Archives for March 2008

With Seattle soon to take receipt of a Major League Soccer team, folks have been wondering:

What are they gonna call it?

Some want to stick with our minor league team’s name, Seattle Sounders. Team brass, however, are looking for something with a little more international appeal. But the recently-released finalists aren’t amazing the fans, it seems.

The finalists are… Seattle Alliance, Seattle Republic and Seattle FC. The “FC” stand for “football club,” in case you were wondering.

“Good Lord these suck,” wrote one online Seattle P-I reader, among many upset about the names. “The Seattle Alliance sounds like my health care plan.”

[…]

“We want to start a new tradition and a new direction and we’d like our name to reflect our attempt to have a global connection on and off the field,” said MLS Seattle part-owner and general manager Adrian Hanauer, who also owns the Sounders. “I love the Sounders brand and the Sounders history. That will always be a part of Seattle soccer. … This is a new team in a new league and we want to start fresh. … This is a good opportunity for our fans to choose our name.”

Unlike other sports, soccer teams don’t necessarily have specific nicknames the same way American teams do. The dominant team in Britain is the Manchester United Football Club, or Man Utd. for short. Their nickname is “The Red Devils,” but you don’t hear it used much. My team is their crosstown rival Manchester City. Some refer to them as “The Citizens,” “The Blues,” or just “City.”

Here are City supporters in action, singing their song, “Blue Moon”:

As far as I’m concerned, name the team Seattle FC and be done with it. That’ll be the official name for the box score, but let the fans call them what they will. (I think we should steal “Blues”) Let the fans make up their own chants, their own songs, their own rivalries. For Premier League teams, all of these things have arisen over the hundred plus years of their existence. When Seattle FC takes the field, fans will put their own mark on the team.

Five more Democratic challengers have officially signed on to the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq, including Alan Grayson (FL-08), Harry Taylor (NC-09), Leslie Byrne (VA-11), Bill O’Neill (OH-14), and Greg Fischer (KY-Senate). That brings the total number of endorsers to 25 from 16 states, with several more expected shortly.

On this week’s podcast, the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly explains that challengers are generally loathe to get out in front on issues like this because the safer strategy is to make the campaign less about themselves and more about the incumbent. So why are so many challengers willing to stick their necks out on the Responsible Plan? Well, it could just be that the Plan is surprisingly, well, responsible.

In a commentary posted to Democracy Arsenal, Moira Whelan of the National Security Network addresses the understandable skepticism with which “national security wonks” and other experts generally greet any candidate plan: “… you roll your eyes [and] you know it’s not wonky enough to meet your standards… right?” But, she continues, “Not so with this plan…”

Folks at NSN have become pretty familiar with this plan in the last few weeks. When we got a call asking us to meet with Darcy Burner, who drafted a plan, we thought of it as nothing new…after all, lots of candidates want to find the silver bullet to change things in Iraq, and often don’t have a feel for all of the moving pieces in Iraq and around the globe. Sometimes, candidates are more concerned with developing the plan that won’t get them in trouble, rather than the one that embodies their approach and forces real change. We were pleasantly surprised by Darcy.

Darcy laid in front of us 20 pages of a comprehensive approach to Iraq—a project that started after a conversation with General Paul Eaton. She’d done her research, and based her ideas on legislation already introduced in Congress. She went beyond the idea of troop deployments, and political stability to address more systemic problems with the US government that got us into this mess in the first place. The Responsible Plan for Ending the War in Iraq looks at things like media accountability, government transparency, torture, FISA and trade-offs on issues such as Afghanistan. She wrote the whole thing herself, and sought advice from “experts” as well as her fellow challengers. In other words…her plan is peer reviewed…and approved.

Two things make the plan especially compelling, and demonstrate a changing dynamic in elections that we’re surely going to see this cycle.

First, the people who drafted it—the 10 candidates who’ve attached their names to it so far—understand Iraq in very real ways. Burner’s brother served in Iraq. Donna Edwards is a military brat. Tom Periello worked in Iraq and Afghanistan doing development work. The list goes on and on. In other words, the idea that progressives “don’t get it” is completely blown out of the water based on those who are introducing it. Not only do they get it, they’ve embraced it and are now running for Congress to change the realities they see—that’s public service of which you can be proud. They’re actually walking the walk.

