Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: Columns

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

Hey Odin:

Let me try another angle here: You said "We do not fear the first 13 words, we simply understand what they do."

If those words don't do what I said they do, or mean what I said they mean, and if they are not mere surplusage, then what do you understand that they do?

Thanks.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/20/2019 at 8:33 PM

Re: “Opponents of the red-flag bill, which would allow guns to be removed from dangerous people, won’t back down

The only thing this law changes is that encourages prior restraint. The gun owner has no opportunity to face his accusers in court and there is no punishment for false reporting. The gun owner is punished for what he might do rather than illegal actions. Current laws allow for legal intervention and no changes are needed.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gary Benoit on 03/20/2019 at 5:15 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

Odin: You defeat your own argument. People like you are exactly why there is an incessant, long standing debate about the Second Amendment, a mis-perceived conflict between the two "clauses" (note the quotes), alleged conflict and, alleged ambiguity, and disagreements about the King's English, comma placement, capitalization, different versions and other irrelevancies. Read all the USSC decisions and you will see just how you add fuel to a fire that should not exist.

When you read it as intended, and as written in any ratified or signed version, and as I have taught you, there is no conflict, there is no ambiguity, there is no license to go beyond the plain language and into secondary authority or "original intent" or the Federalist Papers, or debates about English and whether something is a clause or not.

The first "clause" supports the second and the ONLY people left to argue are the ACLU (collective right) and everyone else on the planet, including the founding fathers (individual right). And my reading settles that, leaving the ACLU with egg on their face. But again, your arguments are exactly what invites the ACLU and others to parse the Amendment in a way that it cannot be parsed with my reading. But yeah, go ahead and open the door and continue the ambiguity and "reasonable minds may differ" BS that has contributed to the erosion of our RTKABA. You certainly aren't alone.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/20/2019 at 5:10 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

Odin writes, "The first 13 words [of the second amendment] are not a clause... The construction is known as an absolute phrase..."

The internet clarifies:

"Absolute phrases are used to combine two clauses that have different subjects." (http://www.englishgrammar.org/absolute-phr…)

"An absolute phrase is a phrase that modifies a whole independent clause (a full sentence); not just one word." (http://englishsentences.com/absolute-phras…)

"Please notice that in every case the absolute phrase provides some sort of information that works to put the whole sentence or idea in context." (http://www.testmagic.com/grammar/explanati…)

"There are two kinds of absolute phrases. The first explains a "cause for" or a "condition of" something." (http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar/…)

"It is not unusual for the information supplied in the absolute phrase to be the most important element in the sentence." (http://guidetogrammar.org/grammar/phrases.…)

"Note that in traditional grammar, absolutes (or _nominative_absolutes_) are often more narrowly defined as "noun phrases . . . combined with participles" (Macmillan Teach Yourself Grammar and Style in Twenty Four Hours, 2000). The term _absolute_ (borrowed from Latin grammar) is rarely used by contemporary linguists." (https://www.thoughtco.com/absolute-phrase-…)

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Mr. K-- on 03/20/2019 at 4:13 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

"No word is to be deemed as mere surplusage"

No one said the words are surplus. What was said is that the words do not affect the meaning of the sentence the way many think and as a result, people, you included, focus too much time obsessing about the meaning of some words when they do not create, define, modify, or restrict the right in question. Your posts more than adequately demonstrate that, especially your post script comment where you go right back to obsessing about it.

We do not fear the first 13 words, we simply understand what they do.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Odin on 03/20/2019 at 1:05 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

P.S. You're also exhibiting that inclination I referenced in my initial post as one raised in a society that believes regulation must be executed by an organization, like a government, a militia, or some other outfit. However, a militia is a "people's" army. By it's definition (supported by the Second Amendment itself) as a people's army, it is not a National Guard or posse or anything else sanctioned by the state or any other governmental organization. So, where we have federal and state governments and limitations thereon in the Constitution, there once was a preeminent branch called "the people." That's largely gone by the wayside over the years due to the stipulations of people who can't fathom it, and who run from what used to be the obvious original intent set forth in the plain language of the law. People who can't fathom the Tenth Amendment are an example.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/19/2019 at 5:53 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

All the English 101 has been dealt with by the USSC in general canons of Constitutional interpretation. No word is to be deemed as mere surplusage ("well"), all are to be deemed intentional, all are to be given meaning, the entire passage is to be read as consistent and clear, and no ambiguity or inconsistency is to be searched for outside the plain language, in secondary, or other authority. Only where ambiguity or inconsistency is patent will logic allow a search beyond the plain language, and then only to pre-existing or contemporary debates and history.

