advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Banning guns after Colorado shooting won't end killing

Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 2:42 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The tragedy of the senseless killings early Friday morning at the Aurora, Colo., screening of the new "Batman" movie is another example of the sick, twisted minds that exist and continue to crop up in the United States.

Once again, however, it has triggered calls for new and more restrictive gun laws from the usual media outlets, editorialists, anti-gun groups, syndicated columnists and special-interest organizations. In most cases, I guess one may logically assume they mean well; however, their tired and ill-advised knee-jerk advice offers no real solutions.

As expected, The New York Times, The Denver Post, Los Angeles Times, The Kansas City Star, New York City's mayor, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and The Huffington Post are but a few of the habitual gun foes chiming in. The Washington Post wrote, "There is no rational basis for allowing ordinary Americans to purchase assault rifles. They're not necessary for hunting, and they're not needed for self-defense."

Others weighed in, including New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who likened gun control advocates with suffragettes' tough road to voting. CNN talk show host Piers Morgan and his predecessor Larry King added to the debate with absurd comments about the ease in the U.S. of purchasing a machine gun. Of course, the National Rifle Association was afforded its customary blame — Kirsten Powers of The Daily Beast, a Fox News guest, insisted that the National Rifle Association owns the GOP.

These tragic events are extremely riveting. They will always generate a wide span of interest, particularly with the spate of news outlets available. Nevertheless, much of the attack campaign favoring more gun control and against the Second Amendment is both ill-informed and often intentionally untrue.

For example, the overused "no one uses assault rifles for hunting or self-defense" conveniently ignores the fact that recreational and competition shooting is not only a lawful activity but also a very popular one. Furthermore, the attacks on the NRA are specious. The Second Amendment merits equal respect as the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights — at least it is spelled out rather than implied as are the right to privacy and separation of church and state.

Since its origin in 1871, the NRA has promoted marksmanship, firearms safety, the protection of hunting and self-defense in the U.S. Additionally, it has campaigned, albeit unsuccessfully, for longer prison sentences for criminals who possess or use a firearm in commission of a crime.

Despite the fresh calls for new gun-control measures triggered by this latest mass killing, any change is highly unlikely. The public has wised up to the fact that more laws don't equal positive results. Last fall, for the first time, a Gallup poll found that assault or semi-automatic weapons bans were opposed by a majority of 53 percent to 43 percent.

As for needing new laws, murder is and has been unlawful for quite some time. Moreover, restricting the availability of or banning the sale and ownership of firearms does virtually nothing to prevent their use in crimes. By their very nature, criminals are more than somewhat averse to obeying laws. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S.; nevertheless, there have been more homicides there (228) than U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year (144).

As has been the norm, the renewed pressures for more gun laws are extremely vague as to the what and how measures for control. Other than lamenting the overabundant availability of the weapons and the scare tactics of the NRA, there is little that is new or necessary. As recent Supreme Court decisions have come down on the side of self-defense, Second Amendment rights have been strengthened.

The most troubling aspect of these mass murders — Columbine, Virginia Tech, the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and now Aurora — is that they were planned and carried out by people who were mentally disturbed.  While 20/20 hindsight is used in alleging that "someone should have seen it coming," that is pure second-guessing by amateur psychologists.

Accordingly, until modern science or medicine devises a method through which an individual's homicidal tendencies can be detected or predicted by his or her "strange" behavior, I am afraid these massacres will be repeated.

One must wonder, however, if a speedy trial and swift and decisive punishment would not decrease the occurrence of these senseless acts of sheer violence by those seeking to make an equally senseless statement.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Rich C. July 25, 2012 | 8:17 a.m.

A valid point that I can agree with you on, Colonel. Regardless of how many laws and regulations are in place regarding gun control, someone with a strong urge to kill others is going to find a gun, legally or otherwise.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro July 25, 2012 | 11:54 a.m.

At the very least, private massive purchases of ammunition and heavy duty assault/military weapons should be stored in some law enforcement data base, if just to raise awareness of who is stockpiling or reselling.
Monitoring where the product/weapons are going is a major step in prevention of illegal usage.

(Report Comment)
David Sautner July 25, 2012 | 12:11 p.m.

Every American has the absolute right to own as many firearms and weapons as they want.

(Report Comment)
David Sautner July 25, 2012 | 12:27 p.m.

If some such maniac such as Holmes had entered a movie theater in Texas his head would have been blown clear off before he even got one shot out.

(Report Comment)
Steve Spellman July 25, 2012 | 1:02 p.m.

Gun laws don't help deter crime. This was a disturbed young man, and if we have any societal application of this terrible incident, it's looking at the culture of death and violence that is common today.
The cinema-goers are not to blame for being victims; however, I imagine the shooter likely watched a lot of those types of films and was influenced by even more violent trash. Have you seen the image of the Joker character? What a dark fantacy; a fantacy that many people in our society consume and are very influenced by. Many people that choose to consume (and be consumed by) such realistic influences often confuse fiction and reality to some degree, with many ramifications.
However rare, some people, like this criminal, snap and "go postal" of sorts. He appears to be an unhealthy person overall: phyiscally and obviously mentally. Young people that are at risk of drifting into violence need people in their community to befriend them worlds more than laws that simply attempt to limit everbody's access to a firearm.
I don't like the politicization of this tragedy at all. However, if looking for root causes, let's look in the mirror first about how this culture that glorifies death is perpetuated.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro July 25, 2012 | 1:19 p.m.

("Should the sale of ammunition and ballistic gear purchased over the Internet be regulated or tracked?")
http://www.facebook.com/capecodtimes/pos...

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote July 25, 2012 | 2:21 p.m.

Though I think the US has insufficient regulation of firearms, relatively rare events should not dictate policy. See Republican efforts to suppress voter turnout under the guise of protecting against voter fraud as a case in point. Mr Miller comes across as rather cavalier with respect to inadequate gun-control laws and the occasional misuse of guns. Curiously he is much more adamant with regards to regulating one's access to the ballot. I suppose, in the aggregate, one is more dangerous than the other to his entrenched interests.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 25, 2012 | 2:47 p.m.

Chris: I think it requires more identification to buy a gun than it does to vote.

And given that voting is just as important as our right to own guns, I'm surprised this is so.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote July 25, 2012 | 3:13 p.m.

@MW,

I was not comparing the requirements of voting vs. buying a firearm. I was juxtaposing Mr. Miller's proverbial shrug of the shoulders at the relatively small number of mentally unstable individuals amassing a large stockpile of lethal weapons vs. his deeply felt concern that a significant number of individuals should be disenfranchised because an equally small number of voting irregularities threatens the very fabric of a fair and just society.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 25, 2012 | 3:38 p.m.

Karl said: "The Second Amendment merits equal respect as the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights."

No, it doesn't. I'm aware that it's easy to argue this given that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't change the fact that reality in this country is very different from what it was back when the Constitution was written. The country was in its infancy and the situation was volatile; of course it made sense to allow citizens to defend themselves against a potentially abusive government. The problem is, that risk no longer exists these days, as something insanely serious would have to happen for people to need to physically defend themselves against their government. Then there's also the enormous disparity in firepower. (Weird that 2nd Amendment supporters are also big on the military, the very entity the government would use to put the population in its place, so to speak)

At any rate, I'm curious as to the statistics concerning gun ownership and their effect on crime rates.

David Sautner said: "If some such maniac such as Holmes had entered a movie theater in Texas his head would have been blown clear off before he even got one shot out."

IIRC, it's perfectly legal to own a gun in Aurora, so the issue wasn't that people's hands were tied due to strict gun laws. Plus, methinks that having a gun will do you no good against someone with an assault rifle and body armor, especially when he's got the drop on you. Good luck having the presence of mind (and fast reflexes) to draw your weapon and shoot accurately when bullets are already flying all over the place (nevermind the smoke bombs).

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 25, 2012 | 3:56 p.m.

Chris: It boggles my mind that anyone, anywhere would not want a person to clearly establish citizenship and eligibility to do something so serious as to vote.

And I don't care what their political flavor is.

Indeed, it boggles me so much...and seems so irrational and illogical...that I am forced to conclude there are hidden and nefarious agendas/efforts.

I view voter ID laws as one small and quite legitimate part of a nationwide effort making ANY type of voting fraud very, very difficult. For now, I do not view it as particularly difficult.

Voting is not difficult. Proving identity is no more difficult at the voting booth than it is at the bank teller's window. For me, the notion that a person cannot get a proper picture ID is absurd. I have little sympathy for a person who cannot show proper identification as I do for the person who does not even try to ensure they are voting in the right precinct. Or follow instructions in the voting booth. Or get themselves registered in time. Holymoly, folks....show some gumption and responsibility as a voter!

As for your comparison, I do see what you are trying to compare even if you had to dig rather deep to find it.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 25, 2012 | 4:02 p.m.

Jon: The 2nd amendment merits the same respect as all the other amendments. It is current law.

You are arguing whether it remains applicable. That's an OK posture, even if I disagree.

So change it. Amend the Constitution.

The Constitution tells you how.

I would not agree with such an effort and would work against you, but I would agree with the proper and established procedures and live with any consequences should you prevail.

Just follow the rules.

They are listed in the Constitution.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 25, 2012 | 4:16 p.m.

ALL amendments to the Constitution, except for the Eighteenth Amendment, which was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment. (So sorry, WCTU.)

The Constitution is NOT a Chinese restaurant menu: We are not allowed to choose one from column A, one from column B, and toss the rest.

My choice for one to supersede all others would be the Tenth Amendment. No contest (for me).

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 5:24 p.m.

You know what's missing from this debate? The actual text of the amendment:

Amendements to the United States Constitution
Article II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...and I've got a few questions:

Do we have a well-regulated Militia?
Is is still necessary that people should have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having a well-regulated Militia?
Does "well regulated" not give government explicit authority to regulate the firearms possession that was required for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia?

Where does it say, or even infer, that the people's right to bear arms was, in any way, to overthrow their own government with?

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd amendment is water under the bridge. For one, we have an extremely expensive, sophisticated, and well regulated military system in place.

For two, that well regulated military has absolutely overwhelming firepower in comparison to what the general public is allowed to possess already.

Finally, there is no shortage of correlation between gun possession and violence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...

At least the headline is true, even if the rest of Colonel Klink's article is garbage: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/594... - we are an incredibly violent society.

Here's a few more links to chew on:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lo...
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/...
http://www.amazon.com/Ricochet-Confessio...
http://owsposters.tumblr.com/tagged/all

I'm gonna tell you all point blank that the idea that violence - especially with guns - is a way to solve problems, did NOT come from single parent homes. I think the mindset came from the top - via warmongering.

And, you're still more likely to get killed driving home from work this evening, than you are to get killed by gunfire. However, the new leading cause of accidental death in the US is from prescription drugs. Not auto accidents, not gunshots, not any kind of illegal drugs. Legal prescription drugs are the #1 killer in the US.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 5:35 p.m.

So Colonel Klink pins the blame on "mentally disturbed" people. However, instead of coming to the conclusion that better mental health services - i.e. "healthcare" - might help the potential psychos and reduce the mass shootings, he comes to the conclusion that killing people is the best way to show people that killing people is wrong.

...even after pointing out that murder has always been against the law and killers have almost always been very harshly punished by society...

If only such massive holes in logic were as deadly as the holes that bullets make in biological organisms. If only...

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 25, 2012 | 6:07 p.m.

Like I said before, I'm aware of the fact that the 2nd Amendment is legally on equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights by virtue of being an amendment. But, Karl specifically said that "The Second Amendment merits equal respect as the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights," which simply isn't true. Our right to free speech is without question way more important than our right to own a friggin' firearm. Freedom of speech is perhaps the cornerstone of the civilized world, whereas gun ownership is a mere blip in the radar, if that.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 6:53 p.m.

The entire US Constitution, for those interested in some reading: http://constitutionus.com/

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 25, 2012 | 7:23 p.m.

"You know what's missing from this debate? The actual text of the amendment."
____________________

I'll tell you something else that's missing from this debate....the text of District of Columbia v. Heller.

In addition to being a decision, it's a historical summary of what the framers and the times said about the right to own guns. It's fully of actual references. Derrick wishes to parse the commas and verbiage of the 2nd Amendment on his own, especially the "well-regulated militia" part; well, that's already been done for you. I suggest you read the whole thing, including the dissents.

Here it is:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c...

You don't like the amendment's applicability for today's times? Fine. Change it according to the rules. I'll be against you if you try and do it any other way.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 25, 2012 | 7:45 p.m.

Take it from someone who knows what they're talking about:

http://i.imgur.com/u6DGu.jpg

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 7:57 p.m.

For the record, I am not against the 2nd amendment, and feel no need to change it. "It is what it is." I do, however, think that gun ownership and transactions should be more closely monitored, and that policing resources should be directed primarily towards illegal gun sales and ownership, not illegal drug sales and ownership.

Truth is, guns are merely an incredibly convenient tool to use for the commission of violence. It's the violence that uses the guns, not the guns themselves, that is the problem. That "incredibly convenient" part certainly exacerbates the problem, but the problem is still primarily an incredibly violent society, overall.

