We have lots of evidence that Obama is just another anti-gun bigot but some of his statements deserve more attention.

From here we have:

I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

Emphasis added. Notice how he switches from “illegal handgun usage” to taking “illegal handguns”? This is the language of weasels. People use guns illegally. But Obama says he wants to take handguns off the streets. He is attacking the wrong thing and he is attempting to confuse the issue.

And from here we have:

…he claimed to have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms” — while also seeing the need for “common-sense, effective safety measures” to protect “crime-ravaged communities.”

And:

“I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms. I’m a believer in homeowners having a firearm to protect their home and their family,” Obama said. “It’s hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic.” http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=1AE9B6AE-D8A7-6619-6DA493C9771D0676

Since these “common-sense effective safety measures” include bans on numerous types of firearms this is like saying he supports the 13th Amendment but thinks it’s okay for some communities to keep slaves as long as their skin is a certain color.

Aside from throwing out the D.C. ban there is other good stuff for future victories in the decision:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

…

Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

…

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

…

[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .

I’m only about 1/5 of the way through and I have to save the rest for later. I have a dentist appointment and work to do.