Substitution

May 31, 2008
8:59 AM CST

Imagine a politician having the gall to say this:

“We can have a reasonable degree of slavery that I think respects the Thirteenth Amendment and people’s traditions. I think there’s a lot of room before bumping against a constitutional barrier… There has not been any evidence that disallowing slavery is going to make anybody less free… I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to allow slavery. The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate slavery isn’t born out by our Constitution.”

You would hear the howls of outrage from here to the horizon and beyond.

Okay, here’s what the Democrat Presidential candidate actually said:

“We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions. I think there’s a lot of room before bumping against a constitutional barrier… I am not in favor of concealed weapons. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer… I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms. The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.” —Barack Obama

I fail to see that there’s any difference between the two positions, when it comes to the Constitution.