Should guns need titles and tags like vehicles? Should owners be required to carry liability insurance on their guns like they do their cars? Should gun owners have to pass ownership / usage tests just like auto drivers? None of these vehicle ownership and usage regulations appears to keep people from owning and using vehicles.

I don't see why gun ownership and usage shouldn't be regulated just like vehicle ownership and usage. The use of each is responsible for about the same amount of deaths per year in the US.

And, I'd like to see that case tried again, today. Good luck on that "2nd amendment solution" thingie, for the morons predisposed to thinking that way.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 25, 2012 | 8:16 p.m.

Derrick: Your 7:57 is at odds with your 5:24.

Do you no longer have your 5:24 questions? If you do, see the link. It explains the context of "militia", "keep arms", and "bear arms" quite nicely. In addition, the majority decision is a rather good lesson in grammar. English teachers take note.

Didn't understand the last paragraph of your 7:57.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 25, 2012 | 8:27 p.m.

Let's see--where do I begin--so much love, so little time.

Mr Foote, I fail to see the relevance of the photo ID requirement to the senseless slaughter of innocents. But, if you but read my last column on that subject, you will find that it is not only very simple to acquire a photo ID but also the state of Missouri will provide the necessary documents and the funding for those without. The notion that voters would be disenfranchised by the photo ID requirement or that Republicans are lurking behind the disenfranchmment is absolute hogwash. Don't take my word for it--the Supreme Court has so stated.

Mr Fogle, Your "So Colonel Klink pins the blame on "mentally disturbed" people. However, instead of coming to the conclusion that better mental health services - i.e. "healthcare" - might help the potential psychos and reduce the mass shootings, he comes to the conclusion that killing people is the best way to show people that killing people is wrong." is nonsense. Just where did I come to the conclusion you describe?

And, as for your verbiage on the meaning of a "well regulated militia," the Supreme Court has answered that in terms that even a liberal cave man can understand.

Mr Hopfenblatt--as to the First vs Second Amendment, you have the right to your opinion--but, I doubt very seriously that neither the Framers or the Supreme Court would agree with you.

By the way Mr Fogle, I can only surmise that you continue to get your jollies with the repetitive "Col Klink" reference--you may keep it up so long as it gives you giggles-however, I can also surmise that most have long since filed it under the heading of "childish."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 10:04 p.m.

To understand the 2nd Amendment, you must look at the writings of the founding fathers:

NOAH WEBSTER, IN A PAMPHLET ADVOCATING PENNSYLVANIA'S RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION:

BEFORE A STANDING ARMY CAN RULE, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISARMED; AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST EVERY KINGDOM IN EUROPE. THE SUPREME POWER IN AMERICA CANNOT ENFORCE UNJUST LAWS BY THE SWORD, BECAUSE THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED, AND CONSTITUTE A FORCE SUPERIOR TO ANY BAND OF REGULAR TROOPS THAT CAN BE, ON ANY PRETENSE, RAISED IN THE UNITED STATES. SOURCE: DEBATES AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA, CONVENED AT RICHMOND,VIRGINIA, ON MONDAY, THE 2D DAY OF JUNE, 1788 (PRINTED BY HUNTER AND PRENTIS, 1788, PETERSBURG, VA)

JAMES MADISON, FATHER OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT AND ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED - UNLIKE CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES WHOSE GOVERNMENTS ARE AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS. .... BESIDES THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED, WHICH THE AMERICANS POSSESS OVER THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION, THE EXISTENCE OF SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENTS TO WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE ATTACHED, AND BY WHICH THE MILITIA OFFICERS ARE APPOINTED, FORMS A BARRIER AGAINST THE ENTERPRISES OF AMBITION, MORE INSURMOUNTABLE THAN ANY WHICH A SIMPLE GOVERNMENT OF ANY FORM CAN ADMIT OF. SOURCE: SOURCE: THE FEDERALIST NO. 46, A LETTER FROM JAMES MADISON TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, JANUARY 26, 1788,
(THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, BANTAM BOOKS, 1982)

GEORGE MASON, CO-AUTHOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: IN DEBATE ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE VIRGINIA ASSEMBLY: "I ASK SIR, WHAT IS THE MILITIA? IT IS THE WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, EXCEPT FOR A FEW PUBLIC OFFICIALS."
SOURCE: MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW (1983), PAGES 203-224.

SAMUEL ADAMS: "THE SAID CONSTITUTION SHALL NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO INFRINGE THE JUST LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE; OR TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, FROM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS." SOURCE: MASSACHUSETT'S' U.S. CONSTITUTION RATIFICATION CONVENTION, 1778.

RICHARD HENRY LEE: "A MILITIA WHEN PROPERLY FORMED ARE IN FACT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, AND INCLUDE ALL MEN CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS. TO PRESERVE LIBERTY, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF PEOPLE ALWAYS POSSESS ARMS. THE MIND THAT AIMS AT A SELECT MILITIA, MUST BE INFLUENCED BY A TRULY ANTI-REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLE. SOURCE: LETTERS FROM THE FEDERAL FARMER, 1788.

Clearly the Founding Fathers meant the people to be armed to prevent the tyranny of government, which enslave and murder far more people than any group. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a government with jet aircraft, assault helicopters, tanks, night vision, and GPS guided artillery which could be arrayed against the citizenry to put down a rebellion against tyrants seeking to crush their rights. JFK told us these rights came from God in his inaugural speech.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 10:09 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 25, 2012 | 10:16 p.m.

A history/government professor once rendered (to me) his opinion that the Constitution is as it is because its framers had such a difficult time agreeing upon specifics.

More than 200 years later, not much has changed: today we have trouble agreeing on or with the provisions of our Constitution.

On the other hand, those who live in totalitarian states aren't burdened with that problem, are they? A surprising number of totalitarian states have had impressive constitutions, but those constitutions are not left to citizens to interpret or challenge.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 10:37 p.m.

Yes, it certainly does amuse me. Even more so, now that you've reacted to it! My nickname for you has even inspired others to compliment with artwork... http://twitpic.com/9itnk9

Enjoy!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 10:40 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 10:47 p.m.

Can any of you on the left tell me which other rights under the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is NOT meant to be an individual right?

Can any of you on the left show me any argument before the various state legislatures during the ratification process that shows there was disagreement that the 2nd amendment was NOT meant to be an individual right?

For 20 years I have offered a standing $100 reward for anybody to show me a serious debate in any of the state legislatures that the 2nd amendment was only meant to apply to an organized militia.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 10:56 p.m.

We have a right to trial by jury. In many US buildings and court houses, you cannot gain entry without a photo ID. So you could not go to your own trial, nor could your jurors gain access. Clearly the federal government does NOT think that a lack of a photo ID bars you from your Constitutional rights.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 10:57 p.m.

Mr. Shapiro, which of your other rights under the Bill of Rights would you recommend that the government limit your access and quantity?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 10:59 p.m.

I do not bother with Mr. Fogle's posts or links because the positions he posits are simply inane and unworthy of serious consideration.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 11:03 p.m.

@Mike: I still have those questions. Are you assuming they are rhetorical questions?

This wouldn't be the first time a liberal OR conservative questioned court judgements. Furthermore, the fact that I asked those questions is not in direct conflict with my later conclusion that we should regulate gun ownership like vehicle ownership, and focus policing resources on illegal firearms instead of illegal drugs.

No matter what the framers intended, or courts have ruled, any "2nd amendment solution" would be wiped off the map by our own police, Homeland Security forces, and military, in VERY short order. You saw what they did to a bunch of pacifist wussies in the OWS movement.

Your amendment, according to your interpreted intent, is defacto useless. It might give you a false sense of security, but that's about the extent of it's value. Anyone that entertains notions to the contrary has lost their grip on reality.

And you 2nd amendment lovers have been the very ones cheering on more cops, more prisons, more military, more "security." Well guess what... the security you begged for, is not your own.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 11:12 p.m.

Hit a nerve, did I Don? "OMG don't even click his links!"

There is no such thing as bad press, is there? Thanks for reinforcing the fact that those links are there.

The world is a lot bigger than your echo chamber. And the 2nd amendment is useless for what you think it is there for. If you don't believe me, by all means... please try the "2nd amendment solution" against your government.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 11:14 p.m.

"bunch of pacifist wussies in the OWS movement." You mean the violent, raping, pillaging, looting, rioting, drug using, public waste eliminating, property damaging, litering, stinky, anarchist, filthy OWS movement group that had no consideration for the rights of anybody else? That OWS movement?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 25, 2012 | 11:16 p.m.

We should remind our fellow citizens at every opportunity that it was Barrack Hussein Obama that advocated a civilian police force just as strong as the military. That itself should scare the living daylights out of any American.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 11:21 p.m.

Just in case my first link gets taken down here's another of "Colonel Klink", on my own twitpic feed: http://twitpic.com/abtdt3

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 11:23 p.m.

See? When I couch it in those terms, suddenly Don totally understands my point!

So please, try that 2nd amendment solution for me, and let me know how it goes.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 11:31 p.m.

That mischaracterization of OWS is just plain funny. Overreactmuch?

FACT: Sexual misconduct is twice as prevalent in police forces, than in the general population. Furthermore, over half of that sexual misconduct by police involved serious sexual abuse of a minor. This was fact before BHO became president, BTW.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 25, 2012 | 11:43 p.m.

Don, most of the founders also thought the federal government should not have a standing army. How are you with that?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 25, 2012 | 11:44 p.m.

Here's the direct link to the study abstract about the hazards of gun ownership, from The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (the people who have to operate on gunshot victims): http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract...

The study is almost 15 years old though; it would be a good time to do another to see if things have changed.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 12:14 a.m.

John, the need for a standing army in today's world does not abrogate the right of the people under the 2nd Amendment. Further, the Constitution specifically states under Article 1, Section 8 that we will have a military as congress sees fit to have. Both the right of the citizens to possess arms and the ability of congress to establish military forces are outlined in the Constitution. This Constitution was ratified by the various state legislatures. Therefore, the Founding Fathers made their will known in that regard too.

Again I ask, which other right under the Bill of Rights is NOT construed as an individual right. And was there any debate that the 2nd Amendment was not clearly meant to be an individual right. If you can show this to me, then I will grant you that there is merit in an argument against the right of the individual citizen to possess private arms.

Keep in mind that the arguments of the Founding Fathers that the people were to possess arms were not for protection against criminals. Not for hunting. But specifically to protect against government.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 12:20 a.m.

From a 2009 article in Scientific American.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...

Preventable medical mistakes and infections are responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to an investigation by the Hearst media corporation. The report comes 10 years after the Institute of Medicine's "To Err Is Human" analysis, which found that 44,000 to 98,000 people were dying annually due to these errors and called for the medical community and government to cut that number in half by 2004.

The precise number of these deaths is still unknown because many states lack a standard or mandatory reporting system for injuries due to medical mistakes. The investigative team gathered disparate medical records, legal documents, personnel files and reports and analyzed databases to arrive at its estimate.

That is ALOT more deaths than firearms caused in the US from homicide, suicide, and accidental discharges. Doctors should police their own profession before worrying about firearms.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 26, 2012 | 2:14 a.m.

Don said: "We should remind our fellow citizens at every opportunity that it was Barrack Hussein Obama that advocated a civilian police force just as strong as the military. That itself should scare the living daylights out of any American."

First off, stop with the lame-ass name-calling. I certainly don't recall Dubya critics using his middle name as a negative. "This isn't just Barack Obama. This is Barack HUSSEIN Obama." As if that makes a single ****ing difference.

Secondly, like I pointed out before, aren't you a huge supporter of the military yourself? Once again, how do you reconcile the 2nd amendment with your eagerness to endow the US government with all the power possible to subdue the citizenry should push come to shove? "omg gun rights are extremely important, but we also need to dump all the money we can into the very organization the government would use to quell any legitimate uprisings!" Make up your mind.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 26, 2012 | 4:28 a.m.

I arose this morning, read the overnight commentary, and immediately thought about American author William Faulkner.

Specifically, I thought about only one of Faulkner's novels, "The Sound and the Fury." :)

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 4:49 a.m.

You see Jonathan, we need not worry about our military because they support and defend the Constitution. That's just the kind of people they are. However, it is much more likely that other government agencies, many staffed with weapons similar to the military, and whose civilians heads are appointed by non military individuals, might just think they can do as they please and forget about the Constitution and the law. Just ask the family of Brian Terry.

As for Barack Hussein Obama, he used that himself in his swearing in ceremony, so you have no kick there. And when he quits creating conditions where radical Islam doesn't gain control in country after country, I might just believe that is has no bearing. When Obama had that interview with Stephanopoulos, and he said "my Muslim faith", that wasn't a slip of the tongue. That was a slip of the disguise.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 4:51 a.m.

Jonathan, if it doesn't make a difference, why did you bring it up?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 4:52 a.m.

I still note that not a single liberal yet can point to any other right under the Bill of Rights that is NOT an individual right.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 26, 2012 | 4:52 a.m.

@ John Schultz:

No less a luminary than Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that the United States would be better served by remaining agrarian and should, by sale of agricultural goods, purchase foreign-made manufactured goods rather than establish a serious domestic manufacturing capability.

