Obama’s record on gun control is clear - he’s for it. He’s supported handgun bans, and even answered a questionaire stating he would support banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Now that he is running for president, and the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban, Senator Obama has changed his mind saying that, “The second ammendment means something”. The following clip from Hot Air gives his most recent position on gun control.
From Yahoo/Politico
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
Earned Media Reports
SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)
Obama’s Gun Reversal - NH4McCain
Tags: gun ban, gun control, obama dc gun ban, obama flip flop, obama gun rights, second amendment
June 27th, 2008
David Brooks of the
New York Times wrote an article questioning the ‘New Politics’ of Senator Obama.
…the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.
This draws into question not only the question of whether Senator Obama is walking the walk of a new more civil and honest campaign style, but it begs the question what candidate is most capable of bringing change. Senator McCain has walked the walk. He has worked with Democrats to achieve legislative goals, he has run an honest and decent campaign. He has a record saying what he means and meaning what he says. Consider the difficulty of a Senator with 20 plus years experience earning the reputation as a strait shooter. One reason it has been so difficult for Senators to run for president is because their job requires compromise, and taking stands on a wide range of issues that Governors can often bypass. The Democrat candidates have the luxury of having a very short record with little to examine. Senator McCain has shown that political stress won’t make him compromise his principals. It is a person of that character and experience that has the best chance of bringing change to Washington style politics.
Tags: campaign style, Clinton, David Brooks, exageration, experience, gun control, honesty, hope change, integrity, maverick, mccain, New York Times, nyt, Obama, political change, tuzla, washington politics
April 18th, 2008
