Obama Embraces Supreme Court [Gun] Decision as "Well-Needed Guidance"

[RightinNYC]

Political Punch

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, may have a long record of supporting gun control measures, and he may have seemed to have previously endorsed the DC Handgun Ban.

But just now he issued a paper statement embracing the 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that struck down the DC Handgun Ban as unconstitutional.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures," Obama said in a paper statement. "The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

This is the second time in two days that Obama has directly disagreed with the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court on two big issues. He even freaking cited Scalia. I can't say I disagree with him on the issue, but I'm perplexed as to how he went from supporting an outright ban on the very existence of handguns to now believing that owning handguns is a fundamental right.

 

[Thorgasm]

Political Punch



This is the second time in two days that Obama has directly disagreed with the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court on two big issues. He even freaking cited Scalia. I can't say I disagree with him on the issue, but I'm perplexed as to how he went from supporting an outright ban on the very existence of handguns to now believing that owning handguns is a fundamental right.

How long have you been paying attention to Presidential races?

It is common for candidates to run to the middle after securing the nomination. I think that is what he is doing now.

 

[Ikari]

I think he has to do this. There are too many people in too many close states that don't want their right to keep and bear arms infringed upon. If he came out strongly against the court ruling, he'd probably hurt his chances at capturing some of the closer States.

 

[Zyphlin]

How long have you been paying attention to Presidential races?

It is common for candidates to run to the middle after securing the nomination. I think that is what he is doing now.

....but, I thought Obama was a break from "typical politics"?

 

[RightinNYC]

How long have you been paying attention to Presidential races?

It is common for candidates to run to the middle after securing the nomination. I think that is what he is doing now.

I define "running to the middle" as shifting your stance on an issue in a way that allows you to get more support, but avoids outright contradiction with your previous positions. This is just a total reversal of his stance a la Romney.

It also seems obvious to me that he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying.

 

[Thorgasm]

....but, I thought Obama was a break from "typical politics"?

He ruined that this morning when he put his pants on one leg at a time. :roll:

 

[Thorgasm]

I define "running to the middle" as shifting your stance on an issue in a way that allows you to get more support, but avoids outright contradiction with your previous positions. This is just a total reversal of his stance a la Romney.

It also seems obvious to me that he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying.

Name a candidate that had a realistic chance of winning that didn't have an "evolution of thought".

 

[RightinNYC]

Name a candidate that had a realistic chance of winning that didn't have an "evolution of thought".

I'm not saying he's alone or even the first to have done this. I'm saying that this is a pretty huge shift on a pretty clear-cut issue, made by someone who's simply "playing politics as usual."

Given that Obama's entire shtick is that he doesn't do that, it's more of a surprise than it would be from someone like Romney who was open about his skeeziness.

 

[Zyphlin]

He ruined that this morning when he put his pants on one leg at a time. :roll:

Yes, that's EXACTLY the same thing. :roll:

:sarcasticclap

 

[Thorgasm]

I'm not saying he's alone or even the first to have done this. I'm saying that this is a pretty huge shift on a pretty clear-cut issue, made by someone who's simply "playing politics as usual."

Given that Obama's entire shtick is that he doesn't do that, it's more of a surprise than it would be from someone like Romney who was open about his skeeziness.

I see your point. But in order to bring change, does every single little thing have to change? It seems like this argument falls into a all or nothing condition.

 

[Thorgasm]

Yes, that's EXACTLY the same thing. :roll:

:sarcasticclap

It just seems like every single thing has to be different or else he fails your test. Yes, I was being facetious. But there are things that he is doing differently. Look at his fundraising. I know that you wouldn't vote for him in a million years so it's not like I am going to change your mind. But I think he has differences from other politicians.

 

[RightinNYC]

I see your point. But in order to bring change, does every single little thing have to change? It seems like this argument falls into a all or nothing condition.

I don't think everything has to change, but something certainly does. I haven't seen much of it yet.

Let me be frank - I personally believe that the way the Reps will win this fall (if they manage to do so) will revolve around whether they can manage to convince the public that Obama is just another politician. So long as he's viewed as some bridge-building maverick, it will be hard to beat him. McCain's people are very familiar with what it takes to build the image of a maverick, and with what happens when that image gets tarnished. The dems have been doing their best to destroy McCain's halo for the past year, and I think we'll see their own tactics used against them.

I don't think that individual things like this are enough, by themself, to do it. However, every time that Obama makes a decision that sacrifices principle for politics, a few more people shake their heads and lose faith. It all adds up in the end.

 

[Thorgasm]

I don't think everything has to change, but something certainly does. I haven't seen much of it yet.

Let me be frank - I personally believe that the way the Reps will win this fall (if they manage to do so) will revolve around whether they can manage to convince the public that Obama is just another politician. So long as he's viewed as some bridge-building maverick, it will be hard to beat him. McCain's people are very familiar with what it takes to build the image of a maverick, and with what happens when that image gets tarnished. The dems have been doing their best to destroy McCain's halo for the past year, and I think we'll see their own tactics used against them.