Gee! New Zealand, but in the Western Hemisphere. Actually, even New Zealand has some manufacturing capability (or I'd probably never have seen it).

Had the United States, without serious manufacturing capability, survived into the 20th century we might now be either speaking German, Japanese or both. Sieg heil!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 26, 2012 | 7:51 a.m.

Don: The right to free speech has been ruled by the SCOTUS to belong to organizations too, not just individuals.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 26, 2012 | 7:55 a.m.

DON:
"As for Barack Hussein Obama, he used that himself in his swearing in ceremony, so you have no kick there. And when he quits creating conditions where radical Islam doesn't gain control in country after country, I might just believe that is has no bearing. When Obama had that interview with Stephanopoulos, and he said "my Muslim faith", that wasn't a slip of the tongue. That was a slip of the disguise."

JKarl:
"By the way Mr Fogle, I can only surmise that you continue to get your jollies with the repetitive "Col Klink" reference--you may keep it up so long as it gives you giggles-however, I can also surmise that most have long since filed it under the heading of "childish."

Colonel, would you also agree that the way Don is referring to President Obama is childish as well?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 26, 2012 | 8:03 a.m.

...and a "2nd amendment solution" is STILL completely worthless. It's ironic, that the very people who seem to think it's a viable option are the very ones who have essentially made it worthless.

The right to peaceably assemble? They LOVE limits and regulations on that!

The right to be secure in your papers and effects, and not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures? Hear them cheer the "Papers Please" checkpoints!

The hypocrisy is just sad, and sadly ironic.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 26, 2012 | 8:06 a.m.

The difference is, I *know* it's childish. ;-)

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 26, 2012 | 8:27 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

:And when he quits creating conditions where radical Islam doesn't gain control in country after country"

What has he done? Where has radical Islam gained control that it didn't have before Obama took office? This obsession with Obama's faith, particularly when he hasn't really done anything strikingly pro-Muslim, is saddening.

Would you prefer it if we rounded up all the Muslims in this country and put them in camps? Or deported them? Be honest.

Let stick to the issues this election, and not Obama's faith or his birth certificate. They're non-issues.

DK

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 26, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

Mark...PLEASE......haven't you been listening to a word that the Tea Party has told us? And that wise old woman four years ago who warned John McCain.....he's an ARAB! Barack Hussein Obama has spent the last 3.5 years spreading radical islam, raising taxes to their highest levels since Gaius Caligula was President, eliminating the 2nd amendment, perpetrating the most obscene levels of voter fraud to ensure that Democrats get at least thirteen extra illegal votes nationwide every single Presidential election, and playing GOLF! Why, only last night he had the brazen audacity to call for new restrictions barring mentally unstable people from purchasing weapons. "These steps shouldn't be controversial," Obama said. "They should be common sense." And who does he consider "mentally unstable"? CHRISTIANS!

I rest my case.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 26, 2012 | 10:28 a.m.

I encourage everyone reading Steve's post to do so impersonating Rush Limbaugh's voice.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 26, 2012 | 11:12 a.m.

Rick: I did it imitating Limbaugh's voice and Howard Dean's.

Howard's was much more entertaining, especially after I added an arrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhh at the end.

PS; In this game, we weren't supposed to only choose conservative voices, were we? After all, it's the nature of the voice that counts and makes it funny. I also tried it using Obama's voice, but with all the hmmmms, haws, and pauses, it took too long and I got bored. Guess I should have imagined a teleprompter, too.

PS: Guess I missed the name-alteration hissy fit. Jon correctly noted that no one ever adulterated GWB middle name, but he never mentioned the last name Shrub...er...Bush. I don't know why. Maybe it was just....convenient....at the time.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 26, 2012 | 11:16 a.m.

Just took your advice and tried Howard Dean as well. You were right...very entertaining.

And no, it's not limited to just conservative voices.

Why imagine a teleprompter? Who needs one of those when you can just write it on your hand.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 26, 2012 | 11:17 a.m.

Perhaps I was wrong when I said that the First Amendment is by far the most important. Certainly seems that some of you afford that title to the Second Amendment instead, for reasons unknown.

"Freedom of religion? Fine, so long as it's Christianity."
"Right to assemble? Fine, so long as we don't disagree with whatever you're assembling about."
"Right not to be subject to illegal search and seizure? Fine, so long as you don't look brown."
"Gun ownership? OH MAN IT'S MY INALIEANABLE RIGHT PER THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU BETTER NOT TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!!"

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 26, 2012 | 11:26 a.m.

Don, I'll second Mark's call for what has Obama done to let Islam spread. I'm guessing you might put forth the Muslim Brotherhood winning the kinda sorta election in Egypt. Well, the people there voted for them. How about the American military supporting the Libyan rebels who killed Khaddafi or however it's spelled this week? They didn't seem much better after his death.

Would you use the American military to overthrow the elected government in another country? Don't let the fact that various Presidents have done so in the past cloud your answer.

(Report Comment)
Sandra Hayes July 26, 2012 | 11:47 a.m.

How dare you make fun of Mr Obama's God given Christian name. Oh ooops his Allah given Muslim name, thats just in poor taste. (note deep sarcasm please)

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 12:34 p.m.

Mike Williams:

"Guess I should have imagined a teleprompter, too"

http://current.com/groups/news-blog/9378...

You show your immaturity and partisanship when you make jabs like that. This kind of crap is a strong reason why we cant have civil and worthwhile discussion in this country anymore. Too many people, like yourself, are caught up in hyperbole, lies, and propaganda.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 26, 2012 | 12:41 p.m.

Rich....I love your idea of reciting what I wrote using Rush Limbaugh's voice, but in doing so please use your discretion as to when to insert the words "slut" and "prostitute". I'm surprised no-one has suggested a Palin/Glenn Beck duet, sort of like a Simon and Garfunkel for the 21st century, but with the added attraction of chalkboards and sexy winks.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 26, 2012 | 1:06 p.m.

Jack...do you remember when President Obama was invited to address the Republican House delegation over lunch? In case anyone doesn't remember that, he tied them up in knots, without a teleprompter. Here is the link;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-...

I can't see why Republicans need to make fun of the President's "lack of eloquence". After all, with such grand orators as...er....the previous President, and their latest candidate Willard "Mitt" Romney, who surely didn't need a teleprompter to wax so poetic about the size of trees in Michigan, President Obama is obviously out of his depth as a speaker anyway.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 26, 2012 | 1:28 p.m.

Jack Hamm:

Chuckle.

It's Calvin and Hobbes Day; we all get to be immature for 24 hours straight. The partisanship is a bonus.

It's just that the words "teleprompter" and "Obama" seem to REALLY need one another. It was a natural.

Guess you missed the Col. Klink jab by someone else. And all the other jabs against conservatives going on. Of course, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you can only recognize jabs directed against that which you like, being immune to those against folks you don't like, of course, including yours. I suspect you have special immunity antibodies that protect you.

Immunoglobulin J?

As for "crap [that is] a strong reason why we cant [sic] have civil and worthwhile discussion in this country anymore", I figure you are as much a contributor as anyone else unless. You may not recognize it, of course; perhaps it's that antibody thingie again.

Rich: I've given many public speeches in my life, and it's something I really enjoy. It took a long time getting to that point, and I had to figure out ways to make myself more comfortable on the stage. I've used entry jokes, slides of Far Side comics, slides that are carefully constructed to ensure I never get lost, recognizing that pauses are good and not embarrassing, speaking clearly but NOT fast, and I've even written key words on my hand...in red ink. I hate standing behind a podium; instead, I wear a lapel mic that allows me to roam the range. Often, I'm behind the audience or in the aisles.

I've never used a teleprompter, tho. Never felt the need.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 26, 2012 | 1:39 p.m.

It's nice to hear a liberal show a tiny bit of concern and acknowledgment about the President's lack of eloquence. Personally, I've been a little shocked at the President's seemingly progressive loss of eloquence since those heady days several years ago at the Dem convention when he was introduced at the new grand kid on the block.

He's evolved, but not in a good way.

In my lifetime, the only President's I've considered truly eloquent were Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, both GBs were....painful. Did I leave anyone out?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 1:39 p.m.

Mike,

In appreciation of my similar love for all things Calvin and Hobbes I will let this one slide :)

As far as me ignoring other's jabs, I don't and I don't make them myself. I point out the fallacies of J Karl Miller just like I do for David Rosman. However, I have yet to see a conservative on here stand up for truth, civility and bi-partisanship and call Miller out on his crap.

What troubles me the most though is the age of so many people making the jabs against our president and others. It seems like the oldest members of our society, who are supposed to be the most civil and respectable, have failed in that regard horribly and are setting a terrible example for future generations regarding civility. Just another way the baby boomers have let following generations down I suppose.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 26, 2012 | 1:45 p.m.

Yep (see my post much earlier today), it's "The Sound and the Fury" all right! William Faulkner also wrote a novel named "A Light in August." Well, August is just around the corner, but while there will probably be plenty of heat, how much light will there be?

Faukner's home town is Oxford, MS. There are rumors there's a university there and it belongs to some athletic conference called "SEC." Which football division of the SEC would that be, the "Mud Puppy Division" or the "Fatback Division"?

There are also unconformed rumors that you can legally marry your first cousin in any of the following states: South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Miississippi and Arkansas. (On the other hand, there are now five or so states where you can't marry your first cousin but you can marry someone that's the same sex you are. That's called progress.)

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons July 26, 2012 | 1:55 p.m.

Michael..on the contrary, I am not the slightest bit concerned about the President's so-called "lack of eloquence", neither do I acknowledge that he exhibits a deficiency in that department. Quite the contrary, as I think his ability to verbally run rings around a room full of congressional Republicans out to show him up only too clearly showed. Without a teleprompter. I might be wrong but I don't think they invited him back for another lunchtime chat did they?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 26, 2012 | 2:10 p.m.

Steve: "Quite the contrary, as I think his ability to verbally run rings around a room full of congressional Republicans out to show him up only too clearly showed."

I call that being the least dirty shirt in a room full of dirty laundry. Most of the other times I've listened to him, he's.....painful.

Jack: I, too, love Calvin and Hobbs. They are missed.

Returning to this article and "calling Col. Miller out on his crap." What crap? Look back through all the comments and tell me where ANY liberal OR conservative took the Colonel to task for what he wrote. Derrick came closest, but he destroyed any point he was trying to make with his Colonel Klink comment and his failure to read the decision so as to answer his quite valid parsing and grammar questions.

Truth is, we're all guilty of moth-flame syndrome. The Colonel's articles go blue because folks just can't stay away, which I'm sure makes the Colonel quite happy and content. My moth-flame targets are Rossman...er...Rosman and Nolen.

And, of course, Frank is the biggest fire of all. HUGE flames. ;^)

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 2:14 p.m.

John, well, if you think Sharia law is best for women, then I guess you have a right to believe that.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 2:16 p.m.

John, can I take it though that you now concur that the Founding Fathers clearly meant for the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 26, 2012 | 2:24 p.m.

@ Jack Hamm:

Your comments (posted 1:39 pm) have merit, but beware of lumping ALL older Americans into the generation called "Baby Boomers." There are still more than a few living persons from the previous generation, born 1926-1945, an accepted grouping by so-called experts. We grew up under far different social and economic conditions than the "Boomers," and in many repsects far more resemble the generation before us, born 1906-1925.

In terms of major wars:

born 1906-1925 = service in World War II
born 1926-1945 = service in Korea (if born before 1935)
Boomers = service in Vietnam (for those born early in the span)

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 2:25 p.m.

Michael,

You are being delusional about Miller. He makes as many logical fallacies and nonfactual statements in his articles as Rosman does if not more and they have been pointed out time and time again (although he has nothing on Rose; she makes more illogical and hypocritical statements than any other opinion writer in Columbia). However, you are blinded by your ideology and generational trait of treating politics like a football game. You will not even for one second examine whether someone on your side is being illogical or not; the simple fact that they are on your side is all that matters which is why you focus all of your attention on Rose and Rosman. Attitudes like yours are the issue in this country. Unwavering ideology and failure to think are what allow these issues to continue. Sure you are no where near as bad as Frank, but you are certainly Frank light!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 26, 2012 | 2:31 p.m.

Ok, Jack:

For "logical fallacies and nonfactual statements in his articles", start with this article.

That way we can also get back on task.
___________________

Jack says, "Sure you are no where near as bad as Frank, but you are certainly Frank light!"

Jack also says, "As far as me ignoring other's jabs, I don't and I don't make them myself."

Have you got blinders on, or is that antibody thingie working for you as well?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 2:33 p.m.

Ellis,

You are right, it was lazy of me to write it like that. Certainly lumping the greatest generation in with the worst generation is an insult to those who made America the driving force behind a modern world.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 2:43 p.m.

Mike,

The difference is I am talking directly to you, you can defend yourself. Your jabs are against people who are not present and cannot defend themselves. See the difference?

On top of that, your jab was hypocritical and childish while mine is factually true. It may hurt to hear because you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself having read your comments for so long but some times the truth hurts!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 26, 2012 | 2:53 p.m.

Jack: Absurd.

