Obama Flip-Flops on 2nd Amendment

Barack Obama flip flops because he is constantly testing the waters to see which way the wind blows best for him. Don't forget this is the Senator that voted present 130 times not to make a decisive stand.
He is a hand picked puppet, certainly not presidential material.
Read the following article to find out more about what an Obama presidency would bring to America.

???????????????
The Pittsburgh Tribune Review ran this article this morning re: Obama's economic policies. It's entitled: Get real, fella

Dear Barack Obama,
Welcome to Pittsburgh. This morning you're visiting Carnegie Mellon University hosting what your campaign is billing as a summit to discuss economic competitiveness.
Funny, but many of your economic proposals actually are anathema to competitiveness. Consider your proposal to slap a "windfall profits tax" on Big Oil. Never mind that the oil industry profit margins are far lower than many other U.S. corporations ----financial services and computer software, to name two. The evidence is clear that the last time this intemperate tax was employed, domestic oil production dropped and our dependence on foreign oil rose.
How does such a policy increase U.S. "competitiveness," Senator?
Then there's your plan to save Social Security by, in typical "progressive" fashion, soaking "the rich." You'd assess the payroll tax on household incomes above $250,000. (Actually the way you have it set up means households can be taxed twice). How does government confiscation of 0.4 percent of the gross domestic product annually make this nation more "competitive"?
Let's get real here, fella--your investment draining "economics plan" will make this country far less competitive. It's more smoke and mirrors. It's yet another shade of new lipstick on the same old liberal pig. It's tax and spend politics dressed up in the tutu of "reform."
It's not a "plan" Senator Obama. It's a disaster.

Obama's flip-flop pattern is the only consistency this man has. After he takes the position before one set of voters (that they want to hear), he later side steps that position by saying that he was misunderstood, his statements are being taken out of context, or that the attack is simply divisive.

This is nothing more than piggy-backing Obama-esque damage control onto the most important SCOTUS opinion of this century. Obama's position is perfectly clear: He supports the wholesale banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America. This is, and has been on record for many months.

Ae listed on Obama's section of Ontheissues.org, his gun-control position is:

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
-Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

-Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

-Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Obama sending out a statement which preceeds the SCOTUS decision is silliness. Ever since the Supreme Court heard the arguments, most people understood that SCOTUS was signalling that they would correctly opine that the 2nd Amendment was an 'Individual Right'.

Sorry, Obama --- You still cannot rewrite your previously stated positions as they suit you. Quit trying and stand up for what you, not the polls, believe in.

OBAMA SIMPLY CANNOT BE TRUSTED. HE AND THE DNC STABBED HILLARY IN THE BACK. HE WAS "SELECTED" --- NOT "ELECTED".

VOTE McCAIN IN 2008 --- HILLARY IN 2012.

And here we go again with him shifting his stance. This guy is a joke and it would be very sad to see him be elected.

Vote smart people-just say NO TO OBAMA

Obama is a charlatan who wil do or say anything to get elected, depending on who the audience for the day is. If elected however, he will return to his anti-second amendment roots, anti-military stance, pro-socialist programs, tax and spend ways.

Hopefully American voters will wake up and realize this empty suited carpet bagger will be worse for our country than Jimmy Carter.

GAWD. The man changes with the wind. Never vote for this guy...because you would be voting for everything and nothing at the same time. You can't trust him. You don't know what he really stands for.

I think this guy would screw over his own grandmother to get ahead.

oh wait.

Obamatics, Explaining Barack Obama's Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoX_84S4qM&feature=PlayList&p=4DD59DDD0B041930&index=104

Greg,

This is a pretty easy situation to recognise. Many of Obama's more stringent positions on the posession of weaponry is in the context of his position as a representative of Chicago. The needs in the highly urbanized city of Chicago and its constituients are vastly different from the needs of the Country as a whole. This is an immutable aspect of state/local politics versus national politics, and I think you are unfairly characterizing this example of such a dichotomy as a lack of integrity on Senator Obama's part.


You've provided some good links but I would caution you on your analysis. The article cited in your piece does not quote Obama nor does it attest that Obama felt the DC law was constitutional. In fact, it goes on to cite numerous times when Obama clearly stated that he was not in a position to advocate on the law's constitutionality in either way. Sure, there is one instance when one of his campaign aides said the law was constitutional, but they are also on record saying that such a summation was mistaken and incorrect.

Part of the central thesis of your article here is that Obama has been vaccilating on gun control. Don't you think such a thesis is drastically undercut by putting so much weight and substance on something a campaign aid said that was later redacted and is directly contracticted with messages from the campaign both before and after this incident? What is in all likelihood a campaign slip-up and mistake, you are treating as an actual part of Senator Obama's slate of positions.

