Posted on 09/16/2008 3:53:07 PM PDT by pissant
Jake Tapper catches up with Obama's gun problem, and correctly notes that Obama's bizarre, rambling answer on guns to a friendly Pennsylvania audience on Friday September 5th has "ricocheted around the country," but Jake doesn't tell you why.
In a nutshell: Obama concluded his curiously defensive answer that day with a hypothetical:
----------------
"The bottom line is this. If youve got a rifle, youve got a shotgun, youve got a gun in your house, Im not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it but this is just not true. And by the way, heres another thing youve got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldnt get it done. I dont have the votes in Congress."
------------------
The idea that Second Amendment rights depend on Congressional inaction due to a lack of votes is the give-away here. First Amendment rights cannot be curtailed by Congressional Action. Fourth Amendment rights are not subject to majority vote. Gun owners and and originalists wonder why Obama is conceding that majorities in House and Senate can take guns away.
Gun owners don't believe Obama's reassurances because he talked too much and gave too much away.
Very much like his entire campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...
I’m looking forward to the NRA’s $40M worth of ads against Obama.
And to think at one time this guy was community organizer and senior lecturer at Podunk U for Constitutional Law.
Maybe it was the Venezuelan constitution.
Didn’t Obama just say what all Democrats believe?
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.