You specifically state you do not ignore "jabs" or "do" them (with no specifications or qualifiers), and then you parse the meaning of "jabs" by distinguishing between whether someone is here or not when YOU do it.

Perfect.

Now, back to the article itself. When will you start?

BBL. Have to take the grandkids to their mommy. No fair "jabbing" while I'm gone since that would be patently...um...unfair.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 2:58 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 3:10 p.m.

If you disagree with a liberal, it's a jab. If a liberal disagrees with you, it's a fact. Liberals are great proponents of free speech....as long as it's speech they agree with.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 3:14 p.m.

Jack, just curious. Do you agree that the Founding Fathers clearly meant for the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right to protect us from the government, and that was pretty much their sole reason for adding it?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 26, 2012 | 3:25 p.m.

Don,

Yes I do agree with that. In fact I would add to it that it was also intended to be a deterrent to an overzealous government not just a means to defend yourself. A government's ability to rule comes from the people and thus the people must be able to take away the power they give out.

As far as your jab comment, go through my comment history, I have called out plenty of liberals for hypocritical and illogical comments as well as taking jabs at people who cannot defend themselves. The difference is that I am not seeing it from people on the right, ever!. The only non liberals I have seen call out people on both sides are John Schultz (libertarian) and Mark Foecking (who seems very moderate). The conservatives on these pages are incredibly ideological, unwilling to have a rational debate, and uncompromising. I attribute this anomaly effects only right wingers here because the vast majority of right wingers here are baby boomers, who as a whole have always suffered from this problem.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 26, 2012 | 3:49 p.m.

Don, I don't now concur that the Founders intended the Second Amendment to be in place as a defense against tyrannical governments. I've thought that for some time, well before this millenium kicked off. My question to you about the Founders thought on a standing army was in regards to your using the Founders as a reason for the Second, whereas I think more along the lines of natural rights. I have inalienable rights because of who I am, rather than what some old white dudes wrote on parchment over two centuries ago. Using the Founders as an argument can backfire on oneself.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 26, 2012 | 4:26 p.m.

Don, regarding Islam and Sharia and women, I don't like it. I also don't like sending young Americans to deal with another country's internal matters. I like getting together with other folks and sending care packages to Marines; I don't like seeing the aftermath on our youth.

So once again, just what are you blaming Obama for with respect to Islam's increasing influence and what would you do if you were CinC?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 6:10 p.m.

Jack, we've had problems with Islam since the beginning of this nation. We paid ransom to the Barbary Pirates for decades. It did no good. Finally we had to use force of arms, which is the only thing that Islam truly seems to understand. Muslims invaded Europe three times before the first Crusades. Muslims invaded and sacked St. Peter's in Rome more than 200 years before the first Crusades. Islam has almost nothing but violence to show as it's contribution to the world over the last 250 years.

We also have seen from WW2 the folly of ignoring violent societies that seek to subjugate and use tyrany to control their populations and those of other nations. Since 1941, we have defeated our enemies. We have administered those nations we controlled temporarily in a manner to rebuild them, and brought peace and prosperity and liberty to their people. We have not conquered and kept them and under our thumb.

In a nuclear age, I would tell the world of Islam that they must learn to live in peace with themselves and their neighbors, or they must cease to exist as an entity in the world of nations. And I would tell them if there is ever a WMD used on a non Muslim country, that Medina would cease to exist, and if there were a second attack, Mecca would disappear too. Then I would work with other nations to seize the assets of any tyrant I could, including going into their own country and taking their gold, jewels and cash. These I would revert to food and medicine and construction equipment, and send it back to the people of those nations.

To quote JFK, Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 26, 2012 | 6:39 p.m.

Well John, I've got several Marines I've been sending care packages to, including my nephew. You say you don't like Sharia law. But what should we do to stop the spread of Sharia law which is clearly oppressive to women? Do nothing and stand by and suck our thumbs? At what point do you stop this tyrany?

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 26, 2012 | 8:18 p.m.

Mr Cookley,
In response to your question, the last time I looked, the President was provided the name "Barack Hussein Obama," presumably by parents who assumed he would be proud of it. I was provided a name also. I believe even a liberal cave man can understand the difference.

And Mr Williams hit the nail on the head. I am quite happy and content with the commentary triggered by my columns-- particularly with those by the chattering classes, who constantly refer to my work as "crap" and "trash" but assiduously refrain from any specifics. That makes me wonder if they bother to read it or if they merely take their cue from among the previous commentary.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 26, 2012 | 9:10 p.m.

Well, Karl, maybe lately it's also the heat (I am referring to physical heat). Makes people more edgy than normal.

We've been exposed lately to a lot of kilo calories, or, for folks who insist on clinging to that other barbaric system of weights and measures, BTUs.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 26, 2012 | 11:08 p.m.

Colonel,

Exactly the response I expected from you. You show time and time again how partisan and ignorant you are.

Perhaps you were too lazy to read Don's actual post pertaining to the mention of President Obama's middle name. No worries, I've saved you a few mouse scrolls:

"We should remind our fellow citizens at every opportunity that it was Barrack Hussein Obama that advocated a civilian police force just as strong as the military."

I assumed even a republican cave man (such as yourself) could see how childish it is to pronounce President Obama's middle name in a way to induce fear such as Don did in his sentence. When referring to his middle name in inauguration or memorials, then by all means use it. Don is just using it in a fear mongering form.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 26, 2012 | 11:58 p.m.

Karl Said: "Mr Cookley,
In response to your question, the last time I looked, the President was provided the name "Barack Hussein Obama," presumably by parents who assumed he would be proud of it. I was provided a name also. I believe even a liberal cave man can understand the difference."

In addition to what Rich said, I figured I'd point out that this doesn't answer the question, at all. Is it, or is it not, childish to use Obama's middle name in a derogatory manner? Whether or not he was given the name makes no difference whatsoever. Does stressing that his middle name is Hussein add anything relevant to the discussion?

(In fact, good job making Don look like more of an idiot by pointing out that the President didn't even pick his middle name. "Yeah, I'm totally gonna hold Obama responsible for something he's not actually responsible for.")

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 1:02 a.m.

My how the issue of a middle name sets off liberals, but the idea of a federal police force just as strong as the military doesn't bother them at all. Therein lies the idiocy as well as the ostrich mentality. Whether the era is Neanderthal or Cro Magnon makes no difference. You would still be a fool at any point on a time line.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 27, 2012 | 5:50 a.m.

Is it childish to use a sitting President's middle name in a derogatory manner? Probably, but during the 1948 presidential election "Harry S. Truman" was sometimes deliberately mispronounced "Hairy A** Truman." In that era of Political Incorrectness" I seriously doubt the slur caused much of a problem for President Truman or anyone else.

Ain't it wonderful to have now lived seemingly forever? You accumulate this huge stockpile of trivia. In our next session I'll explain what "Mickey Mouse boots" were (military slang).

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 6:51 a.m.

Ellis, you forgot to mention the S didn't stand for anything. Just S.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 27, 2012 | 7:17 a.m.

Mr. Miller

We have both a constitutional right to vote and a constitutional right to bear arms. In the State of Missouri I can go to a gun show and walk home with a gun and as much ammunition as I can afford today without any restrictions. However, to vote I must register with the county clerk, provide two forms of ID, and wait 30 days.

There is overwhelming evidence to show that voter fraud is near non-existent. There is overwhelming evidence that shows guns have a very detrimental effect on our society killing or maiming over 100,000 Americans every year.

In February you wrote an opinion piece supporter the State GOP initiative to strengthen voter ID laws putting more restriction and regulation on a Missouri citizen’s constitutional right to vote. Then you write this opinion piece claiming that there is no need to regulate and restrict one’s constitutional right to purchase fire arms.

These two pieces are logically at odds. There is no possible way that you thought about these issues in a logical and consistent manner and came to the two opposing conclusions that you did.

You are simply towing the party line with complete disregard for logic, consistency and the effects that the policies you support will have on the American people and our society. Frankly, it is sad and a severe lack of honor. It is people like you who refuse to think, debate, and compromise that have polarized our nation to this point.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 27, 2012 | 7:42 a.m.

"My how the issue of a middle name sets off liberals, but the idea of a federal police force just as strong as the military doesn't bother them at all"

The idea that a woman has the constitutional right to abort a fetus really gets the conservatives up in arms. Was there a point to your comment?

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 27, 2012 | 8:09 a.m.

Let's see here..

First, Mr Hamm, it is obvious that you have never attended or attempted to purchase a weapon at a gun show in Missouri. Before you can walk out with a handgun, you must provide identification and you must pass a background check. And, in response to your "Then you write this opinion piece claiming that there is no need to regulate and restrict one’s constitutional right to purchase fire arms.", I did not say nor did I infer any such thing. There are enough restrictive gun laws on the federal and state books already--many are not being enforced.

Mr Cookley, you demonstrate a proclivity to declare anyone who doesn't agree with you as ignorant. You have an inalienable right to believe in your innate superiority; nevertheless, name calling in what is intended to be an adult exercise in dissecting of opinions is, in my opinion, rather juvenile--reminiscent of junior high.

Mr Fogle, Before you throw your arm out of joint patting yourself on the back for my reacting to your childish (yes childish) "Colonel Klink" usage, I would like you to consider this. If I were so inclined, I could eaily petition the Missourian to remove those posts and, very probably, could have you sanctioned for the link to the caricature you posted--an amusing one I'll admit as it was clever. In fact, I have copied it and am seriously considering using it as my Facebook picture.

However, I expect children to behave as children but, everyone must grow up eventually--as I reminded Mr Cookley, such behavior is expected from adolescents.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 27, 2012 | 8:30 a.m.

For the record Colonel,

You first began the childish name calling by referring to me as a "liberal cave man" because you did not agree with my assessment (opinion) of Don's use of the President's middle name.

Then, you try to pass off anyone else referring you in the same manner as "rather juvenile--reminiscent of junior high".

I suppose the old saying "Do as I say, not as I do" is relevant. Hypocrisy seems to show its face more often than not in your comments.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm July 27, 2012 | 8:33 a.m.

Mr Miller,

You are wrong about gun laws. I can go to a gun show and buy a hand gun, assault rifle or any other firearm without ID or a background check today as long as I am buying out of a sellers "personal collection". Roughly 25% of firea1rm sales in the State of Missouri are done this way. Personal collection sales do not need to be registered or tracked per the 1968 Gun Control Act. As a state, Missouri has no additional laws over Federal Law regarding these sales.

If you are going to try and claim that someone is wrong you should at least take 2 seconds and do a quick Google search. Had you done so you would see that your assertion was incorrect and would have saved us both some time.

Now, what about the rest of my post that you conveniently ignored? I am very curious to see how you logically came to these two diametrically opposed views you present in these two articles.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 2:28 p.m.

Jack, I can also provide you evidence that a very small amount of voter fraud can affect the balance of elections. Al Franken was elected with the votes of less than 500 convicted felons who had not completed their probation/parole and legally had their voting rights restored. The 2000 election was thrown into chaos because of the dimpled/hanging chads. I watched Tim Russert and three other reporters trying to make a dimpled/hanging chad. They couldn't. An election judge showed them how. Put 4 to 6 ballots in the machine at once. It was Florida Democrat Irving Slosberg who was caught with the voting machine in his car as shown in this NY Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/18/us/cou...

Regarding firearms, in 2005, there were approximately 16,790 suicides involving firearms according to the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...

According to an ABC-CLIO study, in 2006 there were 27,000 gun-related deaths and more than 60,000 gun-related injuries. This includes suicides, homicides, and accidents.

http://www.abc-clio.com/product.aspx?id=...

Presume there has been a proportional increase in these statistics consistent with the rise in population. According to the US Census Bureau, the population of the United States grew from 281,424,603 in 2000 to 308,745,538 in 2010.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/c...

During the period, 1987 to 1990, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns. Let's extrapolate some figures from that. Crime rates have actually decreased since then. We'll take a worst case scenario and presume they've increase in proportion. The nonfatal gun crimes from 1987 to 1990 averaged 876,137 nonfatal gun crimes. The population through 2011 increased 25.23%. So we could extrapolate nonfatal gun crimes per year for 2011 of 1,098,122.00.

The Bureau of Justice statistics show information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults.

So here we go. 300 million guns, 1,098,122 non-fatal crimes, and 9,955 murders involving firearms. Approximately 20,000 non murder gun deaths and 80,000 injuries. Approximately 1,208,000 incidents of all kinds involving firearms. Assuming a population of 311 million, and let's just push the envelope and say the only one person committed each crime, that would mean that 99.6% of the American population was not involved in a gun crime, gun accident, gun murder, or gun suicide. If you just limit it to gun owners, 98.79% of gun owners were not involved in any of these either.

Now, are you suggesting, that because of 1.2% of the population, that 98.8% of us should give up any right of any kind?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 27, 2012 | 3:37 p.m.

"Now, are you suggesting, that because of 1.2% of the population, that 98.8% of us should give up any right of any kind?"

I bet voter fraud would show similar statistics. A few bad people screw it up for the rest of us. Would your position still be the same as it is for gun regulation?

Just fyi - I am in agreement with you on gun control.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 27, 2012 | 3:52 p.m.