I don't think that individual things like this are enough, by themself, to do it. However, every time that Obama makes a decision that sacrifices principle for politics, a few more people shake their heads and lose faith. It all adds up in the end.

Even if they can paint him as another politician, that only puts the two on equal footing. Then it's still a referendum on the Bush policies.

 

[RightinNYC]

Also - just saw this:

Court to hear gun case

By James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins

Chicago Tribune

November 20, 2007

...

In a statement, the Republican former mayor of New York City called the appeals court decision 'an excellent example of a judge looking to find the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not what he would like them to mean.' But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'

 

[The silenced majority]

....but, I thought Obama was a break from "typical politics"?

Racist!...:shock:

 

[TurtleDude]

Obama is an enemy to the constitution and especially the second amendment and the rights it acknowledges

 

[Skip]

Obama is an enemy to the constitution and especially the second amendment and the rights it acknowledges

Thank you for contributing

On the issue I do think Obama was pretty staunch in his opposition to handguns. But I simply do not see a difference between this and the many flip-flops that McCain has made. I'm not saying that to change the subject but merely to show that the issue of who flip-flops more is a moot point in this election.

If Obama truly believes in what he says now, then I couldn't be happier. Gun rights was probably the biggest disagreement I had with Obama ideologically, so it's good to see that he may have finally come around.

 

[RightinNYC]

Thank you for contributing

On the issue I do think Obama was pretty staunch in his opposition to handguns. But I simply do not see a difference between this and the many flip-flops that McCain has made. I'm not saying that to change the subject but merely to show that the issue of who flip-flops more is a moot point in this election.

I'll remember this.

Seriously though, I think the reason this bothers me more than someone changing their position on something like tax policy or abortion policy is that it's not something that can just change easily. It seems reasonable to me to believe that over time, someone might come to think that a different approach toward a social or economic issue would have better results, but this is different. The question of whether or not the Second Amendment protects an individual right is pretty damn clear cut - either you think it does, or you don't.

By all indications, Obama spent his entire legal life believing that it didn't. For ****s sake, the dude TAUGHT CON LAW. One would assume that he at least thought about the topic once or twice and has a pretty good familiarity with the issue. Now, less than 7 months after he reiterated his long-standing position, he's completely reversed himself? It's just absolute bull****. It's painfully obvious that he still thinks it's not an individual right and that he would support the DC ban. That irks me significantly more than if he simply said "I disagree with this decision because I believe it embraces a faulty interpretation of the 2nd amendment."

 

[Navy Pride]

Political Punch



This is the second time in two days that Obama has directly disagreed with the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court on two big issues. He even freaking cited Scalia. I can't say I disagree with him on the issue, but I'm perplexed as to how he went from supporting an outright ban on the very existence of handguns to now believing that owning handguns is a fundamental right.

Last year he was for the gun ban in DC.....He is flip flopping, trying to fool the voters in that he is moving to the center,,,,,He fools no one.....

This guy is anti 2nd amendment big time........

 

[TurtleDude]

Thank you for contributing

On the issue I do think Obama was pretty staunch in his opposition to handguns. But I simply do not see a difference between this and the many flip-flops that McCain has made. I'm not saying that to change the subject but merely to show that the issue of who flip-flops more is a moot point in this election.

If Obama truly believes in what he says now, then I couldn't be happier. Gun rights was probably the biggest disagreement I had with Obama ideologically, so it's good to see that he may have finally come around.

His coming around is because he knows what happened in 1994 and to Gore in Tennessee and Kerry in pro gun states. He is a hard core gun hater.

Look-if you have accepted that FAITH BASED belief that banning guns-some or many-increases public safety you have already made the great leap.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'll remember this.

Seriously though, I think the reason this bothers me more than someone changing their position on something like tax policy or abortion policy is that it's not something that can just change easily. It seems reasonable to me to believe that over time, someone might come to think that a different approach toward a social or economic issue would have better results, but this is different. The question of whether or not the Second Amendment protects an individual right is pretty damn clear cut - either you think it does, or you don't.

By all indications, Obama spent his entire legal life believing that it didn't. For ****s sake, the dude TAUGHT CON LAW. One would assume that he at least thought about the topic once or twice and has a pretty good familiarity with the issue. Now, less than 7 months after he reiterated his long-standing position, he's completely reversed himself? It's just absolute bull****. It's painfully obvious that he still thinks it's not an individual right and that he would support the DC ban. That irks me significantly more than if he simply said "I disagree with this decision because I believe it embraces a faulty interpretation of the 2nd amendment."

exactly-tax rates, trade tariff rates-not a faith based jump. I remember a lib black dem in Cincinnati telling me he no longer believed that the constitution guaranteed an individual right after there was some high rates of murder in his constituent's areas.

Now tell me how is what the intent of the amendment is change based on a limited set of facts that has nothing to do with the founders etc?