The reason I put the phrase ("if that is what it is") regarding the term clause was in anticipation of your argument. In fact, while there has been some argument about comma (or semi-colon) placement and whether it is a "clause" or not, my point is, it does not matter.

EVEN IF it is not a clause (I have stipulated to that in my last post), the Second Amendment cannot be read any other way than as the drafters stating a goal and how to achieve it. The goal is not protection of a pre-existing natural right via limitation placed on government. Rather, the goal is securing a "free state" and maintaining what is "necessary" for it. They then state what is how that necessity is met. So yes, "well regulated militia" is extremely important, and no, it is not to be feared by champions of the right. It should be embraced instead of trying to parse it out as irrelevant.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/19/2019 at 5:36 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

The first 13 words are not a clause (they contain no predicate), they are a non-restrictive phrase, actual a couple phrases embedded in one another. The construction is known as an absolute phrase, which is defined as a particpial phrase which has its own object apart from the subject or object of the independent clause. These phrases exist outside the grammar of the clause to which they are attached, acting neither as the subject, object, or predicate of the clause. They also do not create, modify, or restrict the subject of the clause (like an adjective). Instead, they act adverbially on the action of the clause to give one (but not the only -- remember, they are non-restrictive which is why they are correctly set off by means of a comma) possible reason for the action of the clause.

And as Dave correctly points out, the term "well regulated" only applies to the word "militia" and not to anything else in the sentence, meaning it doesn't matter what "well regulated" means as it does not modify the right.

So again, getting wrapped around the axle about who the militia is, or what regulated or well regulated means is to get off on a tangent. It doesn't matter what a militia is or if it is well regulated or not as the right is not restricted to the militia nor to the state and participation in a militia is not a requirement to have the right. The well regulated militia could consist only of purple Peeps confections and it would not have any affect on our right to arms. We all have the right.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Odin on 03/19/2019 at 5:00 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

There is no arguing the right is a natural right that exists notwithstanding the Constitution. However, the founding fathers cannot be presumed to be stating the obvious, or articulating mere surplus-age. Their reason is, obviously, securing a free state. They set forth how this is necessarily done. They distinguish any old militia, even a heavily regulated one, from one that will secure a free state and they do this by acknowledgement of the natural right as an individual one that shall not be infringed.

Consistent with their goal of securing a free state, they also provide the grounds for limitation of the right. Believe it or not, all rights, including natural rights, are subject to might. That, in itself, is a natural right. Specifically, if the exercise of the right presents a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state, then it obviously runs afoul of the Second Amendment and might can be used to limit, or infringe upon it.

That said, the only way an exercise of the right could present a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state is if an individual or group possess NBC, or if a group possesses conventional arms to the exclusion of another group which is unarmed. These scenarios obviously cannot arise because some mentally unstable person has access to conventional arms, or because some criminal shoots up a school or a church. Or because one group voluntarily disarms themselves The security of a free state is not threatened by such things. Indeed, 9/11, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, all of that combined is not even a mosquito bite on the buckskin jacket of Uncle Sam. A greater threat is our collective, legislative response to such actions; i.e. the disarmed trying to disarm those who secure a free state.

Those who would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms in response to these crimes, or for political reasons, do indeed present a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state. Courts should subject any such efforts to strict scrutiny and demand the least intrusive method of achieving a compelling state interest defined as securing a free state. The state's response to any crimes should be reactive and not proactive. The state can choose if it's reaction is such as to dissuade or not, but that's on the state, and not those who lawfully keep and bear arms.

Champions of the Second Amendment should not run from or distinguish the first clause (if that is what it is). Rather, they should embrace it for what it is: Support for the individual, natural right.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/19/2019 at 12:57 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

One of the problems with focusing on the "well regulated militia" phrase of the Second Amendment is that people lose sight of the fact that this phrase is not the right being defined nor directly protected and this phrase does not create, modify, or limit the right being protected. It merely states one, not the only, reason why it is important to protect the pre-existing right in question.

It doesn't matter if "regulated" means adjusted, or prepared, or ruled by written statutes. It doesn't matter if the "militia" is a select militia, organized militia, unorganized militia, or everyone in general. And it doesn't matter if a militia has the charasteristics of being well regulated vs just regulated.