Mr Hamm, there are two reasons that I did not respond to your post comparing my stance on voter Photo ID to gun control. First, it is not relevant to this discussion and second, I responded to the same question posted by Mr Foote in which I commented on its irrelevance but also took the time to answer his query. Since I won't repeat myself on the response to an irrelevant question, I suggest you scroll up and read that response.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 3:56 p.m.

Yes Rich. I have to show a photo ID to buy a gun from a gun dealer which is required by the government. So yes, you should show a photo ID to vote. I have to present a photo ID to go into a federal building or courthouse. So yes, you should have to show a photo ID to vote. Pretty consistent, isn't it?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 3:59 p.m.

Rich, you would agree wouldn't you that if I have to show a photo ID to exercise my constitutional right to buy a gun, you should have to do the same to exercise your constitutional right to vote? Aren't they equal?

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 27, 2012 | 4:16 p.m.

Au contraire Mr Cookley--I did not call you a liberal cave man--I merely pointed out that the answer was so simple that even a liberal cave man could understand it. But, if you feel the heat from that, it is your problem.

I have never referred to anyone as ignorant, stupid a liar, a hypocrite, lacking honor, lazy or by any other salutation other than "Mr" followed by their given name. As a senior citizen as opposed to a baby boomer, I was taught to be mannerly and respectful--there is a line of courtesy that I will not cross.

I have oft iterated that many of the over the top, snide and/or insulting comments amuse me; however, I have never intimated that I have any respect for those who indulge in name calling or "when did you stop beating your wife" queries as avenues to evade the real issue.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 27, 2012 | 4:50 p.m.

@J. Karl Miller:

We could be on our way to a new record for number of posts.

@Don Milsop:

My favorite Truman story involved some neighbors, judge Reilly and his big family. There were several kids, ranging in age (at the time) from out of law school to two at University of Iowa, to some in high school. ALL DROVE PACKARD CARS (new or used). When the family assembled (for example, Thanksgiving) the Reilly home looked like a Packard dealership!

An opening occurred while Truman was President for a federal judgeship. Reilly(D) was the logical choice due to seniority; Truman nominated an able younger man who was a Mason. Iowa's (then) Senator Guy Gillette (also D) forced Truman to back down, and Reilly got the judgeship. Not many people backed Harry down. Gillette also gave FDR fits.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 7:05 p.m.

My favorite Truman story is him saying crap this and crap that. Somebody asked Bess Truman, can't you get him to quit saying that? She responded, you don't know how long it took me to get him to say crap.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 7:18 p.m.

Under the 1934 NFA, you can still purchase a fully automatic firearm. You just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and have the approval of the senior county law enforcement official. There are 10's of thousands of full auto weapons in private hands in the United States. They are for sale at gun shows under the same stipulations. You can order them through a class III dealer too. You never hear about legal full auto arms being used in crimes. But why do we need to pay a $200 fee or have anybody's approval? We don't need to pay a poll tax. We don't need to pass a civics test to vote. You can buy a car without a license and in many cases buy liquor without ID if you look old enough. They both kill more people than cars. Doctors kill more than both do. Again, you never hear of mass shootings at gun shows or gun ranges. Theft is extremely rare. We would have a safer, more polite society if more, not less, carried firearms.
Besides, carrying a gun is much easier than carrying a cop.

Long story short, firearms have a place in our society to protect us from the government. A very, very small percentage of them are abused. And Obama can't even control his own BATF and DOJ from performing illegal firearms transactions. He needs to clean his own house before worrying about the law-abiding citizens.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 7:20 p.m.

Under the 1934 NFA, you can still purchase a fully automatic firearm. You just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and have the approval of the senior county law enforcement official. There are 10's of thousands of full auto weapons in private hands in the United States. They are for sale at gun shows under the same stipulations. You can order them through a class III dealer too. You never hear about legal full auto arms being used in crimes. But why do we need to pay a $200 fee or have anybody's approval? We don't need to pay a poll tax. We don't need to pass a civics test to vote. You can buy a car without a license and in many cases buy liquor without ID if you look old enough. They both kill more people than cars. Doctors kill more than both do. Again, you never hear of mass shootings at gun shows or gun ranges. Theft is extremely rare. We would have a safer, more polite society if more, not less, carried firearms. Besides, carrying a gun is much easier than carrying a cop.

Long story short, firearms have a place in our society to protect us from the government. A very, very small percentage of them are abused. And Obama can't even control his own BATF and DOJ from performing illegal firearms transactions. He needs to clean his own house before worrying about the law-abiding citizens.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 27, 2012 | 7:29 p.m.

Bess was one of this nation's more unique First Ladies. One might need to go all the way back to Dolly Madison to find a more interesting one.

Well, there was a First Lady post-Civil War who's first name was Lucy. It was customary in those times when someone visited the White House to offer them a drink. Lucy served only lemonade and became known, behind her back, as "Lemonade Lucy." Perhaps this reduced visits to the White House, and reduced the budget for alcohol. :)

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 27, 2012 | 7:31 p.m.

Ellis, here is my favorite Truman riposte:

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

Mr Hume:

I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."

It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.

Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!

Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T.

President Truman did not balk at decisive action whether deciding to drop the bomb, fire General MacArthur or threaten a music critic with GBH (grevious bodliy harm). He would not have been proud nor forgiving of today's Democrazts.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 27, 2012 | 7:53 p.m.

I remember listening to Margaret's concert on the radio, and my mother, who was a mezzo soprano - no, mom never sang at the Met, or even got close to it - cringing because Margaret was flat (I'm referring to Margaret's pitch, not her physique). That critic wasn't entirely wrong.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 8:38 p.m.

When she was first daughter, a guest in the President Theodore Roosevelt's office, annoyed by Alice's frequent interruptions, demanded that Alice be disciplined. Roosevelt sighed and said, "I can either run the country or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both."

Alice Roosevelt used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say about people, come sit right by me."

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 27, 2012 | 8:57 p.m.

Whoa! How many people die from medical mistakes?!? 44K-98K per YEAR? Add in preventable infections and you get 200K?

That's a LOT. Any rational assessment of this data would conclude that the quality of healthcare in America does, indeed, absolutely suck. Especially, for what we all pay for it.

Just sayin'...

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 27, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.

Don still claims: "Long story short, firearms have a place in our society to protect us from the government."

At one time, long ago, this may have been true. But, it's total hogwash now, and it has been for a long time. It's nothing but wistful thinking and romance.

Fact is, citizens just use firearms to kill each other. If any group (even just a few people) looked like they were gonna turn their guns on *any* government officials or forces, Bye Bye!

It's foolish thinking. It's a false sense of security.

Don is paranoid about Barrack HUSSEIN Obama's police forces? As if ANY other president or federal government official has been, or would ever be, any different?!?

Seriously... LOL!

I'd like to let the old fools have a little romance every now and then, but this "Civil War as a Solution" baloney is impeding real progress in our country.

We don't need to figure out how to take away people's guns.

We DO need to address the violence in our society.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 27, 2012 | 10:08 p.m.

The user comments on that Scientific American article Don linked to are really worth the read. Here's the link again: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 27, 2012 | 10:10 p.m.

"We DO need to address the violence in our society." Somehow, everyone in our society knows this, except the liberals! Do they need violence and chaos to gain and retain control of those they purport to protect?

"I'd like to let the old fools have a little romance every now and then,". How old does a fool have to be?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle July 27, 2012 | 10:29 p.m.

Are liberals rattling their guns and talking civil war?

No.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 27, 2012 | 10:30 p.m.

We made it 115 comments before you showed up Frank. I was getting worried about ya.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 27, 2012 | 11:47 p.m.

The only revolution I know of will occur - again - in November of 2012, just as they did in November of 2010.
Guns are the people's insurance that they will be the final arbiters of when the government has gone too far. Nobody knows what would push the people over the edge en masse towards armed revolt against the government. Read the Declaration of Independence. The colonists endured a great deal of abuse from England before Lexington and Concord. Today Americans would tolerate far less. But I know of nobody or group of any significance endorsing armed revolution. Any liberal that says otherwise is simply a liar.

I am confident our military would not participate in what they viewed as an unconstitutional usurpation of powers by the executive branch. More likely would be a scenario in which the federal government would seek to array police forces against the people. Hence the danger in Obama's call for a force such as that which is just as powerful as the armed forces. He hasn't been foolish enough to repeat that statement endorsing a bald faced lust for power.

Derrick’s foolishness above ignores the obvious problem of sentences that do not meet the seriousness of the crime. There is a government solution for that. There isn't a government solution for medical malpractice other than revocation of a license to practice. We have the best medicine in the world. Our malpractice deaths are less than one tenth of one percent.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that in 1996 local law enforcement agencies made 1,467,300 arrests nationwide for driving under the influence of alcohol, 1 out of every 10 arrests for all crimes in the U.S. There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

The majority of society’s problems lie at the feet of an irresponsible citizen and those that they affect. Cars kill twice as many people per year as firearm homicides and suicides. If we reduced the maximum speed of all cars to 30 miles per hour we would save alot of gas and tens of thousands of lives. You would not like that because it would inconvenience YOU. Cars are not constitutionally guaranteed. Firearms are. We recognize in society there are risk/reward factors. The reduction of speed on our roadways would vastly restrict the speed at which goods reach markets, increase your commute time, and restrict how far you could travel by car for a vacation. The risk of having firearms is that people will misuse them, just like automobiles. The reward of firearms is that it gives pause to any government in going too far in restricting our liberties.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 28, 2012 | 3:51 a.m.

You're living in fantasy land, Don, if you really think your gun collection would serve to "give pause" to the government (lol). Once again, the government controls the military, and we have by far the largest military budget in the world. We spend on our military over 6 times what China spends on theirs, and they're the 2nd largest spender. We spend more on "defense" than the next 20 countries combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...

They have better guns than you, and way more of them. So yeah, keep dreaming.

And that's not the only reason why your argument is a joke. You're talking as if outlawing guns would completely stymie any efforts to revolt against the government. "We've had it up to here with this tyrannical government and we WOULD start an open revolt. Unfortunately, though, we don't have any guns. Well, shucks, let's just let the abuse continue." For as much of a "patriot" as you pretend to be, you sure don't seem to have much faith in your fellow countrymen.

As for the cars vs. guns comparison, once again, lol. You know what else doesn't kill nearly as many people as cars do? Grenades, and dynamite, and TNT, and pipe bombs, and molotov cocktails, etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if guns caused more deaths per year than all of the above combined. So where's all the clamoring in defense of explosives ownership? Why isn't there a National Explosives Association out there lobbying in Washington, defending our Constitutional right to own bombs? (Let's note that it really isn't much of a stretch to argue that explosives can and should be included under the 2nd Amendment umbrella, after all).

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 28, 2012 | 4:13 a.m.

Jonathan, I guess you missed this part: I am confident our military would not participate in what they viewed as an unconstitutional usurpation of powers by the executive branch.

Also Jonathan, keep in mind there are millions of men and women now who are civilians who are trained in the latest military weaponry. All that is needed is to gain access to that weaponry. And I am sure that there would be no small amount of the military today who would help them to do so.

The military would not stand by and let a tyrant run over the people. So you keep that in mind.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 28, 2012 | 6:12 a.m.

Except that the scenario you're describing is pure fantasy. Otherwise, please paint us all a realistic picture in which such a tyrant manages to take control of our government in the first place (without military support, evidently), and then explain how and why it would come to be that the only way to remove him from power would be to take up arms against his non-military-supported (but somehow still very powerful) evil regime. What, are we in Yemen all of a sudden?

And let's be honest, your arguments here have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, despite the pseudo-patriotic facade you're putting up. Here's why: Just imagine that a Republican-controlled Congress voted unanimously to repeal the 2nd Amendment on the basis that guns really are evil, or whatever. For the sake of argument let's further assume that even the NRA and all other gun-rights organizations out there agree with this new view and close up shop. Would you suddenly feel the moral obligation to give up your guns? Would the lack of Constitutional support for firearms motivate you at all to get rid of them? Methinks not.

(In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that's precisely the kind of example you'd come up with if you took me up on my challenge. "Our government has clearly lost sight of what America stands for, yadda yadda yadda, therefore it's up to us citizens to take our country back! To arms, brothers!")

Point being: You don't care about gun rights, you just care about guns.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 28, 2012 | 6:21 a.m.

Well, I guess it would probably start with a President that decided which laws he was and was not going to enforce, and then one that made up laws and regulations there weren't passed by congress. Kind of like what we have now, but more advanced in his goals.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 28, 2012 | 6:44 a.m.

Jonathon:

Just for the record (I should be smart enough to stay out of this discussion, but obviously I'm not), Hitler assumed power constitutionally, without either the German military or a coup by the Nazi SA (paramilitary*).

However, the Weimar Republic was in its death throes, whether Hitler or someone else had assumed the chancellorship. Whether our present government is also in its death throes I leave to wiser heads than mine to figure out. :)

*- Once in power, Hitler took only a bit more than a year to disband the SA, as he now had command over the military.
Google "Night of the Long Knives" (6-30-34).

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 28, 2012 | 7:00 a.m.