Second, voters and candidates care about Iraq and the rest of the world—in a detailed way. Contrary to what some political advisors are saying, these candidates started this strategy because “what are you going to do about Iraq?” is the top question they’re getting from their voters. It’s no longer sufficient for candidates to say they believe in ending the war, voters want to know how they’re going to do that. Voters are insisting on details because they know the details. In other words, our candidates and our voters are smarter on Iraq and the world we live in than we’ve seen in recent elections.

[…] A few months from now, people will look back on this crew with a “where it all started” approach. We’ll be counting this class as a new generation of leaders who are smarter and stronger on security than ever before. More will adopt their plan as a blueprint, and they’ll walk into the halls of Congress with a mission, with allies, and with knowledge.

Through his spokesman, Dave Reichert insists that he wants to bring our troops home from Iraq as well. The difference is, Darcy Burner is actually attempting to do something about it.

Another in our exciting lazy new series, The Best of Goldy: “Goldy responds to the Republican Governors Association.”

See, here in the other Washington, we have something we call “laws,” which are written by democratically elected legislators, not half-witted, cirrhotic PR hacks like you. And according to our laws, Christine Gregoire was duly elected governor. So rather than cynically laboring to undermine the electoral process of a state no Republican governor has called home for over twenty years, why don’t you just focus on something you’re good at… like helping your members devise new and exciting ways to deny poor children health care.

Read the whole thing. Or not.

This is the funniest thing ever. PZ Myers just got kicked out of the crazy new creationist movie.

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I’m blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I’m too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.

Read the whole thing, it gets better.

We had so much fun (and perhaps, beer) at Drinking Liberally Tuesday night, that I haven’t gotten around to posting the podcast until Thursday.

Joining me (Goldy) in our typically insightful and inciteful evening of drunken discourse were Chris, Carl, Lynn and Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly. Topics of discussion include Barack Obama’s possibly historic speech on race, Hillary Clinton’s gender problem, Darcy Burner’s "Responsible Plan" to end the war in Iraq, Rep. Dave Reichert’s ridiculous flip-flop on earmarks, and the teetering state of the national toilet economy.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_march_18_2008.mp3]

The show is 53:21, and can be downloaded here as a 48.8 MB MP3.

[Podcasting Liberally is recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Darryl for producing the show, and Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

For all the criticism tough love I showed House Speaker Frank Chopp during the final weeks of the legislative session, at least the Democratic caucus isn’t totally and irreparably dysfunctional. From the Seattle P-I:

Sen. Pam Roach has been forbidden from dealing directly with Republican caucus staff because GOP leaders say she has created a hostile work environment.

In a letter sent to the Auburn Republican last week, Senate Republican leaders say Roach has shown a lack of boundaries with caucus staff, including making them listen to her recount “past perceived slights” by lawmakers, lobbyists and party leaders.

The letter says Roach asks staff to state that their loyalties lie with her and are subject to treatment that violates the Senate’s prohibition on creating an “intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.”

All contact with caucus staff must be between Roach’s legislative assistant and staff, and Roach must not contact caucus staff “in person, via phone, e-mail or through any other means,” according to the letter.

Roach was traveling in Honduras and could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but on Monday evening she sent out an e-mail blasting the leadership and saying she was being targeted for criticizing the caucus’s plan to recruit new members.

And man, what an email that was. In a fisking worthy of Effin’ Unsound, the News Tribune’s Niki Sullivan reprints the press release-ish email, adding her own emphasis and thoughtful interjections. As for Roach, her email earns the appellation of “instant classic” in what was already a vast and impressive oeuvre of id-inspired nuttery. My favorite excerpt…?

Minority Leader Mike Hewitt (R-Walla Walla) has verbally abused members in caucus, and has bent and exposed his backside to a female senator while screaming at her during a caucus meeting.

