Barack's gun control cynicism

On gun control alone, Barack is going for some kind of record in cynicism.

1. John Lott is a reputable, much admired gun researcher. I have linked and quoted him on this blog. Lott says Barack - early in Barack's political career - told Lott he favored banning ownership of all handguns.

2. In 1996, campaigning for the Illinois Senate, Barack turned in a questionnaire saying he favored banning handguns. Barack now says a staffer filled out the questionnaire, and that he has never favored banning handguns. This matter was blog sleuthed approx. last fall: Barack wrote a note on the questionnaire in order to elaborate his opinion on a different question; Barack also signed the questionnaire before it was turned in.

3. In Nov 2007, a Barack staffer informed media that Barack favored the Washington, DC ban on handguns. Barack's campaign this week said they handled that incident "inartfully."

4. In Feb 2008, an interviewer asked Barack how he could support both the 2nd Amendment and the D.C. handgun ban. Barack claimed the two positions are not in opposition to each other. Barack's claim is total crap. Only the most cynical of persons would try to get away with that claim.

5. This week, as rumors swirled Justice Scalia was writing the majority opinion in Heller, Barack put out a statement saying he believed the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. Well. What a coeeeennnnncidence.

6. Immediately after the S.C. decision, Obama said this(from Powerlineblog):

"I teach constitutional law," Obama said. "What I said was that I believe Second Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don't think those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I've been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today."

Which is a ludicrous claim, even by Obama's standards.
[...]
"Obama Clarifies Position..." Is that becoming a familiar headline, or what?

The S.C. Majority's decision does not - to any degree - conform with Obama's position. Barack's claim is total crap. Only the most cynical of persons would try to get away with that claim.

7. Barack's stance on gun control does not matter as much as his SC selections will matter - except insofar as his gun control shenanigans shine more light on his cynicism, his lack of backbone, and his lack of authenticity. These traits are now brightly highlighted, from numerous sources of illumination, for those who wish to see.

Barack has specifically stated his preference for SC justices in the mold of Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. All of Obama's preferred justices this week usurped the right of states to execute child rapists; all dissented against the right of U.S. citizens to own handguns. Oh, and all stomped upon the supposedly co-equal power of the Executive and the Legislative, via creating a brand new terrorist right to access U.S. Civilian Courts.

h/t

8. NRO's Jim Geraghty 06/26 11:23 AM:

[Obama's] claims are hard to balance with his approval of Chicago’s effective ban on handguns. In Obama's entire time in the city, there’s no record of him ever objecting to it.

Obama’s audacity on this issue goes even further.

Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.

During Obama’s tenure with the Joyce Foundation, donations to anti-gun groups increased dramatically. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the Violence Policy Center received $221,000 and $360,000 from the Foundation; those grants and donations increased to $1 million in 2000 and $800,000 in 2002. In all, during Obama’s tenure, the group received $15 million from the Joyce Foundation.

The Violence Policy Center, despite its name, never seems all that concerned with beatings, stabbings, immolations or explosions. No, they’re completely focused on gun violence, and they can effectively be called an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization.

Lest anyone think I’m mischaracterizing their objective analysis, note that their web site touts themselves as “the most aggressive group in the gun control movement.” Also note studies like their one from 2000 entitled, “Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns,” which declared the idea that the Constitution would forbid a national handgun ban a “pure myth.” Also note the organization’s subtly-titled book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

It’s not just the VPC. The Joyce Foundation also provided several large grants to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which can also be safely described as an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization. Besides their role in “litigation designed to change the way guns are designed, marketed, distributed, and sold,” the center perpetually argued that guns in the home were more dangerous than protective.

In 1996, the foundation Obama directed approved $662,525 in grants to the Johns Hopkins Center, and by 2001, they gave another $600,000.

In the wake of today’s ruling, you’re going to hear Barack Obama claim passionately that he believes in the Second Amendment and that he is a friend to gun owners. It will be interesting to see how he can rectify that with his efforts to fund books like Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles Krauthammer today noted a kind of historical victory for Scalia (and imo, also Clarence Thomas). Justice Stevens, in his Heller dissent, argued from his interpretation of the Founders' intent. A notable moment from an old liberal lion. Liberal justices typically embrace "living document", and rarely acknowledge original intent. Could Scalia and Thomas - after years of solid, indefatigable argument - be slowing a rushing river?