Jonathan, and it wouldn't be overnight. It would be in increments...like we've had for the last 30 years in giving up our liberties. Well, hopefully Hussein will be gone in a couple of months and put a stop to his nonsense. Just not sure how much damage he'll do before he leaves.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 28, 2012 | 7:11 a.m.

Hitler used the very laws passed by the Weimar Republic to disarm the Nazis to disarm the rest of Germany. There were some additional laws passed in 1938 targeting Jews and non-citizens, but they were really redundant. Oh, Jonathan, you did know that the Weimar Republic was consitutionally elected didn't you? Here again we have the ages old example of unintended consequences of a law being twisted and used against the people. This quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson said it well, though there is also discussion on how it was phrased: That government governs best which governs least.
The

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 28, 2012 | 7:45 a.m.

To J. Karl, Jonathan, Don, Michael, et al.:

For a good short "read" I recommend "Anmerkungen zu Hitler" by Sebastian Haffner. Is your German a bit rusty? The book was published in English translation as a paperback by Harvard University Press ("The Meaning of Hitler").

Among other things, Haffner points out that Hitler was very adept at seizing on the mistakes and weaknesses of others and turning them to his advantage (and, in an extended sense, so was the Nazi regime as a whole).

Haffner also points out that the Weimar Republic was for all practical purposes DOA. It survived as long as it did mainly because of an "emergency clause" in its constitution, something we need to keep out of ours! Jonathan, maybe you're aware that several Latin American countries have such clauses in their constitutions. Argentina is or was an example.

Bought my copy of the book at the MU bookstore years ago.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 28, 2012 | 8:28 a.m.

Ellis: Is my German a bit rusty?
_______________

It's not only rusty, the knowledge never existed in the first place, lol.

I inherited a pristine 1938 copy of Adolph's Mein Kampf....not a mark on it (uncle was an infantry first sgt in Europe during WWII and came back with it). My 14.5 y/o grandson was here for a visit and he saw it on my bookshelf. His class had been studying WWII and he's a curious sort, so he asked if he could look at it. I said, "Sure!" He opens it up and, lo-and-behold, it's in German. He thought it was a cool bit of history, tho. I've been trying to sell the copy but, so far, no takers....I have no need for it whatsoever and it takes up shelf space reserved for "It Takes a Village" and "Dreams from My Father".

;^)

PS; Mein Kampf was the best a 1st sgt could come back with?????? Sheesh. I would have at least expected an MG42!

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 28, 2012 | 9:29 a.m.

"Are liberals rattling their guns and talking civil war?

No."

Neither did the loyalist "tories" over here in 1700's.

"You're living in fantasy land, Don, if you really think your gun collection would serve to "give pause" to the government (lol). Once again, the government controls the military,"

Who, Jona, controlled the military in Egypt, Libya, Syria? Oh, yeah, it was the government! To give credit where due, in Rwanda where the thousands were hacked to death with machetes, those with the machetes were of the government. The "hackees" had no weapons.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 28, 2012 | 9:41 a.m.

"Mein Kampf" in German or translation is considered one of the most unreadable books ever written, so you haven't missed anything. When Hitler went to prison after the abortive Putsch he was encouraged to write a book by a publisher, who expected a colorful description about the Putsch. What the publisher got was the ramblings of Hitler on a wide range of subjects. In retrospect, themes emerged:

1-That Jews were a sub-human "race" and must be dealt with.

2-There needed to be a military reckoning with France. Hitler regarded WWII as a continuation of WWI.

3-Lands east of Germany were inhabited by another inferior race, Slavs, who should become surfs in an extended Reich.

4-The Soviet Union was being run by Jews. There was a modicum of truth to that, as several of the original Bolsheviks were of Jewish birth.

If you got married in Germany during the Third Reich you received a copy of "Mein Kampf." I've previously told the story of a German friend whose father was a high ranking officer in the Waffen SS. I'm sure their home had SEVERAL copies of "Mein Kampf," all prominently displayed. :)

I am illiterate in more than one language.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 28, 2012 | 9:53 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
frank christian July 28, 2012 | 10:28 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Rich C. July 28, 2012 | 12:59 p.m.

How cute, Frank...Coming to the rescue of Don.

What you said makes no sense.

Don comparing the current President to Saddam Hussein sure makes sense, right? In what ways? Please, let me hear your conspiracy theories. You and Don are both great at telling them.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 28, 2012 | 1:33 p.m.

Ellis: My copy is...I think...a "workers" copy, not one of those addressed to newlyweds. It shows no hint of ever being read. Taking a paraphrased line from Calvin...of Calvin and Hobbes fame....if I were ever to read the book and it showed any inclination to "hurt" me, I'd break its spine.
____________________

"I am illiterate in more than one language."

Damn you, that was MY line and you stole it before I could post it.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 28, 2012 | 2:12 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
frank christian July 28, 2012 | 2:19 p.m.

R. Cookley - Rescue Don from what? You, as usual, were not in the conversation until you decided to "call" him.

I read, prez Obama referred to by his middle name. You read it, as "comparing the current President to Saddam Hussein". Why not, "let me hear Your conspiracy theories"?

This does offer another opportunity to relate, again, the latest of Obama's illegal acts. He with the stroke of his pen (no Congressional input), has just gutted the most applauded, successful Welfare Reform act enacted in our history. devised by R' Congress and as usual, reluctantly signed by Clinton, it took thousands from our welfare roles with a requirement that a recipient either work or train for work to receive government funds. He removed this requirement by allowing HHS to suspend it at the request of a State. Hundreds of actions such as this are why Romney has near top of his list for the recovery of our economy, rescind Obama's job killing regulations!

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 28, 2012 | 2:25 p.m.

" I give 'em a pass because they've actually put some thought into their opinions."

Unlike yourself, whose only thought is a dream in which you pose your silly "challenges".

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 28, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

Jon: "I give 'em a pass because they've actually put some thought into their opinions."

I generally give you a pass, also, because you are consistent with your wrong-headedness. I value consistency and while I strive for it myself, sometimes I fall short. I don't think it's often, but others might mistakenly think otherwise.

I wrote that first sentence with a smile and no malice aforethought (or afterthought, for that matter).

Except the "luck" thingie. You get no passes on that.

;^)

We have differences of opinion and beliefs and that's that. I've yet to convince anyone else in this place around to my opinion, and I'm betting everyone else is in the same boat. So why do I post?

Because articulating my position (in writing) is the best way I can test what I think.

If you can't articulate your beliefs verbally or in writing, then you don't understand them.

PS: Which is why I try to refrain from simple "linking" to sites that support my position without any explanation on my part. If I can't summarize what it says (and then link), then either I don't understand it or I'm just plain lazy. Either way isn't good. I've linked without explanation before...seldom, but I've done it...and it isn't good when it happens. Here's hoping all of us try explaining content in the future; as for me, I won't click links unless an effort is made to tell me what's in them.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 28, 2012 | 6:59 p.m.

My, aren't the compliments flying fast and furious! Michael, why do you think the copy of "Mein Kampf" is a worker's copy? Does it have the work "arbeit" or something similar on the cover or facing pages?

"Mein Kampf" is an anomaly in publishing. How so? The number of copies printed and distributed versus the number of those copies actually ever read.

Now, you guys must excuse me because I have to go peroxide my hair so that I will look more Aryan. One can never look too Aryan, you know. :)

I suppose, Jonathan, I should thank you for your LEFT-handed compliment (I am actually left-handed). It made me very serene; I will become less so if I should find we start agreeing on things.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 28, 2012 | 7:22 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Don Milsop July 28, 2012 | 9:45 p.m.

Ellis, please remember the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body. The left side of the brain controls the right side of the body. Ergo, left handed people are the only ones in their right mind.

The trouble with the likes of Jonathan, Rich, Ray, Christopher, Derrick, Steve, John, and Jack is that they refuse to see that Nazi Germany can happen here. And it won't be conservatives that will foist the tyrany on the people. It will be liberals. Any group of people that can mentally condone, aid, and extol the murder of 3,000 defenseless unborn babies every single day of the year for 38 years is capable of any heinous behavior given the opportunity. And in some twisted manner they will think they are right to do so.

Conservatives promote the protection of innocent life and the punishment of the evil. Liberals promote the destruction of innocent life and the protection of those who are evil.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 12:16 a.m.

Ellis: Does it have the work "arbeit" or something similar on the cover or facing pages?
__________________

No.

I don't know much about the various issues, but it's not a marital copy since there are no specific bride/groom names listed on the page signed by the burgermeist....bergermies....burgermist.....mayor.

I don't think it's a "higher up" copy because....well, I don't know why. Ol' Adolph's signature is a printed version, so it ain't worth 50K or nuttin.

It's just a simple book, black spine with gold leaf lettering and a tan cover with a crest of some type, and a cardboard box you store the book in, the thin paper covering Adolph's picture is still pristine, and there is no evidence a page has been turned. There are no autographs or handwriting in margins at all.

I guess I don't really know what it is, except it was published in 1938.

Yes, I've heard it is a very poorly written book.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 29, 2012 | 12:36 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 29, 2012 | 12:37 a.m.

That was directed at Don, by the way.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 29, 2012 | 1:27 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Don Milsop July 29, 2012 | 2:22 a.m.

Jonathan, the Nazi's didn't think the extremination of Jews was murder either. The Japanese murder of 300,000 Chinese in Nanking wasn't murder to them. And the execution of over 41 million unborn children isn't murder to you either. If you think that it's not murder, you don't have to worry about which side of the brain does what as you have no brain to think with.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 29, 2012 | 5:03 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"Any group of people that can mentally condone, aid, and extol the murder of 3,000 defenseless unborn babies"

I thought this thread was about gun control.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't need one, it's absolutely none of your business. It's really that simple.

DK

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 29, 2012 | 5:04 a.m.

I already told you, the term "murder" has a legal definition, and that definition is there to prevent you from being charged with murder if, say, you accidentally run over someone. Abortion is not murder, period. Even if your argument was "abortion SHOULD be murder," I am 100% positive that you don't have the legal acumen necessary to know what that would entail.

Also, I want some sources on the claim that Nazis didn't view the killing of Jews as murder. You do realize that nothing prevented them from calling it murder and simply not giving a crap, right? The reason why psychopaths kill is not because they don't think they're committing murder; they know it full well and just don't care (because they literally lack the ability to care).

Lastly, what does abortion have anything to do with Karl's article? Nothing whatsoever. But it's all right, I get it. You ran out of arguments, as you usually do, and decided to resort to your copy-paste rants about abortion, as you usually do. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you always find it fitting to inject your "murder of unborn babies" schpiel into every discussion. Easy recourse, I guess, ignoring the fact that it's always a bunch of garbage.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 29, 2012 | 5:32 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"Nazi Germany can happen here. And it won't be conservatives that will foist the tyrany on the people."

It certainly can. We'll just substitute the word "Muslim" for "Jew". And I suspect there are a lot of conservatives that wouldn't have a problem with that, unfortunately.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 29, 2012 | 5:47 a.m.

On Derrick's suggestion we license firearms like cars:

They do kill comparable numbers of people, but cars cause accidental killings, where guns are usually used intentionally. Liability insurance wouldn't cover that, and also guns cause very little property damage.

Cars are a problem because they are so public, and there's so many of them in a concentrated space. Gun use is a more private and individual thing, and most legal gun owners are far more concerned about safety when they shoot than when they drive, unfortunately.

Licensing will only affect legal owners. The gangstas that like to shoot at each other all over town aren't getting their guns legally. This is what we need to work on, as you say. And I agree also that we have a lot more important things to worry about than prosecuting people for private drug use.

Licensing cars and drivers doesn't prevent accidents, and I doubt licensing guns would prevent intentional shootings.

DK

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates July 29, 2012 | 6:03 a.m.

Dang if I'm gonna be left out of this.....nice article Col. Miller!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 29, 2012 | 6:08 a.m.

Let's also license prostitution, both in the narrow and figurative sense. It's done elsewhere, the Netherlands for example.

Many state governments are desperate for revenue; here's an additional untapped source.

At present, licensees granted for several professions must be framed and displayed at the place of business. We need to give some thought as to where licenses for prostitution should be displayed.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 8:44 a.m.

Billions are spent each year trying to keep various drugs out of various people's hands.

An utterly failed effort.

If gov't can't do that, then how in the world can gov't control who has guns and how they are used?

I see no operational differences.......

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 9:06 a.m.

When I see public official reactions like those against Chick-Fil-A, I tend to think Don't position on what gov't can do in the good 'ol USA has some validity.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 29, 2012 | 9:08 a.m.

@ Michael Williams:

See my above post. I have decided that if I have any choice in the manner of my demise I want to be run down (as a pedestrian) by a gun toting prostitute (preferably female) driving a 1963 Shelby AC Cobra 427*. The prostitute, weapon and Cobra MUST all be duly licensed!

I will die with a smile on my face.

*- A 427 cubic inch Ford V-8 engine; a 485 cubic inch Ford V-8 was optional.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 9:33 a.m.

Ellis: Why are you jacking around with that wimpy 427?

Bring back 426 hemis!!!!!!!!!!