“He is a desperate man with personal problems,” said Roach.

And you can trust Roach on this, because when it comes to desperate personal problems, she’s an expert.

But there was one other section of Roach’s email that particularly stood out to me, the one in which she mentioned the late State Senator (and infamous sexual hypocrite) Jim West:

“Five years ago, Hewitt joined then leader Jim West, in attacking me fearing I would go public with questionable e-mails that were uncovered. They fired my aide who discovered and reported them, then Hewitt joined West in a campaign to silence me with smear and intimidation tactics.”
Roach was exonerated.

“Now Hewitt, with his own closet full of skeletons, is resorting to the same tactics of intimidation and harassment,” said Roach.

Back in 2005, two independent sources suggested to me that it was Roach who originally tipped off the Spokesman-Review to West’s personal indiscretions, something folks at the S-R denied. But… well… you gotta wonder….

A new feature in our open threads, something I like to call “The Best of Goldy” (although it’s really just lazy recycling) in which I link to an old post from my gloried past, and then go off and do something useful like, you know, sleeping.

For my first installment I invite you into my wayback machine to a post from October 2004, back before I had much of an audience. In this post I meticulously fisk some court depositions in a lawsuit against the Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, the main financier of Initiative 892, Tim Eyman’s “Slots for Tots” initiative that went on to fail by 23-point margin. So what sort of ethical standards did Great Canadian promise to bring to its Washington state casinos?

But apart from the fraudulent Mexteam relationship, the undocumented cash disbursements, the profit skimming, the mob connections, and the loansharking, rape and illegal cigarette sales at B.C. casinos… Great Canadian is an upstanding corporate citizen, right?

For the answer to that and other questions, read: “Keep loansharks, prostitutes, drug dealers, mobsters, and Canadians out of our neighborhoods: Vote No on I-892!”

As Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley was recording this video explaining his reasons for signing on to the Responsible Plan for ending the war in Iraq, even more Democratic challengers were coming on board, including Faye Armitage (FL-07) and Cheryl Sabel (AL-02).

Meanwhile more national security experts are adding their public endorsement, including Rand Beers, a counterterrorism expert who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush:

“The Democratic challengers that produced this responsible plan to end the war in Iraq prove that Democrats can successfully and responsibly discuss national security issues of the first order, and discuss them in ways that represent real solutions to the real problems that we face.”

But, then, what do a bunch of generals and national security experts know about this stuff compared to the man who took 18 years to catch the Green River Killer?

Update: Darcy Burner will be on KUOW (94.9 FM) at 1:50 pm today to discuss The Responsible Plan — Darryl

Sarah Linden, the women in the picture… that’s Darcy Burner’s little sister.

When Darcy talks about the war in Iraq and its impact on military families, she talks from experience, citing her own brother, who served in the initial invasion force. But I don’t think I’ve ever heard her talk about her sister Sarah, who has served her nation as an FBI analyst, helping to uncover and prosecute a nationwide spy network of former Iraqi agents. Partially that’s to protect her sister’s privacy, and partially that’s because she wouldn’t want her sister to run afoul of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities like, you know, Darcy’s campaign.

Darcy comes from an impressive family, deeply involved in the war and its impact. Perhaps that partially explains her passion and expertise on the issue.

Normally, I deal with the stupidest of the stupid posts from up here in the northwest over at my other playground, but every once in a while, a special occasion rolls by and it just belongs here at the Ass. This is one of those times. Eric Earling at Sound Politics has completely lost all contact with reality over the past week. First by displaying some world-class hypocrisy by attacking those who criticized Ken Hutcherson, then having a 5-alarm freakout over Jeremiah Wright because of his “bigotry” (psst, Eric, paranoia is not bigotry). Second by still attempting to maintain that the Republicans still have credibility when it comes to national security and Iraq.