Likewise, it seems that virtually all of the positions that you cite Senator Obama held at one point were never really a part of his campaign's official message. In fact, most of the claims are pretty dubious. Regarding a federal gun ban and a complete ban on handgun ownership, the link in question only cites a questionaire of dubious origin. Your claim of Obama's attempt to ban almost all sport ammunition is also questionable. After reading the transcript of the ammendment alluded to in your provided link, I can find no evidence whatsoever that supports your claim. Here is a direct link to the ammendment for your perusal.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=109&amdt=s1615

You are correct on one conclusion though; Obama does oppose the carrying of concealed weapons in several instances. Will this position be an issue? Probably not a big enough issue to matter in the General Election.

Obama is not a flip-flopper--he's a liar! When are people going to realize this. He says different things every day about the same subject. He can't keep up with his own stories because there are so many. He's a joke.

Well no Obama dont need a damn gun he has all that security around him with their side guns looking like a good western movie. Also after seeing Oprah, Gale,and Obama together every wakening moment, starting to look Oprah likes a little secret: How about threesum????? lol

If the issue is honesty, many of us can see a pattern in Barack Obama of a dishonest man who will do anything to win an election. Here is more evidence of this:

What you need to know about another of Obama's close political fund raisers, Alexi Giannoulias.
_________________________________________________

A Consumer's Guide to Obama and the Company That He Keeps By Daniel J. Kelley - Chicago Daily Observer
May 22, 2008

In another remarkable omission, the curious relationship between Obama and his political protégé, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has not been widely publicized. Locally, the story generated some brief coverage, but the subject has been barely
examined by the mainstream media. Bloggers are familiar with the tale, but Obama has skated on this subject with the general public.

Some background is necessary: after spending a season playing professional basketball in Greece, Giannoulias returned to the USA and enrolled in law
school at Tulane University in New Orleans, where every day is Mardi Gras. Less than three years after being admitted to practice in Illinois, Giannoulias
launched his campaign for State Treasurer. With the financial support of his family banking business and US Senator Barack Obama’s endorsement, this politically inexperienced individual secured the Democratic nomination. In the general election campaign, State Democratic Party Chairman, Michael Madigan, continued to keep Giannoulias at arm’s length. Madigan had supported a different candidate in the primary and disseminated disquieting rumors about the business background of Giannoulias, the former Vice President and Senior Loan Officer
of the Broadway Bank, which was owned by his family members. During his brief tenure in the banking industry, Giannoulias appears to have approved loans
to convicted felons with ties to organized crime. One such loan applicant was a convicted bookmaker with an alleged sideline business promoting prostitution.

Our colleague, Russ Stewart was one of the few who pointed out the fact that Obama played the role of kingmaker in Giannoulias’ successful first time
candidacy. At the age of thirty, Giannoulias became the youngest treasurer in Illinois history. What qualified Giannoulias for public office and earned him
Obama’s endorsement? He plays basketball with Obama. No park district field house or asphalt parking lot games for these two men of the people. When in
Chicago, Obama and his pal prefer to play at the exclusive East Bank Club. Throughout the primary season. Giannoulias has hit the campaign trail to play
Obama in pick up games on the dates of the respective state primaries. Obama finds it relaxing to play hoops when ballots are being cast. Apart from shooting
buckets, it also helped that Giannoulias and his family members have contributed so generously to the various Obama campaigns. Giannoulias and his family
are not absolutely committed true believers in the Democratic Party and its causes, however, as they hedged their bets by contributing to the House
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and to have also made campaign contributions to former Governor George H. Ryan.

You may ask, "Isn't this simply politics as usual?" What makes this association troublesome is that there was more than mere smoke behind the rumors peddled about Giannoulias in the primary. The Broadway Bank, operated by Giannoulias and his relatives made loans to organized crime figures. Giannoulias, who was not charged with any crime, responded that he was not obligated to perform criminal background checks on loan applicants. Nevertheless, the bank loaned Michael (Jaws) Giorango and his associates a cool $15 million dollars. A portion of the proceeds of the loan was used to purchase a Florida hotel that was used by a prostitution ring. Oops!

___________________________________________________

Never Obama - the Chicago Machine Politician

CLINTON HAS EARNED THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION!

Barak Obama is a very inspiring orator. His campaign is very talented
at winning the delegates selected through the convoluted Democratic
primary processes. But Obama is taking a very wrong turn for the
general election in shutting-out Hillary Clinton for consideration as
his running mate.

Record voter turn-outs in West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and
South Dakota for Clinton long after it was apparent she could not
"catch-up" in the number of selected delegates show a level of
enthusiasm for her candidacy which rivals Obama's. This was despite
Obama's huge financial advantage over Clinton in these primaries
(outspending her by 3 to 1).