I had a buddy who decided...in high school...that he wanted to die at the age of 98 of a gunshot wound to the heart while in the boudoir of a 25 year old cutie at the hand of her irate husband. Not a bad way to go if you can make it...er...happen.

On another note, I've never...ever...been in a Chick-Fil-A restaurant, much less buy a sandwich there. That's about to change, but I'll have to wait until it's not Sunday. Too bad I can't buy stock. I've learned more about that company in the last few days than I ever knew before...all because of this dust-up. It's one thing for an individual to decide whether or not to patronize for whatever reason; it's quite another for a public official to interfere. Backlash is a very real phenomenon and everyone can participate with their dollars and with their votes.

PS: Give me an opportunity to return to muscle cars and I'm on board in a heartbeat. At the very least, I'll recognize most things under the hood for the first time in 35 years.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 9:37 a.m.

Sorry. My 9:06 post should read, "When I see public official reactions like those against Chick-Fil-A, I tend to think Don'[s] position on what gov't can do in the good 'ol USA has some validity.

The correction "s" is in brackets. Amazing how a single letter can change things.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 29, 2012 | 12:49 p.m.

Frank, why do you refer to Jonathan as Jona? Trying to feminize him to Joni or too lazy to type a man's name?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 29, 2012 | 1:27 p.m.

Carroll Shelby died this year at age 89. Shelby and another driver were the first post-WWII Americans to win the 24 hour race at Le Mans, in an Aston Martin. Shelby began suffering blackouts and could no longer race, so he decided to build an American car that could beat Ferrari in sports car racing. He started with a body (including suspension, brakes) from British AC Ace and shoehorned big block Ford V-8s under its hood.

Shelby wasn't an engineer: "research" for him was to do something and take the car to a track. The first results were scary: The AC wasn't designed for the horsepower, torque and weight of the Ford engines. Suspension and brakes needed considerable revision! He started competing and did well against Corvette; then he raced at Le Mans.

The open cockpit and aerodynamics of the 427 AC Cobra limited its top speed; an entirely new body with enclosed cockpit was devised. This was called the Shelby Daytona, and it won the 1966 and 1967 Le Mans races. After that Shelby teamed with Ford when Ford raced at Le Mans.

You can own a NEW 427 or the same car with a 289 Ford engine in two forms: fully assembled by Shelby Motors in Las Vegas or do-it-yourself kit form from some companies licensed to Shelby Motors. The former will run at least $125K (heater and soft top cost extra; there's no air conditioning). Kits run maybe half that.

Except for lack of air conditioning this is not a bad touring car in the smaller 289 cubic inch version (still lots of zip), but luggage space isn't great. The car does have a trunk and a spare tire.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 29, 2012 | 2:33 p.m.

I thought Jona was one of the people existing only in his mind. Guess I had that wrong.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 29, 2012 | 4:16 p.m.

Jona[h]:

Jonah 1:17, "And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights."

Jonah 2:10, "Then the the Lord commanded the fish and it vomited Jonah up onto dry land."

Frank will need to tell us what his intention is; meanwhile, I need to get back to cleaning my arsenal of firearms and reading my Bible, for as our President said (when he was campaigning to become President), us poor illiterate white folks is deeply sunk in guns, bitterness an' religion. Sometimes we don't spell well neither. :)

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 29, 2012 | 5:53 p.m.

Michael said: "It's one thing for an individual to decide whether or not to patronize for whatever reason; it's quite another for a public official to interfere."

I have no idea if you'll be able to access the link (I doubt you have facebook), but here you go:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...

That's a picture Sarah Palin put up on her page, where she "Stopped by Chick-fil-A in The Woodlands to support a great business."

I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama put up a similar picture saying, "Stopped by Planned Parenthood to support a great business."

If a corporation decides to play politics, don't be surprised when politicians get involved.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 29, 2012 | 6:05 p.m.

Michael said earlier:

"Billions are spent each year trying to keep various drugs out of various people's hands.

An utterly failed effort.

If gov't can't do that, then how in the world can gov't control who has guns and how they are used?"

The same can be said about preventing crime altogether. For every criminal in jail there are perhaps dozens out there doing whatever they want, and the few that are caught cost a lot of money to keep locked up. That's no reason to stop trying, though, now is it?

I agree that the "war on drugs" is nonsense, but the reason why isn't "because we suck at it" IMO.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 6:48 p.m.

Jon: Some public officials in cities have stated they intend to try and keep out further Chick-Fil-A restaurants because they are upset with the CEO and his words.

This is wrong.

As a private citizen, I can decide to patronize or not patronize.

City/state/federal officials....not so much.

What if a city official decided to not hire Jonathan Hopfenblatt's company because they disapproved of your atheism and you spoke publicly about it? Or what if they decided to hire your company because you ARE an atheist and spoke publicly about it.

Or what if I was still in business? You and others see my words herein, and many don't like them or...perhaps...me. After all, I'm a conservative Christian guy who believes in evolution and accumulated some wealth, so I should make a sizable bipartisan target. Should a city/county official use my words to, say, keep me from expanding over to East Broadway?

I see no differences.

The CEO should have kept his mouth shut. But the fact he didn't does not give free reign to those who wish harm. This is not tit-for-tat.
_________________

As for drugs/guns, you just used the same argument folks have used for decades about why we SHOULD keep up the drug war...."That's no reason to stop trying, though, now is it?"

And, the fact that you see no reason to stop trying to regulate guns is THE reason folks like the NRA and folks like me will fight such regulation tooth and nail, even to the point of absurdity. If you see no reason to stop trying, that means you will keep trying...to the point of absurdity So, don't be surprised if you see stiff resistance.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 29, 2012 | 7:08 p.m.

Frank, why do you refer to Jonathan as Jona? Trying to feminize him to Joni or too lazy to type a man's name?

Too lazy.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 29, 2012 | 7:36 p.m.

"As a private citizen, I can decide to patronize or not patronize.

City/state/federal officials....not so much."

This reminds me of the fight for the mosque in New York City. Politicians trying to stop the construction of it.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 29, 2012 | 7:50 p.m.

Blessed are the Politically Correct, for they shall inherit the earth (and then be forced to deal with the mess they've precipitated).

[Don't bother trying to find that passage in the Gospels. Still more guns to be cleaned. Work, work, work!]

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 29, 2012 | 10:41 p.m.

Back to guns, I note Justice Scalia made several comments about regulation of guns; he did not rule it out, although he did say we would have to wait and see what comes out of District of Columbia v. Heller as applied to future cases.

I think he's right. So long as a State does not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment (defined more precisely by District of Columbia v. Heller at the federal level) and the Supremacy Clause, that State is free to do whatever it wishes. The problem for those trying to regulate at the federal level is....District of Columbia v. Heller. I think that decision is going to prevent any significant regulation at the federal level, which means the Supremacy Clause becomes irrelevant on this matter since there will be no laws the States must follow. IMO, regulation at the federal level is....DOA, political grandstanding notwithstanding.

The real fight now turns to the individual States.

Personally, I think NO state will ever be able to ban guns: District of Columbia v. Heller took care of that. However, each State DOES have the ability to try and regulate how ownership will/can take place. District of Columbia v. Heller was a federal issue, not a State one. Such efforts will, of course, end up at SCOTUS to see if they run afoul of the 2nd Amendment (as clarified, again, by District of Columbia v. Heller).

At that point, as the Justice says, we'll see.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 30, 2012 | 2:26 a.m.

Michael said: "What if a city official decided to not hire Jonathan Hopfenblatt's company because they disapproved of your atheism and you spoke publicly about it? Or what if they decided to hire your company because you ARE an atheist and spoke publicly about it."

I would definitely fight the decision if a city decided not to let me in because of my atheism (and I happened to also be donating millions to push whatever atheist agenda people claim atheists have), but I would fully expect my views to elicit this type of response. What, should we reasonably expect city officials to welcome with open arms a business ran by a known bigot who donates money to the KKK and other such organizations?

Michael said: "As for drugs/guns, you just used the same argument folks have used for decades about why we SHOULD keep up the drug war...."That's no reason to stop trying, though, now is it?"

Well, like I already said, your "it's a waste of money" argument applies to crime prevention altogether, as well as the "war on terror" (I'm assuming here that you're in favor of catching the bad guys, since you're a conservative and all), public education, the military, et cetera. I agreed that the war on drugs is misguided, but once again, the reason why is not that it's just money badly spent.

The sole purpose of firearms is to kill (the same can't be said about drugs). It's not unreasonable to want to invest money into trying to prevent such objects from falling in the wrong hands. The alternative to "wasting" this money is to do absolutely nothing, which is not a view any sane person would advocate.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 30, 2012 | 7:01 a.m.

Mr Hopfenblatt,

Your comment: "I didn't use to think that the Colonel was as bad, but his blatant show of cowardice and hypocrisy in this conversation is quickly changing my opinion." is a bit self serving. I am neither a coward nor a hypocrite--I merely do not choose to respond to a lengthy diatribe by one who has little of relevance to offer and who will prove it by yet another of the same.

LOLOL You have the temerity to refer to me as a coward when it is my column that generates the commentary. I don't think you really gave that post enough thought before posting.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 30, 2012 | 7:48 a.m.

Jon: Your response includes no significant remarks on whether you think it appropriate for a city/state to deliberately stop expansion/operations of Chick-Fil-A. You only noted they should not be welcomed with open arms. That is a whole different ballgame than "close the door" and/or officially hinder them (or your company) because of their views.

PS: I did only a quick google check, but found only anecdotal mention of any KKK contributions.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 30, 2012 | 8:41 a.m.

At least Miller and Rosman periodically respond to reader's' posts, as does George Kennedy. Rose Nolen?

Are we witnessing a new geological phenomenon here? A Hopfenblatt eruption? No doubt an example of plate tectonics at work. Being so far from a plate interface I didn't realize we were atop a zone of subduction*. :)

*-Seduction, maybe, subduction, not hardly.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 30, 2012 | 10:36 a.m.

To Karl:

Good job with the excuses. You were asked a simple question ("Is Don's infatuation with Obama's middle name childish?"), and you refuse to answer. Add to that your whining about name-calling and childishness when it's directed your way, and we have ourselves a coward and a hypocrite.

If any liberal here said something I thought was stupid, I would call them out on it. You, on the other hand, are more worried about maintaining a fan base, letting your fellow conservatives say whatever idiotic thing that comes to mind so long as their overall argument agrees with your views.

I'll respond to Michael later.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer July 30, 2012 | 4:02 p.m.

Hello, folks.

I'm just catching up on this thread, and boy, have I missed some action!

Unfortunately, some of the fun came at the expense of civility, and some of the comments violated our policy against personal attacks. For easy access, here is that policy: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/p/miss...

(Many of you who have weighed in on this thread are repeat commenters and are probably well aware of the policy, I realize.)

I removed the comments that stood out to me as personally attacking an individual or a group of people, and those that repeated the offending remarks. If you see some I missed, please flag the comment, or email me at mayerj@missouri.edu.

Joy Mayer
Director of community outreach
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 30, 2012 | 8:12 p.m.

Joy, would you please remove any comments using the term Colonel Klink. It is a personal insult to a man who spent 30 years in service to our nation, was wounded twice, and decorated for heroism five times. I can't think of anybody here who could match that record for personal courage in actual combat, and not just blustering and bloviating at a computer screen.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 30, 2012 | 8:57 p.m.

Well, we shall see in 99 days who the public thinks has the stupid ideas and has been acting childish.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 30, 2012 | 9:49 p.m.

Ladies and gents....Don Milsop:

"Censor my right to bear arms? Let me throw the constitution at you."

"Freedom of speech? What's a Constitution?"

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 31, 2012 | 1:04 a.m.

Rich, you may have noticed that several of us above have already been censored by the powers that be. I'm merely asking for a level playing field on the censorship.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 31, 2012 | 1:51 a.m.

Rich, would you concur that the term Colonel Klink being used in reference to Colonel Miller does indeed represent a personal insult which the editors of this journal say is a no no?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 31, 2012 | 7:34 a.m.

Level playing field? I believe that's what you Republicans refer to as "Class Warfare".

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 31, 2012 | 8:42 a.m.

"Level playing field? I believe that's what you Republicans refer to as "Class Warfare"."

Unbelievable! As usual!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking July 31, 2012 | 8:53 a.m.

Don Milsop wrote:

"Well, we shall see in 99 days who the public thinks has the stupid ideas and has been acting childish."

Both (really all) of them have been. There's so little substantive difference between Romney and Obama that I may literally flip a coin in the voting booth. And the polls show it - it's too close to call.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 31, 2012 | 9:19 a.m.

M. Foecking - "There's so little substantive difference between Romney and Obama that I may literally flip a coin in the voting booth."

And you claim to have been paying attention? Ridiculous!

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 31, 2012 | 9:23 a.m.

Let's keep saying outrageous things in the hopes that Frank's inner Vizzini will utter an inconceivable!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 31, 2012 | 9:32 a.m.

I could see how the decision could be a tough one:

Vote for the guy who pioneered socialized healthcare or the guy who implemented it at a federal level?

Romney implemented same-sex marriage as Governor.

Romney was pro-abortion during his run for Governor.

