Why didn't Obama answer the question at the debate instead of weaving and bobbing? Was it because he didn't want to alienate PA voters, many of whom favor strong gun ownership rights? And, did he fail to tell the truth?
Obama's answer at the debate:
Gibson: Is that a law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.
....GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns? And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.
OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. (my emphasis)
The DC handgun ban is "an all-out ban on handguns." As the Washington Post reported,
The stakes are obviously high for the District, which passed the nation's strictest gun-control law in 1976, just after residents were granted the authority to govern themselves. It virtually bans the private possession of handguns, and requires that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.
In February, 2008, when asked for his position on the D.C. handgun ban, he also dodged (The video is here):
He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them.
“The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC,” Obama said. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution.”
....“I think there's a lot of room before you (start) bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about.”
Bottom line: Obama dodges, weaves and bobs. I've pointed out several other instances of this over the past year and a half and I can't believe I'm the only one whose noticed or the only one for whom it's a problem.
