Next in Bus & Driver: Obama's position on guns

Barack Obama has been spinning like a top, and watching his positions on, well, just about everything is like watching table-tennis matches on TiVo triple fast forward.  FISA, public financing, and NAFTA have all been reversed in the last couple of weeks, and Obama’s not through yet.  With the Heller decision on deck at the Supreme Court, his earlier comments on gun control have gone under the bus, too:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'”

Yeah, and his statements on NAFTA were “overheated” in typical politician fashion, according to Obama himself eight days ago.   Now he wants to cast his campaign’s position statement as “inartful” and not accurate — more than seven months after making the statement.  Team Obama declared the DC gun ban as “constitutional” on November 20, 2007, during a period of time when he was busy sucking up to the hard Left and their confiscatory inclinations on the Second Amendment.

Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign’s statement was inartful.  This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert.  One might expect the “inartful” excuse on wetlands reclamation or some other esoteric matter of public policy, but the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard.  One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong.

McCain, ABC notes, has been utterly consistent on this issue.  He even filed an amicus brief with the court expressing his opinion that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and that the DC ban was unconstitutional.  Unlike McCain, Obama has refused to make a categorical statement since last November, which rather clearly shows that he was well aware of his “inartful” statement.

We used to call John Kerry a flip-flopper for his enbarrassing quote on his opposition to Iraq war funding.  Obama has now changed position on almost every key position in this election, and exposed himself as incompetent as a Constitutional law analyst as well.  Democratic superdelegates may want to rethink their position on this nomination before Obama changes his party registration, too.