Amazing how fast he can shake that 'etch-a-sketch' when he needs to get some votes.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 31, 2012 | 9:39 a.m.

Furthermore (and actually on topic), Governor Romney signed a ban on assault rifles.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 31, 2012 | 11:39 a.m.

Yeah, and Ronald Reagan was once President of a union named the Screen Actors Guild.

(Report Comment)
Joy Mayer July 31, 2012 | 11:56 a.m.

Don,

Several of the editors here work together to monitor comments, and a few of us have talked over this particular thread. We tend to be more lenient in what is said about public figures. So far, the commentary about Col. Miller seems allowable, given his position as a community columnist.

We'll be keeping an eye on this thread, though, and on comments under his future columns. And we'll continue to check with each other in an effort to be consistent.

Joy Mayer
Columbia Missourian

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop July 31, 2012 | 4:43 p.m.

Joy, it's a personal attack and the reasoning to allow it is very weak. Colonel Miller is not an elected official. He's not a movie star. He's a local columnist who served and sacrificed for our nation. Using the term Colonel Klink not only is degrading to him, it is degrading to all veterans who served this nation. I hope others will voice their positions on this.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 31, 2012 | 5:04 p.m.

Joy - Ditto, D. Milsop!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 31, 2012 | 5:30 p.m.

Actually, I thought the photo-shopped pic of the Colonel...making him into Colonel Klink...was well over the top. The Missourian may allow "Colonel Klink", but I must admit I'm surprised it would allow an alteration of his photo. In an era of photo-shopping where every photo, even a newspaper's, can (may?) be suspect, I would think a newspaper would avoid such things like the plague.

Also, can someone PLEASE show me the place where Don made fun of the President's middle name. I've looked and looked, but no luck so far.....

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 31, 2012 | 5:46 p.m.

Meanwhile Don feels entirely justified in calling our president Barack [Saddam] Hussein Obama, as well as in accusing him of trying to shove Sharia law down our throats and pushing for the United Caliphates of America, or whatever he thinks is going on.

This is Don: "Name-calling is childish and insulting, but only when it offends me."

And no, it's not degrading to all veterans; it's a simple personal insult (and for the record, I've never even called him Colonel Klink). If you want to talk about being degrading toward a multitude of people, how about using the President's middle name as an additional reason to hate him? If his middle name had been John there would have been no problem, but it's "Hussein," making him one of those [inferior] Muslims, right? Otherwise, please elucidate on why you think it's important to note that his middle name is Hussein.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller July 31, 2012 | 5:49 p.m.

Mr Hopfenblatt,

I have kinda lost interest in this thread and am ready to move on to the excitement my next column will generate. However, your "Good job with the excuses. You were asked a simple question ("Is Don's infatuation with Obama's middle name childish?"), and you refuse to answer. Add to that your whining about name-calling and childishness when it's directed your way, and we have ourselves a coward and a hypocrite." requires a response.

I am not my brother's keeper--I don't see it as my responsibility to police the remarks of others. And, my fellow conservatives--"my fan base" as you call them are free to offer their comments as the see fit.

However, your "If any liberal here said something I thought was stupid, I would call them out on it." is the real kicker. You must not read very many of the liberal's posts- -some of them are real knee slappers.

Finally Mr Hopfenblatt, your definition of cowardice differs from mine. To me, a one who hides behind a keyboard to call another a coward because he or she can do so without fear of being called to task personally is, in my opinion, the coward.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 31, 2012 | 6:01 p.m.

To Michael: It's not him making fun of the president's middle name; it's the manner in which he uses it and what it implies (actually, in Don's case his intent is explicit).

The only reason the previous president's name included the W. was to differentiate him from his dad. Otherwise, no one called him George "Walker" Bush when criticizing him (because it would make no sense). And yet, find any article that uses Obama's middle name repeatedly and I guarantee you that the article is not speaking favorably of the president. Whenever someone has any negative to say about him, it's not enough to just say President Obama, or Obama, or Barack Obama--it has to be Barack Hussein Obama, and the reason is obvious. Childish? I sure think so.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 31, 2012 | 6:57 p.m.

Karl said: "To me, a one who hides behind a keyboard to call another a coward because he or she can do so without fear of being called to task personally is, in my opinion, the coward."

Called to task personally, as in, get in a fist fight? Wow. I thought we were all adults here? I don't say the things I say to pick fights, so I'm sorry if I offended you. I use my real name on this website, and I'm aware of the fact that someone who is sufficiently angry at me would be able to find me pretty easily.

I've been involved in heated discussions with others, in person (and while drunk, to top it off), and not once had the desire to start a fight. Generally I expect others to be able to do the same. Maybe coward was too strong a word in retrospect, but yeah, I'm not here to talk smack just because I can.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 31, 2012 | 7:01 p.m.

And I wasn't aware that someone had photoshopped the Colonel's picture to make fun of him. Yeah, that's definitely childish.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 31, 2012 | 9:04 p.m.

Jona H. - If your intention here has been to legitimize your contentious remarks about Col. Miller, you have certainly blown it. Quite basically, Klink is not Col. Millers name, Hussein certainly is, Mr. Obama's middle name.

If you believe Obama's name or skin color is reason for criticism of his Presidency, you are wrong again!

You are one of some, whom I wonder now, would post the continued defense of a Democrat party and it's nominated President that has created the worst situation for our country and its economy since LBJ and his Democrats began to destroy it in earnest. LBJ Democrats first hit our social security fund for war and social programs (that fund now GONE), Carter Democrats gave economy destroying inflation (same reason, spending for votes). Republicans saved us from Clinton (except for energy recovery). Now this guy, Barack H. Obama, bowing to environmental religionists, can be/is seen to be in the attempt to destroy our economy. Do you believe a decimated economy would be the way to correct the ills of our system and start over with the benefits you have espoused over and over? You can advise, or be content with your dissertation on the use of middle names and ignore.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 31, 2012 | 9:52 p.m.

To Frank:

Well, you could start out by proving that the current situation is, in fact, the worst since LBJ--instead of just saying it is. This involves producing unambiguous evidence (in this case numbers). Opinions are irrelevant when there are facts available, so please, provide some facts.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 31, 2012 | 10:06 p.m.

So Don's use of the President's middle name is now a slur against the President?

Holy Franklin Delano Roosevelt!

Y'all gotta be kidding! I thought Don adulterated the President's name or something (like Klink or Saddam or something). I searched and searched to find out what was all the fuss.

But y'all are upset because Don said "Barack Hussein Obama"???????????

Let me get this straight.....the President has a middle name, that middle name is Hussein, The President is (I'm guessing) proud of it, and you guys are all bent out of shape because Don actually used the President's FULL name????

And you think that it's an automatic slam dunk that a conservative is using his full name in not a nice way???????

Holy John Fitzgerald Kennedy!

I'm in some sort of parallel universe.

Y'all oughta be ashamed.

PS: Holy Barack (expletive deleted) Obama!

PSS: For heaven's sake, if yer gonna pull stuff outa yer jock strap, at least wait until Hussein is posted in ALL CAPS! I've heard "silly" before, but this one certainly takes the cake.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 31, 2012 | 10:16 p.m.

Jon: I wasn't discussing adulteration of GB-II's middle name.

I was discussing adulteration of his last name.

Got "Shrub"?

Liberals thought it was cute.

But then liberals thought "teabagger" was cute, too, and liberals got by with that slur in THIS place for a very, very long time.

Read this quick; there's carnage in this article and I may be next on triple-super-secret-editorial-probation.

PS: Barack Hussein Obama.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. July 31, 2012 | 10:35 p.m.

"Got "Shrub"?

Liberals thought it was cute."

How about NOBAMA? That's the cute thing for Repubs nowadays.

(Report Comment)
frank christian July 31, 2012 | 10:46 p.m.

Jona - The same lazy, ignorant, liberal. Why don't you look up implicit evidence that proves me wrong and really embarrass me? No, the intellectual wizard, prefers to remain in its hole 'til someone brings something to be absorbed.
Try to absorb, *Boring*.

Couldn't but help. Last time u.s. economy this bad= http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_l...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams July 31, 2012 | 10:51 p.m.

RichC says, "How about NOBAMA? That's the cute thing for Repubs nowadays."
_______________

No, but OWEBAMA is.

I watched liberals skewer President GWB his last 4 years....awful pejoratives expressing absolute disgust. I don't know if you participated in that hate, but your ilk sure as hell did.

And now you're upset that Republicans are doing the same thing to your savior Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

It's a national 4-year-cycle past time, don'tcha know? Get used to it; your guy doesn't get a pass just because you say so. I can't help it if he has a crappy middle name like Milhous or Fitzgerald or Herbert Walker or Baines.

What a ridiculous conversation. I'm done.

PS: Haha...I don't have a middle name. What's yours?

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt July 31, 2012 | 11:22 p.m.

Frank:

Burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. You're the one who said that the country is the worst it's been in decades, therefore it's your job to prove it. You don't get to say whatever you want and then demand that others prove you wrong.

Seriously, go Google "burden of proof." Here are some links to get you started (aka I Googled them for you):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim."

It's how it works even in the legal circles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burde...

"The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: 'the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.'"

You laid charges. Prove 'em.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz July 31, 2012 | 11:38 p.m.

Frank, a link to answers.com with no sources to back it up? That isn't much better than asking the guys at the corner store.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith August 1, 2012 | 5:15 a.m.

One of the more clever alternations of names was one of a 1940 Democratic campaign button which had these names, top to bottom, on it:

GILLETTE [for U. S. Senator]
ROOSEVELT [FDR, for re-election as President]
MITCHELL [for Iowa Governor]

By scratching out selected letters, this was altered to read:

LET
ROOSEVELT
ITCH

Gillette and Roosevelt were re-elected; Mitchell went down in flames.

In the present circumstance I prefer "O' Bummer," which could refer either to a person or the general state of things in our country today (without any particular regard to partisan politics).

My favorite button is 3 inches in diameter, has a stylized eagle on it , and says "I'M A PROUD U OF C PARENT" on it. Around the edge it says "The University of Chicago Parents Association" on it (and it's sliver and gold, same as MS&T school colors).

"O'Bummer" would also suggest that our current President is of Irish extraction, same as JFK and Ronnie Ray Gun. :)

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 1, 2012 | 8:46 a.m.

Jona, John - I asked two questions.

Why one would "post the continued defense of a Democrat party and it's nominated President that has created the worst situation for our country and its economy since LBJ and his Democrats began to destroy it in earnest."

"Do you believe a decimated economy would be the way to correct the ills of our system and start over with the benefits you have espoused over and over?"

Neither requires a dissertation on the intricacies of American Rule of Law. Yes I do, "get to say whatever you want and then demand that others prove you wrong." The others may then participate and answer the questions, or they may shirk and stall and change the subject as Jona has done. The ploy is not even new, Democrats all over the country are doing it every day, rather than discuss the mess we are in and who caused it.

I'll try for a "double", John would you like to answer the questions?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 1, 2012 | 9:38 a.m.

Frank, I'm not referring to any questions you posted, but to this link with no source material, which plainly states:

"The last time the economy was this bad was when the world was in the Great Depression, right after World War II"

It doesn't indicate which economic values were being measured to make this claim, and also contains the factual error that the Great Depression occurred AFTER WWII! Is this what passes for facts in your opinion? Why even post such tripe?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 1, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Now this guy, Barack H. Obama, bowing to environmental religionists, can be/is seen to be in the attempt to destroy our economy."

No politician wants to "destroy the economy". Unemployment has improved under his watch, oil production is at its highest since Bush (2003), even the projected deficit is less than it has been in recent years (not that I think Obama has much to do with that). "Destroy the economy" is useless hyperbole that adds nothing to a rational discussion of solutions.

Obama actually was proposing opening large areas of ocean to offshore drilling before Macondo blew its top. Would any other administration not have taken that into account? Would that proposal not have been fought bitterly by states like Florida and California had Macondo not happened? He's not bowing to any environmentalists in any significant way.

Only debt has increased significantly, and I'm not sure if it wouldn't have under a different administration. TARP was a Bush era program (much of which has been repaid), and the stimulus bill may or may not have withstood a presidential veto. Plus, wasn't it Cheney that said "Deficits don't matter"?

Flip a coin in November. There's no difference.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 1, 2012 | 4:17 p.m.

John S. - Who appointed you "blog referee"? I never use Answers for anything serious in nature. I told Jona to get up and get his own information, then conceded that I must help him.

That you are concerned about comparisons with this record setting recession with the others is also disconcerting. Again, would you like to answer the questions?

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 1, 2012 | 5:17 p.m.

Mark f. - "useless hyperbole that adds nothing to a rational discussion of solutions.", is on the label to be pasted to your comment. You could be referring to the drouth. We are coming along, tho slowly, we received two showers in two months and someday the drouth will be over. My comparison contains more truth than yours.

"No politician wants to "destroy the economy". Geo Soros who stated he has bought and paid for the American Democrat party, wants to change our nation and has a plan to do it and is working in the U.N. to this end. To disregard obvious threats such as this while falsely naming a few incidents from your political favorites, to prove, "everything is OK", also prevents logical discussions.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements