From the Heartland

This is my soap box, on these pages I publish my opinions on firearms and any other subject I feel like writing about.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Three days Late and a few dollars shorter

Off to Oklahoma

We should have left two days ago, but due to the events told in the previous post we were unable too. No neither the owner, driver or vehicle has been located yet (Friday afternoon).

We are heading out at zero dark thirty for the Chain Ranch for a few days of rest, relaxation and hunting. My brother got there Wednesday and has already bagged one nice hog.

Our time there this year has regrettably been shortened but we are still happy to be going as until last night we weren't sure we would be going at all.

Will post when we get back.

Here's hoping that you all have a very happy and prosperous New Year.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Merry Christmas

What a wonderful Christmas present.

While stopped at a traffic signal we received this lovely parting gift from a probable drunk driver with no insurance Christmas Eve morning. The driver did not hang around long enough for us to say thank you but we were able to get the license plate numbers and the owner of the car has been identified. It is has been more than 48 hours past and the local Gendarmes have yet to locate the other vehicle or driver.

Yes it was a hit and run

Information is sketchy at this point but it seems the owner of the car is pretty well known to the local Constabulary. Over and above that this is the third accident that the owner has been involved in in the past year.

And a Happy New year

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Lincoln, Nebraska to profit from Saterday night fights

Sometime in January the city council will be asked to legalize drunken brawls in the cities parks.

This would be funny if it didn't seriously piss me off

The Parks & Rec Dept wants the City Fathers (and Mothers) to enact an ordinance that allows the posession and consumption of alcoholic beverages at ampitheater events, fundraisers, family reunions, weddings and other catered affairs.

Follow the Money

Since the city of Lincoln is in the tank for nearly 10 million dollars or more because the pompous ass "I know what's better for you than you do" asses banned smoking at bars and restaurants it doesn't take much reading to figure out what the proposal is all about. Paragraph five out of fifteen to be exact;

Parks board members said allowing alcohol at certain events would help increase usage of the venues and bring in more revenue for the parks department.

The Benchmark for the proposal is the Golf Courses

“A lot of people worried it might turn into a drunken brawl golfing outing,” said the parks board’s chairwoman, Susan Larson-Rodenburg. “I think the parks department has proven itself with the golf courses.”

All it proves Suzy is that you haven't got the slightest idea what your talking about. But let me explain it to you anyway;

There is a real big difference between a couple of guys engaged in a sporting activity drinking a few beers and a bunch of people sitting around the picnic table at a family reunion or wedding imbibing for the sole purpose of getting drunk ...... DUHHHHHH

Well here is another no brainer

Then in 2004, the city began allowing alcohol to be served at fundraisers at the Children’s Museum; alcohol was already allowed at zoo fundraisers.

What does that say about the rich power elite in Lincoln?

It seems that they won't attend charitable functions unless they can "slosh in the sauce" while there. Of course the quickest way to get in someone wallet is to lower their inhibitions ... and a few snorts of Dom Perignon will certainly do that.

Sounds like Pavlov's dogs doesn't it?

Or maybe the power elite are the dogs and the alcohol is the porkchop hanging around the neck of what ever charity is in the balance that night.

As I have made clear in the past I do not smoke and I continue to oppose the smoking ban. I do not drink either and I likely wouldn't have a problem with alcohol in the parks either, but consider the following;

The only requirement to posess and consume alcohol in the parks is that one be at least 21 years of age,

  • There are no fingerprints or background checks required,
  • There is no training at cost borne by the drinker required,
  • There is no concealed six pack/bottle license required
  • Convicted felons or those with "Casady's pet misdemeanors" are not prohibitted from owning, posessing or consuming alcohol.

That is what pisses me off

The most law abiding people in Lincoln that go through all of the requirements to obtain a concealed carry license are fordibben from posessing a personal protection tool in the city parks.
Anyone 21 years of age and older no matter segment of the criminal or social element they come from will soon be able to get wasted and do all of the stupid things drunk people do when they get drunk.