I’ll post about Wright after this weekend, but to help with the latter point, here’s a rundown of the recent polling on the war in Iraq. Despite what Earling has convinced himself to believe, public opinion on how things are going in Iraq has not changed over the past few months. The American public still overwhelmingly believes the following:

– The Iraq War was a mistake
– Any kind of “victory” in Iraq is not still possible
– We should withdraw from Iraq within the next year

Somehow, though, Earling still attempts to refute this by linking to this set of polling, which shows that a lot of Americans still buy into the belief that we’re actually keeping a lid on things while our troops our there. Even with that, however, a plurality of Americans still believe that we’re more likely to be attacked by terrorists if we stay in Iraq than if we leave. This is a pretty extraordinary rejection of the GOP propaganda that has been almost universally adopted within the traditional media. And it should be a strong indication that the folks that John McCain is pandering to have become “the fringe” when it comes to Iraq.

With that said, I want to wander through his post and hopefully help our friend from across the aisle wrap his head around this stuff:

Dear Local McGovernites with Modems,

A couple of your blogging comrades were kind enough to enunciate some thoughts at a recent post of mine discussing everyone’s favorite Netroots candidate, Darcy Burner.

Daniel K and thehim, at #1 & 2 as well as #24 & 25 respectively, noted they didn’t quite agree with my take on the matter.

Hey, that’s me! I was kind enough to point out to Eric that his last post indicated some faulty logic on his part. For instance, the unpopularity of the Democratic Congress is not a result of their being too far to the left on the war, but instead is a result of their being too wishy-washy in their opposition to the President on both the Iraq war and his attacks on our civil liberties. I also pointed out to him that Americans trust Democrats more when it comes to Iraq, something even the GOP-leaning Rasmussen Reports has indicated.

thehim in particular, while kindly offering modest praise of my intellect, argued I have it all wrong on the topic of Democrats, Iraq, national security, and this fall’s election.

Certainly, no one can predict the future, but this claim from Earling’s earlier post was several light years out into La-La-Land:

Coming out of the gate talking about Iraq is peculiar given the degree to which the Democratic Presidential nominee isn’t actually going to want to focus on national security issues.

Exactly why would the Democratic Presidential nominee not want to focus on national security issues? Not only do Americans clearly trust Democrats more when it comes to Iraq, but the Republican nominee is openly expressing a desire to continue an occupation that the American public overwhelmingly wants ended. And according to the poll that Eric himself linked to, the American public even thinks that staying in Iraq will actually increase the chance of a terrorist attack. Somehow, I don’t think the Democrats are going to be shy about this topic this year.

Back to the most recent post:

Indeed, he asserted that the public is displeased with the current Congress because Democrats are “not antagonistic enough” in confronting Administration policy toward Iraq.

Exactly, and that’s why Darcy Burner, and a growing number of Democratic candidates are supporting the Responsible Plan, a plan for getting ourselves out of Iraq efficiently and responsibly. And while the netroots certainly like it, the good people in the 8th Congressional District who are understandably frustrated by the fact that they’ve been represented by an empty suit who has brainlessly cheered on the Iraq fiasco for the past 3 years, have good reason to like it as well.

But Earling is only getting warmed up here. This gets much better:

With that in mind, I have a request. Please do encourage all your favored candidates to be more “antagonistic” about Iraq. Please do raise a ruckus to keep them running to the left of the current Democratic Congress, especially on that topic.

Not to go too far above Earling’s head here, but people who want us to leave Iraq to the Iraqis are not “to the left” of the current Democratic Congress. They are those who have a more libertarian view on foreign policy. Principled isolationist conservatives like Ron Paul are sure as hell not “to the left” of the current Democratic Congress. These kinds of “live and let live” views on foreign policy have not been very widespread until recently and it appears that this phenomenon is one that Earling is trying his best to both ignore and mislabel. The occupation of Iraq has re-shaped many Americans’ views on the limits of our military might, and shown the wisdom of taking a more hands-off approach to the Middle East. This is happening not just on the left, but across the political spectrum. In fact, the two candidates receiving the most donations from members of our military in this election cycle have been Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

By all means, as Iraq steadily fades from the eyes of the news media and the public, please make this your issue du jour. Don’t worry, that part where Americans say they aren’t too keen on the “get out now!” strategy is probably just a bad polling sample…or something.

