Obama is wrong on guns.

Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 candidate questionnaire). So Obama thinks that only criminals should have hand guns, because laws are not going to stop them.
Obama voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home (Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics CBS News). So you should get in trouple if you protect yourself with a gun, in your own house? So I guess we should all buy base-ball bates, if you live in a bad neighborhood and want to protect yourself.

Reasons to disagree

There is little a president could do about guns. We lived through Bill Clinton, we could live through Obama. Having a black president that went to Harvard might inspire enough criminals to go away from a life of crime, it might make up for the loss of safety due to his gun policy.

How big a political football will the Second Amendment be in the election? Update: More Obama gun nuanceposted at 11:19 am on February 22, 2008 by Allahpundit

Pretty big if the Messiah’s ascension continues:

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”
By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose…
At no point on his campaign site does Obama recognize an individual right to own handguns, or explicitly recognize a right for Americans to use a firearm to defend themselves or others. The site explicitly states that Barack Obama recognizes civilian gun ownership for two just purposes, “hunting and target shooting.”
Once his prohibitive views of firearms ownership become known to America’s millions of gun owners, they may well decide that a gun-grabbing Barack Obama promises the kind of “change” that they can’t believe in.

Yeah, this is one of those issues that New Yorkers are conditioned to ignore but, thankfully, swing voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio aren’t. The problem in gaming it out is that the whole apple cart’s going to be upset in four months when the Supreme Court decides the D.C. guns rights case. Like I said [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/20/supreme-court-grants-cert-on-dc-second-amendment-case/
|when they granted cert], it’s going to be a thunderbolt, and whichever side loses will have an irresistible fearmongering talking point for the rest of the campaign — about a Mad Max militarized society if it’s the left or a fascist police state if it’s the right. Unless, that is, Justice Kennedy can come up with some sort of squishy compromise solution that pleases no one. Which he probably will, and then the whole issue will be folded into the importance of judicial appointments to overturn such a crappy decision. Fine by me; it’s easy content!

Update: If a burglar breaks into your home, steals your gun because it wasn’t “securely stored,” and then shoots someone with it, are you a guilty of a misdemeanor? No — in the realm of hope and change, you’d be guilty of a felony.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/22/how-big-of-a-political-football-will-the-second-amendment-be-in-the-election/