So there you have it's okay to go to the Farmers Market and let your dog piss all over other peoples food and property. You will soon be able to go to a city park and get trashed.

You can't however, light up an after dinner cigarette in the smoking section of a restaurant and you are denied the means to protect yourself when you are forcibly accosted by a bunch of drunk felons in the park with broken booze bottles.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Another worthless piece of paper

Recently a local woman had a man whom she had an order of protection against show up at her new place of employment.

Later that evening when she drove through a secluded area on her way home the man following her used his car to bump hers several times in order to get her stopped. It didn't work and on her arrival home other family members notified the appropriate Law Enforcement Agency.

Mutual acquaintance's of both the man and the woman relate that the man has made statements that he wanted to kidnap her so that she can have his baby.

More recently this man again showed up at the womans place of employment. Fearing for her safety the Lincoln Police Department was notified and responded, removing him from inside her place of employment.

Initially the man was secured in a police vehicle while the Officer verified that the order of protection was valid.

It is in fact valid and will remain so until the middle of 2007.

The responding Lincoln Police Officer released the man at the scene.

Yes that is right freed him, let him go, gave him a get out of jail free card.

The reason?

It was her place of employment

The woman has a restraining order the general provisions of which prevent him from contacting her or being within a certain distance of her AND additionally forbids him from being at her place of employment (it specifically names the business at which she used to work).

In the pervue of the Lincoln Police Department since the order of protection does not specifically by name cite her current place of employment they did not arrest him for violating the order of protection.

There you have it, another fine job by Lincolns finest.

This is not a legal technicality and it ain't rocket science folks.

So what the order of protection does not name the current place of employment by name, the general no contact provisions of the order are enforceable at any location.
Just because the place of employment is not mentioned by name DOES NOT make it an "all ye all ye in free zone" for him to stalk and terrify the woman.

It goes beyond the Cop on the street

It is not entirely the responding officers fault. The officer spent considerable time on the cell phone while the man was in the backseat of the patrol car without being handcuffed.

It is likely that the officer was acting on advice and direction from a supervisor, city attorney and/or on call judge.

Ultimately should anything happen to the woman or members of her family before they can go back to court and modify the order of protection, whom ever it was that made the decision to allow this thug to walk will have the victims blood on their hands.

It is doubtful that this menace had the legal presence of mind to know he could not be arrested due to her change in employment, if anything happens to her they will bear some responsibility.

The consensus seems to be that during the nearly hour long presence of the Police Department at the scene our Public Officials went out of their way to concoct a reason however trivial to let the man walk rather than jailing him on an obvious charge of violating an order of protection.

If this doesn't open your eyes about orders of protection and the lack of seriousness given by Law Enforcement then nothing will.

The bottom line is that you can make all the phone calls you want to, when the subject of the order decides to violate it, you are on your own until or if help arrives.

Get this through your head

If you want to survive an encounter with your stalker you must be prepared to protect yourselves. The Police may/will not arrive in time to save you and if they do the chances are that the perpetrator will not be taken into custody anyway.

I am a man and as a woman I don't give two hoots in the forest whether you believe me or not. That is your choice.

If you won't believe me how about one of your own?

Can the Courts Protect You?

Another Restraining Order Fails

This is not the first time I have referred my readers to Zendo Deb the authoress of the Blog TFS Magnum.

Zendo Deb has in her entries compiled stories like this one from all over the United States. If you are not reading her Blog you should be.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Logan Act; Food for thought

Separation of Powers

For years there has been a faction of the population that has called for a separation between church and state. What the Justice Department really needs to enforce is the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to determine and implement foreign policy.

It is the duty of the Legislative Branch to ratify by advice and consent or not treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch. It is also the duty of the Legislature to fund or not the foreign policies set forth by the Executive Branch.

It is not within the pervue of individual elected Representatives or private citizens to travel to and engage foreign Governments in dialogue or negotiations.

Logan Act

Violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. #953, known as the Logan Act is punishable by fine or up to three years imprisonment or both.