Amazingly, as much of an unpopular disaster as the Iraq War still is, it won’t be the Democrats trump card this year. The economy will be.

Also, you may recall this blogger doesn’t have the warmest feelings for John McCain. Please don’t let that dissuade you from encouraging your candidates to challenge him on Iraq – and all manner of national security issues too for that matter. I think I might like to see that.

I’d love to see it. Especially since the old geezer once again demonstrated how little he knows about what’s happening in Iraq by actually trying to claim that Iran was training Al Qaeda forces. Exactly how does someone who purports to be the “war candidate” and is set to become the Republican nominee for President have such a piss-poor knowledge of what’s actually going on over there? We’re five years into this thing. How does he not know that the Iranians and Al Qaeda are ideologically opposed to each other? How does Earling think that someone with such basic misunderstandings of the region and the players involved is going to solve any of these serious problems?

Lastly, while you’re at it, and if I’m not being too impertinent, could I beseech you to insist that candidates earning Netroots support also run to the left of the current Congress on domestic issues too? Especially on taxes and healthcare. I think that would be bracing, perhaps even cathartic.

Absolutely! If there’s one thing I’ve learned about voters in the 8th District, they’re terrified of universal health care. They love overpaying for prescription drugs. And they really enjoy the thrill that comes with knowing they could lose their life savings because of an illness. It’s so exhilarating!

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of this request. In the meantime, I remain your faithful and eager antagonist,

My hat’s off to you, sir. Most people as smart as you would have had enough pride to stop doing this to yourself by now.

P.S. If you could accomplish even part of this, I really would be happy to buy you a pitcher or two at a Drinking Liberally gathering in the future. Since I no longer drink (grumble) thanks to family health history, that’s more beer for you!

Any time.

Seattle’s Winlar sings about all those Bush scandals (Hell…you can even sing along):

…it’s too crowded!

From that Times article on light rail and 520:

With gas and parking costs climbing, bus ridership already exceeds demand, [Ron] Sims said.

At Seattle Transit Blog, commenter “nickb” replies:

Excuse me, but WTF does this mean?
“bus ridership already exceeds demand”

Umm.. Wouldn’t the ridership be equal to the demand?

If people don’t want to ride the bus, nobody’s gonna stop ’em.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E—some of us show up a little early to sample from the terrific menu.

For tonight’s theme song, we’ll all shuffle up to the roof, look up to the stars and hum Also sprach Zarathustra.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

It hasn’t been 24 hours since Darcy Burner and nine other Democratic challengers introduced their Responsible Plan for ending the war in Iraq, and we’re already seeing a surge of new challengers signing on. Blue Jersey reports both Dennis Shulman (NJ-05) and Tom Wyka (NJ-11) have endorsed the plan, while Darius Shahinfar (NY-21) announced his support in a post to The Albany Project. Closer to home, Larry Grant (ID-01) marks the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion by signing on to the plan, while Left in the West reports that Lt. Col. Jim Hunt (MT-At Large) is on board too.

Meanwhile, down in Washington’s Mexico, where Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick are in a battle for the Democratic nomination to face off against Republican incumbent Gordon Smith in Oregon’s US Senate race, the two candidates issued dueling endorsements just minutes apart.

Novick lauds the Responsible Plan and its creators:

“I am proud to throw my support behind this new effort to build a progressive consensus on ending the war in Iraq in a way that will help that nation rebuild, while reversing the damage the war has done here at home,” said Novick. “Many of the ideas contained in the plan are not new and, indeed, I and others have been advocating for them over the past months. But with this clear set of objectives, I believe that Darcy Burner, Major General Eaton and others are laying the foundation for a coalition that I believe can bring our troops home with honor.”

Meanwhile, Merkley stresses a point that holds as true in WA-08 and other districts as it does in the Oregon Senate race:

“I opposed this war publicly from the very beginning. It’s now long past time to bring our sons and daughters home, repay the debt we owe our veterans, and restore America’s standing in the world,” said House Speaker Jeff Merkley said. “Gordon Smith and the Bush Administration led us into this war and have never offered a plan to get us out. Smith has manipulated and confused the media and the public and done nothing to bring an end to this war.”