The only voters Obama is appeasing by his campaign's denigrating
treatment of Senator Clinton are those who would vote for Obama "no
matter what" scandal, revelation, or blooper might emerge during the
general election campaign. Do you think JFK's supporters were elated
about his selection of Lyndon Johnson? Or that Ronald Reagan's
supporters were joyful about his selection of George H.W. Bush (who
coined the phrase "voodoo economics" in the Republican primary
against Reagan's economic policies)?

Instead of working to capture the level of enthusiasm and commitment
of Clinton's supporters for the general election, Obama is squashing
them under his boot heel. The public stance of Obama's campaign is
that Clinton's supporters will really have no choice but to vote for
Obama in the general election because McCain would be an even worse
choice for the issues important to them. However, I, for one, will
never validate the disrespect for Senator Clinton demonstrated by
Obama's campaign. I'd rather vote for Nader.



OBAMA'S UNRESTRAINED ARROGRANCE!!!

The Obama campaign has really trashed Hillary Clinton. First they
took away delegates which were "won" by Clinton through real votes by
real voters. Obama took not only ALL the delegates won by "Other" on
the Michigan ballot (i.e., 100% of the delegates represented by votes
for "Other" went to Obama despite the fact that exit polls indicated
that 25% of those votes were for Edwards). His campaign strong-armed
the DNC and took away four (4) delegates "won" by Clinton as well.
These four delegates meant NOTHING to Obama except to demonstrate the
ability of his campaign to exact concessions from the opponent he
could not really beat at genuine voting polls. Of course, Clinton was
more concerned that Michigan delegates be seated, and that Michigan
voters not be disenfranchized at the Democratic Convention.

Then Obama appoints Solis as the chief-of-staff for whoever becomes
his Vice Presidential running mate. Why appoint her to this position
for a VP not yet selected? To further humiliate Clinton! If he wanted
Solis to be a part of his campaign, it would have been easy to appoint
her to any position with a different job title. After all, what duties
does she have with no VP nominee? In making this move, Obama is
showing that he is no different than any other candidate who wants to
destroy his opponents. The move was calculated to destroy any chance
that Obama would consider Clinton as his VP, in spite of his public
statements that she would be on a "short list" for consideration.
This is the same petty politics we have seen in the past.

OBAMA IS "CHANGE" YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN!!!

yes, every damn day its more lies falling out of obama's purple lips. we are just supposed to fall in line and get with the messiah.....he is a national embarassment. i thought george bush was bad, he doesnt hold a candle in the wind to hussein obama. and the worst part is the media and the press still lapping up to him. its totally sickening. i cant wait to see mccain debate the idiot on the 4th of july. notice thats the only time obama would agree to debate ? when he thinks americans will be out away from the t.v.'s, and nobody will see how stupid he really is. my popcorn will be ready.....mccain 08

Good for you Greg. At least one of you PM people uses common sense.

With the courts recent ruling on Gitmo detainees Obama has little reason to grow a spine and openly oppose the Courts ruling on an issue so far off the election path as the DC gun ban.

On Feb 12th 2008 Obama nodded in liberal agreement with an ABC interviewer who commented on the DC gun ban being constitutional since Obama knew that is what his political base expected of him.

Obama has 130 "present" votes in the Senate so why should we expect him to take a stand now?

The gun ownership situation is a two sided coin. On the one hand we have the right to own guns for self defence and fo sport hunting. Obama said so himself when he acknowledged th father and son relationship is, say, Montana. But the other side of the coin is not so well meaning, killings by guns in Chicago may be as many as five hundred in any one year. A significant number of those are innocent children killed by stray bullets. So what do we do?

I suggest that whle owning a gun is a cstitutional right, it is not a constitutional right to use a gun in a crime. The constitution guarantees equality, but the use of a gun in a crime is very obviously inequality. It seems then, that the use of a gun in a crime is not constitutional. My suggestin then is to make it a federal crime to use a gun in a crime, and to punish such use by an extreme prison sentence such as 25 years imprisonment.

This is a quote from the Washington Post by Just Say No Deal:

"While the Coalition respects the genuine
nature of Senator Clinton in keeping her word
to campaign with and for Senator Obama, we
will not support him now or on November 4,
2008. Senator Clinton’s vote is her own; our
votes are our own and they will not be cast for
Senator Obama. The Just Say No Deal Coalition
members will either choose to stay home in
protest, write in Senator Clinton’s name or vote
for Senator John McCain. Our votes are our
voices and Just Say No Deal’s voices are 2
million strong and growing."