It seems that getting down to substance with Obama is going to be more difficult than just pinning him down. Consider this article, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1 , which is headlined " Obama supports individual right to bear arms". That is a code phrase that implies an interpretation of the Second Amendment that treats the right to bear arms as an individual right and not one dependnet on state militias, etc. Normally it is associated with gun rights activists and not far left pols like Obama. As we drill down however, we read that Obama also said he supports"common sense" laws, like California's controversial bullet marking law, which imposes an expensive and useless mandate on manufacturers to equip guns so that they leave an imprint of their serial number on any shell fired. That way, the police can theoretically trace any gun involved in a crime. Great idea, right? Uh actually no. It turns out the technology is unreliable, and when it does work, it has no ability to track who actually used a gun. Most guns used in crime are stolen or obtained outside the already rigorous legal restricitons, so the law is pretty much useless, except to impose a burden on manufacturers. Even odder, the article reports that Obama supports the District of columbia's draconian gun ban that is under consideration by the Supreme Court. His position is odd, because the whole defense of the law rests on the Second Amendment not conferring an individual right. So basically, Obama is on all sides of this issue, Clinton-like. The lying comes about because he is saying he suuports the Second Amendment but would allow it to be circumvented by "reasonable" laws, which in his mind seems to include total bans on gun ownership or possession, even in your own home. Too bad he doesn't also support "common sense" restrictions on made-up constitutional "rights", like abortion.