No Runny Eggs

From the Politico.Com  

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.
But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

I find it interesting that rather than address his position on the ability to own and use handguns, Barack Obama is busy telling people that he has a background in constitutional law.   This sounds  a lot like an answer I  used to  give my young boys when they’d debate me on why they should do certain things.   If it was a subject that I didn’t think they were old enough to debate, they would occasionally get a; “Because I said.”   While this is an adequate answer for 5 year olds, I don’t see how that  kind of response gets Barack  in good with pro-gun folks.    Beyond that,  I have other questions:

1. Is a lawyer having a “background” in constitutional law all that unique?   Gosh, I kind of thought that a lawyer  having a “background” in constitutional law is like a doctor having a background in medicine.   Yes I know he taught some constitutional law courses but there is a vast difference between teaching a class and actually practicing it.   This follows along the well know and factual sports analogy of those who can’t play coach, those who can’t coach ref.   Barack is somewhere between a ref and a coach when he is implying to the pro-gun audience that he is an actual  player.
2. OK, I know why the slobbering media hasn’t, but why hasn’t  an attender of one of these  pro-gun rallies  asked Barack straight up, what his position on hand guns is?   There’s plenty of evidence that gives every indication that Barack doesn’t believe that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own handguns for self defense.   Instead of allowing him to “position himself” let’s ask him and deal with his answer…assuming he’ll actually give an answer that has substance.
3. Having a “background” in constitutional law, does Barack believe the whole constitution should be enforced or does he take the Animal Farm approach to the constitution where all amendments are equal but some amendments are more equal than others?

With District of Columbia versus Heller  likely to have a decision by June, Barack may be able soft shoe himself through the primaries but it won’t be so easy in the general election.   Heller, and the fact that its decision will be the first rendered on gun control by the US Supreme Court in nearly 70 years, will give a focal point for gun rights issues.   Assuming, as many who  ARE constitutional lawyers  have, that the Supreme Court finds the law, that in essence causes the complete abolition of handguns, not to align with the Constitution, Obama needs to be asked whether and why he agrees or disagrees with the Court’s decision.   Drawing on his extensive constitutional law background it should be easy for Barack Obama to explain why the Supreme Court is wrong.  

Obama may  be able  to pass off his “centrist” persona in the primaries but states like Pennsylvania are going to play much differently in the general election.