Huck Mucus 
Member since Mar 12, 2013


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

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, 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.

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

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

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

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