Video: Obama Supporting DC Gun Ban in Feb.

As ABC News reported the Obama camp disavowed his position on the gun ban yesterday, calling the Chicago Tribune story in which his support was detailed "inartful." As it turns out, though, Obama affirmed his support for the DC gun ban, while trying to defend American gun traditions or some such. (Update: Politico picked up on the February support).

Video time! I mean, it's one thing to waffle over a year, it's another to do so in two minutes. Here's a little local video of Prof. Barry trying to explain how exactly he can tell people he won't take their guns away in Idaho, but also tell people in D.C. that he will take their guns away. Spoiler: he contradicts himself ever so slightly.

"[Respecting] the second amendment and people's traditions" really can't happen if you take the guns away. I love how it's totally cool in Idaho, but not so much in DC.

Update: Hello, Hot Air!

Comments

[Thomas]

Why should the actions of the criminals set the standard for the law abiding. If the criminals are punished properly the "street" gun violence go's away. This is not rocket science logic. The problem is those who want to control you through government want you to believe taking away guns solves the problem. The Second Ammendment is to protect you against the government. The framers knew this because it happened in the old country (Europe) Sir Walter Raleigh, wrote that among the "sophisms of a barbarous and professed tyranny" would be plans "to unarm his people of weapons, money and all means whereby they may resist his power," while the "sophistical or subtle tyrant" would plan "to unarm his people, and store up their weapons, under pretence of keeping them safe, and having them ready when service requireth."
Reference: W. Raleigh, Maxims of State, in The Works of Sir Walter Raleigh, Knt., Now First Collected 22, 25 (Oxford Univ. 1829).

[Do not waste your vote]

There is talk that Christian conservatives may try to "teach the republicans a lesson" by voting against McCain, b/c he is not conservative enough. While that may sound good, we must think about just how dangerous Obama can be. It's not as simple as getting another crack at choosing a more conservative candidate in 4 years. Recent Supreme Court decisions that have come down remind us of just how much power just one justice can have--and how do they get there?? The President appoints them. This is a far too important election to be trying to send any kind of message. I think the fact that the race is so close is enough of a message. Most of the justices on the Court aren't exactly what you'd call "Spring chickens," so it is reasonable to believe that the next president will have a shot at appointing a justice or two to the high court. The last two high profile decisions--the one about the death penalty being off the table for child rapists, and the 2nd Amendment issue--Obama paid lipservice to the public, claiming to be on the same side as McCain. We know his true views, however, based on what he's said in the past, and based on what he's done in Illinois. Right now he's saying whatever it takes to get elected. If he should win, all bets are off, and he will bring on more Ginsburgs and the like. We can't afford that. McCain was not my first, nor my second choice, but b/w Obama and McCain, McCain is no doubt the best choice. We must go out and vote.