That’s a theme that Burner could easily push in her district where Dave Reichert talks about wanting to get out of Iraq, while voting 100% with President Bush on the war. In response to the Plan, Reichert aide Mike Shield even told the Seattle P-I, “I think both sides would agree we have the same plan: We want our troops home as soon as possible.” The difference is, Burner is actually doing something about it, her efforts made even all the more impressive by the fact that she’s not the one in Congress. And in talking to the Seattle Times, Shields sticks his foot yet further in the congressman’s mouth…

A spokesman for Reichert said the congressman believes military leaders on the ground — not candidates for political office — should make decisions about when and how to end the war.

Huh. Last time I checked, civilian control of the military was a cornerstone of our democracy, and a sacred principle that has guided our officer corps for better than two centuries. But, you know, if an independent military works so well in Pakistan, I suppose it would work here too.

So far, Republican efforts to refute or dismiss the plan have been rather feeble, but I sure hope they keep trying, for as long as Republicans keep championing the status quo, the more voters will start looking elsewhere for leadership. The GOP has long attempted to brand itself as strong on defense, but as Julie points out over on Red State Rebels, voters have already started to redefine the notion of national security: “It’s the Iraq recession economy, stupid.”

That in the end is one of the Responsible Plan’s greatest strengths. It does look to the generals on the ground to determine the logistics of the pull-out, but it doesn’t get bogged down in the logistics itself; the generals will receive instructions to initiate a withdrawal, and as they have done throughout our nation’s history, the generals will follow their orders to the best of their ability. Meanwhile, the Plan broadens the conversation to include the political, diplomatic and economic efforts absolutely necessary to achieve stability in the region, to repair the economic, political and constitutional damage done at home, and to prevent a policy fiasco like this from happening again in the future.

If Reichert and his fellow Republicans have better ideas on how to give the American people what they clearly want, I suggest they come up with their own plan, rather than dismissing this one out of hand. In the meanwhile, Democratic challengers, recognizing an opportunity to change the conversation on national security from the current narrow (and pointless) debate over the outcome of “the surge,” will continue to sign on to the Plan in droves.

UPDATE:
The Oregonian reports on the Merkley and Novick campaigns squabbling over who was first to sign on to the Responsible Plan, but the real money quote comes from the Smith campaign:

And as for the incumbent, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.? “I went to the executive summary and thought Gordon Smith wrote it,” said the senator’s campaign spokesman, R.C. Hammond.

If the immediate goal of the Plan is to change the conversation on national security, then they hit a home run in Oregon. Meanwhile, Merkley elaborates on his endorsement over on Huffington Post.

“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.”

-The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as passed by Congress. The above version is currently on the books.

“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.”

-The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. This version, with different capitalization and two fewer commas, was the version sent to the states that ratified the amendments.

I’m fascinated by the Constitution in general, and I think the Second Amendment is particularly interesting. I love to argue about the amendment. If I’m arguing with Goldy, the exchange sounds something like this:

Me: What is it about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” that you don’t understand?

Goldy: There’s a comma! There’s a fucking comma, you hillbilly! [Storms off in disgust]

The recent deliberations by the Supreme Court over the legality of Washington D.C.’s handgun ban is great stuff. Believe it or not, this will actually be the first time the Supreme Court will rule on gun control, specifically, whether a gun control measure violates the Second Amendment.

It’s weird to listen to Democrats talk about Bush violating civil liberties, only to witness Democrats treat gun rights as a civil liberty worth giving away.

Now, I think the 2nd makes it pretty clear that the government has the ability to see that our militia is well-regulated (background checks, waiting periods, concealed and carry permits), I think the 2nd is obvious in declaring that, fundamentally, Americans get to own guns.

We are not some subsection of German Bavaria, after all, where our rights are given to us by some potentate. We’re Americans, where our rights come from our Creator. Thomas Jefferson once said:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

I’m no gun nut, but I’d rather D.C. residents has too much freedom than too little.