One would think that a person, especially one with many years of seniority, who has been elected to represent and serve the people would be familiar with this law.

Apparently this is not the case.

Recently a number of the Legislative Branches Senior elected Representatives have taken it upon themselves to travel to foreign countries and engage the leadership of those countries in dialogue and/or negotiations.

Lead by Example

United States Citizens by and large should expect that their elected Representatives follow the same laws that their constituencies are subject to, and accept the same consequences when they do not.

There has never been a conviction for violation of the Logan Act.

This is likely due to the position in society of those that have in fact broken the law. Since it generally involves someone of a differing political party or belief, genuine fear of a massive adverse public reaction has probably tempered the enforcement of the Logan Act.

The United States of America is at war.

In order to prevail in this war it must be left to the Executive Branch to determine, implement and negotiate policy with those countries that support the factions that America is at war with.

To do otherwise conveys a potential sign of weakness in the resolve to prosecute that war. When the Executive Branch, of which ever party is undermined by members of the Legislative Branch engaging in separate communications with these governments it sends a mixed message of division to the enemies of the United States. In the past a division such as this has been used to prolong a conflict, thus causing the unnecessary casualties for American Soldiers.

In order to successfully prosecute this, or any war, the United States must speak with one foreign policy voice and only one voice. Constitutionally that voice belongs to the Executive Branch of Government. The Legislative Branch can and should debate the merits of that voice in legislative session.

To do otherwise will only prolong the conflict and/or cause the needless deaths of American Soldiers.

And that is my Food for Thought

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Roger Larson gets it wrong

Roger Larson provides commentary for local AM radio station 1400 KLIN. In a recent diatribe Larson disgorges an unusually large amount of bovine excrement even for him.

Hey Larson get your head out of your ass.

It is not the bill of needs.

What part of Right do you not understand?

One would think that at your age you would have a modicum of understanding concerning the Constitution and the Original ten amendments the "Bill of rights".

Roger let me educate you in some basic facts of history.

1. When the Constitution was penned there was no such thing as a "Sportsman" for the purpose of owning a firearm.

Sport hunting became a popular activity thanks primarily to the efforts of Conservationist and President Teddy Roosevelt in the late 1800's. Gee golly huck huck Roger that was 125 years after the Second Amendment was written wasn't it.

2. At that time every male of age (16 or older) was required to acquire at their own expense, maintain, become proficient with and report for duty with a firearm of suitable size and caliber.

Um ... ahhh ... Roger this may come as a shock to your delicate senses but "required to report with a firearm of suitable size and caliber acquired at ones own expense" would be an .... can you say ... assault weapon?

3. The only real organized "target shooting events" were held when the men were required to muster on the village green one Sunday afternoon a month.

4. Hunting was a necessity for survival, if a person didn't hunt his family didn't eat.

Roger put down the Kool-aid. Roger step away from the turd laden punch bowl.

Pay attention closely here Roger;

The Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with target shooting, hunting, or other sports type activities that require the use of firearms.

Taught in School

The purpose of the Second Amendment was not only for the people to serve their town, state and federal government in time of need, but to take up arms against that government should it deteriorate to a tyranny.

Roger do you understand that? I know they were teaching that when you went to school. They were still teaching that when I graduated from school more than 30 years ago.

Because they are

As for the "new" Firearms ownership Rights group you are touting there is a reason that the NRA is calling them a left-wing subversive group.

As for tying them to former President Clinton's attempt at banning some guns, well Roger you did that yourself when you pointed out that this new group makes the statement "No one needs an assault weapon."

The American Hunters and Shooters Association was exposed for the fraud that it is a long time ago Roger. Even a cursory check on the internet will inform even an "anti-gun keyboard kommando" of your ilk that the founders of this organization all come from anti-gun backgrounds.

I am not going to go into in-depth detail about the founders of this group and their backgrounds, that has adaquately been done in the past.

David Zincavage gives us the following admonition Don't be fooled.

