Here's a quote from VirginiaDem's celebration of Obama's "Reagan-like ability to attract his listeners to his positions," which was recommended by about 500 Kossacks:

"There's a Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I've got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably -- it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." That's what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that's a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families."

Then came the pivot:

"Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don't think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?"

Obama tells everybody what they want to hear! Who cares if it's irresponsible bullshit?

First he sucks up to gun owners: "I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families." Then he appeases his base: Let's make sure that "ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?"

Wonderful! Obama wants to share tracking information! What a leader! Let's see what he doesn't want.

What exactly is the "Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon" where Obama thinks it's "a fair reading of the text of the Constitution" for the Court to find that the right to bear arms is "an individual right?"

It's District of Columbia v. Heller, and there's a lot at stake:

The case tests the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., where in 1976 officials imposed one of the nation's strictest gun-control laws in response to alarming levels of gun violence.

D.C. officials say they banned handguns because such weapons "are disproportionately linked to violent and deadly crime."

If the court decides there is an individual right to bear arms, it will be a huge victory for gun-rights advocates. It would reverse years of legal precedent and embolden politicians and groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) that have touted gun rights. It also likely would discourage new gun regulations and inspire challenges to other gun restrictions.

The possibility that the D.C. dispute could jeopardize a range of federal firearms laws -- including those banning individuals from owning machine guns and those establishing rules for transporting weapons -- has led the Bush administration to take a step back from its strong support of gun rights.

So maybe Obama's opinion that the right to bear arms "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia" isn't quite as innocuous as it sounds.

The last time the Supreme Court took up a major gun-rights case was in 1939. That dispute, United States v. Miller, involved two men who were caught transporting an illegal sawed-off shotgun across state lines. The court did not directly address the scope of the Second Amendment. Yet its decision rested on the notion that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to firearms, not an individual right.

In the years since, most lower federal courts interpreted the Miller decision to mean there was no individual right to have firearms.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set the stage for the high court to weigh in when it ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms ... for such activities as hunting and self-defense." The appeals court invalidated D.C.'s ban on handguns in the home.

So Obama's opinion that the right to bear arms "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia" reverses almost 70 years of settled constitutional law!

Who is this guy?

And why would so many otherwise intelligent people actually celebrate Barack Obama's right-wing reversal of 70 years of federal law, undermining the basis for any sort of gun control whatsoever, even the pitifully weak laws that already have?