Obama's D.C. gun ban flip-flop

In any law one can find aspects that they agree with and others that they disagree with. The Supremes ruled that we have an individual right to own a handgun. But they also said that local regulations can be imposed, and that there is no problem with restricting gun ownership to people with criminal records or the mentally ill. Yes, it is understood that criminal types may well get guns anyway, but we can try.
This is Obama's position as well.At least that is my understanding.

Obama teaches Constitutional law at U. Chicago. That is a very prestigious school- so yes, he is probably very knowledgeable on that subject. Anybody who was editor of the Harvard Law Review has got to be pretty good at what they do.

so, obama didn't come out crying about an "activist court". now that's a change from what we're used to seeing (from the republicans).

i don't mind having a president who is willing to accept the rule of law.

OH MY! what's this about the well-to-do john mcnugget being $225,000 in tax arrears? 4 years without paying taxes?

tsk, tsk, big john. i can't believe that someone running for president would be so irresponsible with his SEVEN HOMES to avoid paying taxes... until he's called on it. what an ELITIST. what a DISGRACE. what a HYPOCRITE.

To begin, I am not trying to be combative or contradictory, but argumentative ("I've come for an argument" "NO YOU HAVEN'T" - with a nod to M. Python) - so, that being said...

Your wrote, "He would appoint judges who understood their place and not try to legislate from the bench."
And what is their place? Certainly, mediating between parties who feel unjustly treated. But part of the process built into our system is that judges can interpret laws, which - if determined improper - can result in legislation. Certainly were it not for some of the reformist (not theologically) judges many of the civil rights laws would not have been re-written.

Your wrote, "He is the advocate for America and should always remember that."
That is a curious phrase. I think that was the intent of the election design. We are voting not only for a person, but for their vision of what "America" means. Are they advocating for America, the corporation or America, the ideal. The checks and balances of authority make it hard(er) for one person or group to assert their view - for the most part. So we are voting, not only for president, but for Congress, those people who share our vision. That then leads to the question, given our elected officials, what sort of vision do we have?

I am less an advocate for low taxes as I am an advocate for appropriate taxation. There are things the government has to do for which funding is needed. Highways, schools, defense (you wrote, "proactive in our defense" a delightful oxymoron and a tricky determination), and care for the powerless are among them. Finding clever ways to prevent the gov. from funding these violates large portions of the American vision. Balancing the budget becomes a tricky deal, but no more so than for the average household.

What would the private sector do better than the gov? Given we are a profit driven economy there are some things that are simply not profitable enough for a private company to do that are still needed by less affluent people. How would these be balanced?

In terms of moral dilemnas it is all personal preference I suppose. But that is for what the election is intended.