American Hunters and Shooters Association head John E. Rosenthal founded the anti-gun group Stop Handgun Violence before he apparently "saw the light".

John Lott had the low down on this group well over a year ago. Before covering their tracks it was revealed that this group was started through the Democratic Leadership Council.

As a final note Larson ends his diatribes with "I'm Roger Larson, and that's the way I see it.

Well Roger I would suspect that if you instituted a cranial/rectal inversion, participated in a 12 step program for Kool-aid addiction and remember what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really means you might see it differently.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

The Miller Truth Revisited


In my previous post I noted that a commenter to a Lincoln Journal Star Editorial seemingly did not understand the true significance of U.S. v. Miller.

Miller has been used by the anti-gun panty-waists for decades to infer that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual Right and that it only applies to the National Guard.

Since I have read and studied the "Miller Decision" extensively I have always failed to see the merit to that claim. At the end of this treatise there is a link to all of the documents that emanated from that case.

After reading it completely I also fail to see how anyone of average intelligence can make the claim that the Court held the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is anything but an individual Right.

In the Beginning

In September 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were re-indicted for transporting a "Sawed-off" shotgun from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas in violation of the National Firearms act of 1934.

Although Miller and Layton originally plead guilty, Federal Judge Heartsill Ragon on hearing the case suggested that they change their plea and appointed them representation.

Miller and Laytons attorney filed a demurrer to the indictment holding that the law under which they were charged was according to the Second Amendment unconstitutional. Judge Ragon agreed and so ruled.

The Governments Reacts

The prosecution in the personage of Clinton R. Barry et. al. appealed Judge Ragons decision to the United States Supreme Court. Barry's premise, was based on two parts;

  • 1. That the National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibiting possesses of certain weapons without an appropriate tax stamp was Constitutional and,
  • 2. That a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon only used by gangsters and desperadoes and had no legitimate use as a military/militia and/or weapon.

Barry also cited English Common laws dating back to the 1300's that forbade "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" as proof that regulation of the "Right to Keep and Bear arms is permissible.

Authors Note: Barrys main assertion on English Common Law holds that "riding or going about armed with dangerous or unusual weapons to the terror of the people" assumes that people are/were terrified simply at the sight of such weapons. This was not the case "to the terror of the people" meant that the person possessing a dangerous or unusual weapon was threatening to use said weapon on or against specific individual/s. Possession is not a terroristic act, threatening to actually use it to the harm or death of an other was.

Barry incorrectly avers that pre-existence of the Rights retained by the people in the Second Amendment began only when those Rights were conferred to the people by English Royalty.

Barrys other assertion that the short-barreled shotgun was not a suitable weapon for military/militia use belies the fact that "Sawed-off" shotguns were used with much success by American forces in World-War I.

As was the original demurrer by Miller and Laytons attorney and Barrys subsequent appeal two in part so was the majority remand written by Justice James Clark McReynolds.

Authors Note: Miller and Layton were not represented during oral arguments before the Supreme Court, only the Government was present to make itself heard.

The Supreme Courts Speaks

In the first part as to whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional the Court issued the following statement;

...the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.

Authors Note: In plain English they said the act was constitutional in that it did not effect powers reserved to the States.

Concerning part two of the matter before them the majority cited numerous references in early American law;

"Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs

....shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

...provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

...that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The Misunderstanding of Miller

Authors Note: This is where Miller has been so often misquoted and misunderstood. The Supreme Court clearly recognized that personal possession and acquisition of military/militia type firearms was not only protected by the Second Amendment, but laws stemming from it, enacted by the states actually required it.

The Court further stated that;

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Authors Note: The Court essentially said that you did not tell us that a short-barreled shotgun is or is not an instrument of the militia and we were not asked to determine such. The importance of that statement is the inference that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. They wrote they could not say the Second Amendment Guaranteed the Right to Keep and Bear that one specific firearm.