People who get wrapped around the axle obsessing about the meaning of regulated, well regulated, and militia are completely off topic. The right being directly protected is clearly defined in the amendment as being the right to keep and bear arms, and the amendment very also very clear who has that right -- the people -- not the militia, not the state. This right exists regardless of the existance of a militia or its degree of being regulated.

We cannot be more clear about this, nothing in the Second Amendment says that participation in a militia is a pre-requisite to have the right to arms and nothing in the amendment says that only the militia or state has the right to arms.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Odin on 03/19/2019 at 11:39 AM

Re: “Reader: Penrose Library has turned into a homeless shelter

I was at the Penrose Library in January 2019 and haven't been back. I needed to do work for my business and there was no where to sit upstairs or down. The children were running around screaming, people watching movies on laptops without headsets, homeless sleeping on the floor, backpacks everywhere and the smell was really awful. While I understand we need to help the homeless, this is a library not a homeless shelter and that is exactly what it seemed like. Maybe we just need to close the library and make it a daytime homeless shelter. At this time, you can't use it as a library anyway. While I was there, I saw several families try to bring their children in and the children were scared and the families left. It's a sad day when you can't bring your children into a library to check out Dr. Seuss is on the Loose or Hop on Pop. It's also crazy that the library cannot used as a library for students/business owners to do homework/research Or, just people who still like to read a good book.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Joan Leggio on 03/18/2019 at 11:57 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

A well regulated militia is defined as one wherein the right of the people to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.

This simple genius is difficult to grasp for those raised in a society that believes regulation must be executed by an organization, like a government, a militia, or some other outfit. However, there was another day, a better day, back when people understood that one could regulate him- or herself. The right of the people is an individual right, and the best regulation is when the people, individually, regulate themselves.

After all, a regulated militia, even (and especially) a highly regulated militia, can actually be a substantial, credible threat to the security of a free state. Indeed, history is replete with examples of militias like this, with the Brown Shirts serving as the famous example.

Thus, a *well* regulated militia is a people's army regulated by the people; not acting collectively, or by and through government or organization, but, rather, as the same people who write letters to the editor or vote or exercise any other individual right: the individual.

Finally, when it comes to a Constitutional Right, government must be re-active and not pro-active. Government must wait until *after* a freak fails to regulate him- or herself, murdering people, before taking action. Sorry, but that's just the way we roll. It's not a utopia where we get to be safe at all costs.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/18/2019 at 6:26 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

Micheale Duncan: Amen! The person who knows this best is Elizabeth Warren, and yet I only hear occasional, gentle references to it when she speaks.

When is the left going to start talking in language the right understands? We can all agree to completely eliminate all regulations, taxation and other things the right hates, if only they agree to quit hiding behind big government's skirts, start taking personal responsibility for their own actions, be actual risk-taking, capitalists, and agree to pay capitalist fair market value in arm's length, negotiated transactions for all their externalized costs, then we're all good!

If they stipulate to joint, several and strict liability for imposing their costs on innocent third parties who have nothing to do with their activities, then we're all good.

On the other hand, if they want to hide like cowards behind big government skirts, then, they must agree to quit whining like little bitches when they must pay a tiny fraction of their ill-gotten gains in the form of taxes designed to pick up a portion of their tab. And they can quit running around the world telling everyone how they defied the laws of physics and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, as risk-taking, swash-buckling captains of daring do.

If only they'd "man-up" and admit how dependent they are on our toleration of their foot print in middle of everyone else's back, then we'd be all good.

In short, what the hell happened to grace and gratitude and the "enlightened" in "enlightened self-interest"?

They socialize costs and privatize profits. Sounds half socialist to me.

In short, we don't need to go all socialist on these freaks. We just need to bring them to reign them in, and put them in our "human resources" or stable, like every one else. It doesn't mean we will temper their hot blood, drive, smarts and superior ability to generate goodness. We can allow them the cat-bird seat and wealth and more than the rest of us. But they just don't get to run rough-shod over everyone else and think they are so damn high and mighty.

If they don't heed these warnings, the socialism will indeed be the new guillotine and they will have brought it on themselves. Socialism is just push-back for their failure to abide true capitalism and cost internalization. Bernie and crew aren't true socialists. They are push-back socialists and I can't blame them.

