
First a broken promise on public financing of his own mega-campaign, then
Barack Obama takes the same position on FISA (spy courts) as President
George W. Bush, now Obama wants to have a more identical stance on Americans 2nd Amendment Rights as Bush.
But it hasn't always been that way.
In 2007, his campaign told the
Chicago Tribune he believed the Washington, D.C. gun ban was constitutional. Now they
say that was an "inartful" explanation. Now, the public is supposed to be believe the message of the day from the Obama campaign, which is that of course he knew the gun ban was unconstitutional.
Obama seems to be working hard to make
John Kerry look like a straight-shooter.
Now plenty of people oppose gun rights (I am not one of them), and if Obama really is one of these, why play politics with such a fundamental issue?
Oh wait, playing politics with issues is what Barack Obama does.
After
Al Gore lost in 2000,
Bill Clinton was reported to have ascribed his loss to his extreme position against gun owner's rights. On this issue, Clinton was probably right. And this may explain why Obama would like to obscure his political record opposing the 2ND Amendment.
-- Obama
wants to reimpose a federal gun ban.
-- Obama
voted against the sale of almost all ammunition used regularly for sport shooting and hunting.
-- Obama
opposes Right to Carry laws.
-- Obama
supports a complete ban on hand-gun ownership.
The debate over gun ownership is not new. It's an area of public policy with very developed and mature arguments. It is reasonable for voters to expect a straight-forward position and consistent messaging, even from such an inexperienced candidate as Barack Obama.
So why does Obama's obfuscation continue?