Since, as I noted earlier that the "Sawed-off shotgun", "Trench gun", "Ally Sweeper" was so successfully used during World War I it is clearly more than a tool used only by gangsters and deparados avered by Barry. This statement by the High Court implies that had information been provided that the firearm in question has a legitimate purpose as an instrument of the militia they would have "decided" in Millers favor.

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Authors Note: In their "decision" the Supreme Court did "decide" that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was not unconstitutional.

They DID NOT conclude that the Second Amendment was a Collective Right as many claim. They DID remand the case back to Judge Ragons Court to determine whether a "sawed-off shotgun" was a suitable instrument of the militia. Since Miller was not represented in oral argument before the court the Justice's in their opinion appear to have actually taken Millers side. Instead they remanded the case back to Ragon, a highly unusual move considering that Millers attorney was not present when the case was heard. They ordered Judge Ragon to rehear the case and determine whether the short barreled shotgun was an instrument of the militia.


The Supreme Court "decision" on Miller emanated from their October 1938 Term. In April of 1939 prior to the remanded further proceedings by the Supreme Court Miller was murdered.

With Millers death the case died as well and the re-hearing ordered by the Supreme Court never took place.

Authors Note: Had Judge Ragon reheard the case and determined that the firearm in question was in fact a legitimate instrument of the militia on any re-application to the Supreme Court Miller would not be the controversy it is today. This reasonable inference is made based on Judge Ragons actions at the very beginning, as a Judge he advised Miller and Layton to withdraw their guilty pleas and appointed them legal counsel. Judge Ragon did not find Miller or Layton guilty or not guilty, he only ruled on a demurrer that the law under which they were charged was unconstitutional. That left the door open for Clinton Barry to appeal. The Supreme Court simply ordered that, because the National Firearms Act of 1934 was Constitutional Miller and Layton be re-charged and taken to trial. Had Judge Ragon held a trial and issued a likely not guilty verdict in the original instance the double jeopardy requirements of the Constitution would have never allowed it to get to the Supreme Court in the first place.

The "determination" that the Supreme Court ordered never took place. In that regard for all intents and purposes Miller is still an open case and until some court specifically rules that a "short barreled shotgun IS or IS NOT a suitable instrument of the military/militia Miller will never have been "decided".

Final note: All bold text is the product of this author for emphasis. I would also like to thank Patrick L. Aultice for much of the information that I relied on for this narrative. Pat has compiled in one place the most complete work on Miller as may exist.

He has published all of the official court documents relating to U.S. v. Miller on the internet and they can be read by anyone in their entirety here.

Regurgitation of a non issue

News must be slow in the Capital city.

Recently the Lincoln Journal Star in an anonymous "editorial" stoked the fires of Concealed Carry again.

The Journal Star and countless others are acting as though Nebraska is the first State to enact such a law. They have their heads in the sand or are conveniently ignoring that this has been the norm in a majority of states for the last 20 to 100 years or more.

It begs the question

Since a majority of the 50 states have already been down this road and there has not ever been the shootouts over parking spaces or blood running in the streets the naysayers predicted, why is it the Journal Star Staff and others think Nebraska will be the exception?

They want my money but they consistently imply that because I own firearms I am, not to be trusted, irresponsible and a menace to society.

What is it that they seem to know about their fellow Cornhuskers that makes them think we are not as responsible and well meaning as the residents of the rest of the states that have had concealed carry laws for years? That is one reason I do not take a home subscription to the LJS.

A third choice

The LJS editorial points out two choices;

But suppose a gun-toter wants to shop in a store that sports the no-guns sign. If a crook can’t tell who’s packing, how can the shopkeeper tell if the citizen takes a gun in anyway? And if the citizen dutifully leaves his gun in his car, what a lucky break for a crook who has only to smash a window to add to his arsenal.

  • Choice one - Disobey the sign and carry anyway.
  • Choice two - Leave the firearm in the vehicle when entering a posted business.

What LJS fails to mention and should be considered by businesses worried about their bottom line is the third choice that a number of legal Concealed Carriers will opt for;

  • Choice three - Refusal to patronize any business that posts a sign.

