and they paid the legal price sometimes required of those in the vanguard of liberty. Their actions worked to convince the body politic that the times required change. Don't compare them to the Bundy gang -- that was not civil disobedience, it's simply mob action. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and others in the tradition of civil disobedience, didn't come out with their guns drawn.

Apr 16, 2014, 2:59am Permalink
Jeff Allen

The civil disobedience comparison is fair IF you follow the timetable of events. Federal officials showed up to confiscate the cattle with tactical gear and full firepower. The mob action you describe came after the cattle were taken. Remember it was a Clark County official who went on television and said "those inbred bastards better have funeral plans". The government came wearing and talking war and yes, I'll grant you that some overzealous folks responded in kind, but Bundy's initial response was nothing more than I refuse to pay the tax and me and my family are going to stand in front of your trucks while you attempt to confiscate my livelihood. Common sense was also lost as a contractor was paid over $900,000 to round-up the cattle. Couple that with the law enforcement response and you have a government that just spent SEVERAL million tax dollars in a single attempt to recover ONE million in taxes owed. One has to wonder, why wasn't Bundy simply arrested quietly for tax evasion as an individual? Why the expensive and showy public posturing of armed BLM agents, equipment, trucks, helicopters, roadblocks, contracted rustlers, fencing, etc.?
Civil disobedience is always just in the eye of the beholder but it's lasting effect is decided in the court of public opinion and public support. It is likely Bundy will end up paying his due, but we all have to look closely at the bigger picture of the inconsistent "rule of law" in both it's application and adjudication. It's frightening.

Apr 16, 2014, 8:28am Permalink
Bea McManis

Bob are you standing behind your post #12?

Tim, Howard and I have provided links that offer facts that differ from your list in #12. You gave us a link that gives us insight into Bundy's thought process (post #21). Do you really believe that link is sufficient to prove the information we posted is bogus?

I believe you are a thoughtful man. If i believed otherwise then there would be no point in a discussion. All I am asking, and I'm sure others would want, is a concise explanation on why the information we posted is wrong.

Apr 16, 2014, 10:04am Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Couple that with the law enforcement response and you have a government that just spent SEVERAL million tax dollars in a single attempt to recover ONE million in taxes owed."

No, what ever was spent (and I've not seen the figures you relate) was spent to enforce the law, and orders of the court. Unfortunately, Mr Bundy does not recognize Federal authority as legitimate -- not just in this matter, but existentially.

Jeff, I believe in the rule of law, which we all know is an imperfect instrument. I believe that there are times when, as Thoreau said, you must "cast your whole vote". This was not such a time -- Bundy is merely a politically shrewd scofflaw, inciting riot. But I'll agree with you, the matter was handled stupidly by the authorities.

Apr 16, 2014, 12:24pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Scott, we do agree on the handling of the situation but I disagree with the assertion that Bundy was inciting. He is a scofflaw, no question, but it was the Feds who showed up with guns drawn, it was an agent of the government who made the crack about inbreeds and funeral plans. Most of those who showed up in support after those threats did so peacefully with a few cowboys going admittedly a bit far in their brandishing. This should, however, be an eye opener for people watching how the federal government handles some cows eating grass and peacefully coexisting with the desert tortoises the government was "supposedly" protecting.

Apr 16, 2014, 12:46pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Geez Scott, I kinda feel like this was like the video of that hockey fight where the brawlers shook hands afterwards. Great exchange, hope to do it again some time.

Apr 16, 2014, 1:09pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

It is not the 2 Amendment that needs to be fixed or rewritten. It is the arrogant Government Officials and Judges that need to be fixed. No manner what you write down there will always be one of those knuckleheads that will interpret it differently some way and somehow.

Heck, these are the same politicians that can't figure out that, people are the issue and not the weapons. Criminals will always find a way around the law and let’s not forget our borders that let illegals immigrants, drugs and weapons cross on a daily bases. I mean how a Judge can not understand the words; "Protection of one's self and property; Protection against foreign invasion; Protection against a tyrannical government? Maybe the Judge should step down since, he is clueless and probably more politically driven than bias.

Apr 16, 2014, 10:50pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

BTW, I am amazed that the last two mass killings didn't involve the, "Government Labeled-Assault Rifle." One used a .45 caliber handgun (Anyone who thinks he could not get a rifle may want to get their head check) and one used knives.

Apr 16, 2014, 10:55pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

"And I CERTAINLY reject the assertion that Reid doesn't have his own agenda in all this. Even a liberal such as you has GOT to recognize this man is a liar and a cheat."

Bob, I could not agree more. Obama's Administration is one of the most offensive and corrupted every to wander the halls of Washington D.C., though they all are corrupted in my eyes. Obama and his administration have been caught red hand in lie after lie and yet the public turns a blind eye to avoid the liberals branding them racist or haters! I have been a Democrat for 28 years and find their ideals have converted to the BS of liberals.

Everything from Obamacare/Affordable Care Act, IRS misuse of power, Immigration Policies, Women's Rights being violated, Benghazi, Syria, Ukraine, etc..., has been mishandled by Obama and his team. They lied on every issue and yet here we are. Look at the first "Active Shooter" incident at FT Hood, Obama's team labeled that, "Work Place Violence!" Even though the Major chanted. "Glory to Allah" several times. He was sympathizer and a traitor to his nation!

Bea pretty much lives in a fantasy world where Obama speaks with roses protruding from both ends.

Apr 16, 2014, 11:12pm Permalink

Authentically Local