He said what? What is the quote?

OK, here is some information on it. Here is a quote form an article, with the link to the complete artlice following:
I added the Bold type for emphasis. It is not a direct quote, but one may yet surface.

That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right ... he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," the specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again, without success, last week to learn Obama's position before writing this column.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_gun_dance.html

Here are a couple of direct quotes that the Robert Novak article attributes to Obama:The first quote is pro-gun rights and the second one is, AFAIK, completely mainstream accepted legal analysis. I don't see anything in that article that is remotely like what you and Knight Rider attribute to Obama.

Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

That could be argued as one of those conflicts between state sovereignty and liberty.

If one is a classic states rights proponent then this would be a case in which states rights and individual liberty are in conflict. In a conflict between states rights and individual rights, which side should the federal government come down on -- the individual's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment or the state's right under the 10th amendment? The federal government's power would be undermined by the state having the final word while the fed's power would be increased through supremacy of individual liberty, right?

My personal belief is that the hierarchy of protection should be individual > (state = federal), meaning that individual liberty should override state and federal interests, which should be in dynamic equilibrium. I don't think that this is always true under every circumstance and all occasions through time. But I do believe that as a general principal of polity.

B

I have a feeling that regardless of what anyone says they will do, guns of most all kinds will continue to be approximately as legal as they are now. Most of the demos know that it'd be political suicide to go any other route.

This is actually a really good post. It's got soul. Yet it also needs a few adjustments.
You are very well right, with the evolving situation on this soil and the spread of communist behaviour and centralized patterns of doing big business. That's exactly what is happening.

Big government, big business and millions of likewise dependents. The only significant difference:

Over there they called it 'Communism', over here they call it 'Capitalism'. Same thing different name for it.

So, you still worry about, what one 'leftwing liberal' wants to take from another 'rightwing liberal'?

No need to worry, it's all going to wash out in the end.

The US learning a lesson? I doubt it. Once again, same difference. Somewhere else they call it 'Garden of Eden', here they call it 'American Dream'.

Your description of "libs" is very acurate as well, which means those big-business-libs, thriving on everybody's mandatory contribution, are perfectly included in club.

please give an example of a big bus. lib.

tom w

Farm subsidies
Oil Subsidies

Harkin, Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Boxer, Rockefeller, etc. Look how they vote, not how they talk.

OK, now I think i understand. So you are saying those senators or congressmen are supported by and support big oil and big farm corps?

Tom W

But we don't know the entire question. What was between the words "to" and "ban"? And did the phrase "state legislation" refer to any particular bill? If so, what did that bill say?

EDIT: The Google found the original questionaire for me. Here it is: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html The copy is illegible in places, but there do not appear to be any words between "to" and "ban".

So, the only question I have is whether he was referring to any specific state legislation. I'm sure we will get an opportunity to hear him explain that answer. Maybe he will say that he was young and foolish when he gave it.

Maybe Osama said it elsewhere or maybe he never said it at all.

B

I seem to recall that our State's Congressional Twinkie, Russ "Bite Me" Feingold, was the only one to give GWB and all the other Congressional Twinkies the 'bird' and go against the war...

Wasn't he suppose to be the next "Democratic Darling" for President?

Where's all that "principle" now? Behind the guy that took it in the chin for his 100% faith of not believing the Prez and ALL of Congress?

It's all about gettin' into the WH...that's all it is...

Oh wait . . . . wow that's TRICK dude! Obama's name is similar to Osama's!!

Oh man, this is great! No way can he get out from under that!

. . . happy days are here again . . .