Choice three is the one I will avail myself of. It is a businesses right to permit whom they wish in their premises and I will repsect that. Respect is a two way street, if a business does not respect my decision to maintain the lawful ability to protect myself and my family I will not spend my money there.

Personally I think that if someone leaves their firearm in a vehicle because a business is posted and that persons firearm is stolen while they are patronizing that business then the owners/managers of that business should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm. In the least they should be able to be sued in civil court by the victims of crimes committed with a firearm that was stolen from their parking lot.

In its infinite wisdom the LJS points out;

The fact that most law-enforcement agencies have distanced themselves from the law should tell us something about its potential for danger.

Danger?? Show me the danger

Police administrations distance themselves from laws like this because it will effect their bottom line budget. Every year police administrations request additional funds to bolster their budgets under the pretense of protecting the public. For years police administrators have deluded the public into thinking they (the police department) are the sole responsibility for the citizens safety. The only danger is to their bottom line.

To many Sheeple in this country have been brainwashed into thinking that the Police are suppose to be at their beck and call for any little snit that they find themselves in.

News flash Sheeple;

Police agencies are under no legal obligation to protect you as an individual.

Police agencies exist to serve the public as a whole i.e. clearing traffic accidents, quelling riots or public disturbances, and investigating crimes.

Police Officers for the most part can not prevent crimes. Rarely are police officers at the scene of a crime before or as it is happening. For the most part they (through no fault of their own) show up after the fact.

Yes they will put out an all points for your SUV that was hijacked from your wife with your 18 month old baby in the back. Yes they will see that your daughter gets a rape kit and adequate medical attention when they find her bruised body in a back alley. Yes they will see that you get to the hospital when a couple of thugs rough you up and take your wallet because "you stayed at Tulley's Bar too long again".

The cold hard fact is when you need them most they won't be there. For those critical moments you are on your own, what you do may mean life or death.

Oh and if you can get a call through and they don't show up in your definition of a timely manner or your call slips through the cracks and they don't show at all?

Don't even think about suing them.

That has been tried before countless times in countless states and the result has always been the same;

Police Officers are under no legal obligation to protect citizens as individuals only society as a whole.

The only people the police are by law required to protect is those that they have a "special relationship" with. A 'special relationship" is generally held to be a person "in custody".

No an Order of Protection does not qualify as a "special relationship".

Try this;

Call the local police department and tell them a person you have an order against just called you and said they are on their way over to kill you.

The response will generally be something to the effect of;

"We're sorry Mr/Mrs Citizen but we can't do anything until the person actually shows up at your residence. Call us back when he/she gets there."

Want to know how many 911 recordings there are where the caller was assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered on tape while the police were "in route"?

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is not one single Police Officer I know that won't put his or her life on the line to come to your aid. I know for a fact that they do it because it is in their heart and not their bank account. For what they do Peace Officers have an under paid and under appreciated lot in life.

The way it is

What the average citizen need to understand is that no matter how much police officers may want to be they can not be there when you are assaulted, robbed, raped or worse. They just have no way of knowing your in trouble until the incident is over and then all they can do is respond and help pick up the pieces. It is a fact of life, deal with it.

US v. Miller

One the commenter's to the "editorial" on-line referenced US v. Miller. Miller the most misunderstood actions ever taken by the US Supreme Court. It is touted as the "Miller Decision" and I can deduce that the commenter has never actually read it. In Miller the Supreme Court decided nothing. That's right zip, zilch, nada, nothing.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) remanded the case back to the lower court because it wasn't given notice that a "short-barreled shotgun was firearm in use by the Militia. By it's own writing if SCOTUS had been given notice that such a firearm was in use by the military they would have decided in Millers favor.

After it was remanded back to the lower court and before further action could be taken in his defense Miller died.

Those of you that so handily quote Miller in error should do yourselves the favor of reading it instead of relying on what somebody else tells them it means. Then at least you won't appear to be so ignorant when you open your mouth and remove all doubt.