But the smart way to deal with the self-identified capitalists (who are really socialists, as pointed out above) is to negotiate with them: Want free reign? Okay, post a bond, insure, and don't hide behind the corporate veil or pursue legislative limitations on liability or tort reform.

End rant.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/18/2019 at 5:26 PM

Re: “How many deer are too many?

I vote for relocation of the deer. I try to relocate at least two a year into my freezer.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Katy Lynn Davis on 03/18/2019 at 11:56 AM

Re: “Parks belong to the city’s citizens, not tourists

Zeb never climbed Tava Khyve, Sun Mountain, yet they call it pikes peak. The land here is still ute land. But Anschutz does look to the future. My buddy at his media found a story for the prototype cog, stunning!

https://prototype.leithall.com/media/cyoa/#/story/5c8975e095f0bf0cc9017ce3

Posted by Treefox on 03/16/2019 at 10:32 PM

Re: “Politics, politics, and more politics from this week's inbox

"Why hasnt putting a few satellites with heat detecting cameras, and other detection devices directly over the border to monitor all activity been offered as a solution? " -- Mark Stahl

Umm.... Hello! Thermal and other cameras, drones, intrusion detection systems have all been done for years, decades even. What you are missing is that there are three things that are needed, Manpower, Technology, and Barriers. You have to have all three to truly be effective.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/16/2019 at 4:03 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

Jillian Freeland, like so many others who get hung up on the words "well regulated", failed basic English. The rule of modifiers is that they modify an adjacent word. Those two words only modify the word "militia", not "the right", not "to keep and bear arms", etc.

If I write, "The yellow car stopped at the stop sign", I am not saying the stop sign was yellow, yet that is essentially what folks like Jillian are trying to do when they try to apply "well regulated" to any word(s) other than "militia".

As for due process, while it is true that in extreme cases due process can be delayed, in this situation the existing laws already provided for a mechanism to deal with this situation -- just people refused to use it. The correct thing to do would be to make it more feasible to use the existing mechanisms and to address the mental health issue, not pass yet another gun control law. Especially not a gun control law with as many problems and potential for abuse (as we have seen happen in California and elsewhere) as the Bloomberg backed Red Flag bill. This has even resulted in the death of an innocent man when police raided his house.

Another huge issue with the bill is that it shifts an onus to the firearm owners to prove that they are not a danger, which means they have to go to court, get expert testimony, hire a lawyer, etc. All that takes money. In this case we are probably looking at around $6000 to $10,000 just for a basic defense against the claims. In California's experience with this law, perfectly sane people have lost their firearms permanently simply because they could not afford decent legal defense.

More problems with the law are that there are only two ways to temporarily hand over your firearms: To the police, who are not set up to deal with this, or to "transfer" them to an FFL (AKA dealer). The problem there is that the word "transfer" means that legally the FFL becomes the owner of the firearm and can do anything they darn well please with it, including selling or destroying it when they should be simply storing it so the owner can get it back later. No longer can firearms be given to a trusted person for storage, that is not allowed by the bill and was effectively prohibited by the Universal Background Check law.

Additionally, if a person temporarily gives up possession of their firearms and later is permanently prohibited from owning them, legally they must be given the opportunity to sell their property; however, the bill makes no provisions for this.

Bottom line, the bill as written is horrible and fails to address the problem. But, that is what you get when firearm laws are being peddled by a guy notorious for banning Big Gulps in NYC.

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dave Hernandez on 03/16/2019 at 1:51 PM

Re: “Firefighters want a voice, not “special treatment”

The cog story doesn't mention a sky tram but that's a good idea.


https://prototype.leithall.com/media/cyoa/#/story/5c8975e095f0bf0cc9017ce3

Posted by Treefox on 03/15/2019 at 11:02 PM

Re: “Firefighters, guns, the Cog, and more from this week's inbox

I just found a story about the Cog prototype. Looks good to me. A tram would be great.

https://prototype.leithall.com/media/cyoa/#/shared/5c8975e095f0cc9017ce3

Posted by Treefox on 03/15/2019 at 7:07 PM

Re: “Hickenlooper faces multiple hurdles on path to the White House

Never thought that I'd miss Hickenloser....but I do after Governor Pole Smoker was elected!

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Holmes on 03/15/2019 at 4:53 PM

Today | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue
Introduction to Massage Therapy

Introduction to Massage Therapy @ Colorado Institute of Massage Therapy

Wed., March 20, 6-8 p.m.

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation