Huck Mucus 
Member since Mar 12, 2013


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Air Force Academy hosts talk of Shroud of Turin's alleged authenticity

My apologies to all the believers. As a pan (or panentheist, haven't decided yet, but I'm leaning toward the former), I've got no truck with Jesus or your beliefs.

My comment was spontaneous push-back agin the post of Bob Fritch. It was quite Trumpian (trollish) of me to stoop to his level, especially when folks who wear shoes that don't fit might get caught up in it.

Carry on.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Huck Mucus on 04/20/2019 at 2:09 PM

Re: “Air Force Academy hosts talk of Shroud of Turin's alleged authenticity

"Sad reflection on the civility of our society ."

Hi alogist! Read the first post in this thread and get back to me.

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by Huck Mucus on 04/19/2019 at 6:50 PM

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.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Huck Mucus on 03/20/2019 at 8:33 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.

2 likes, 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

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

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

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation