Circular Logic . . . Or Lack Thereof

Sen. Barack Obama, running for president of the United States, claims he has no designs on anyone's hunting or sporting firearm. Some groups have even come out and said both his political party and other supporters have never urged the ban on sporting firearms.

Though he has said he dislikes the "scary black rifle," which is one of most widely used sporting firearms in the nation. Sigh . . . Okay, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now, the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) has formally endorsed Obama for president. But his position is at odds with theirs, right? Or is he at odds with his own position? Okay, still trying to give parties the benefit of the doubt. BTW, the Brady Bunch once again has come out against the possession of competition rifles, saying that "X-number" of people have lost their lives since the widely criticized ban on so-called "assault weapons" expired -- as it was intended to when passed into law by a democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by a democrat president in 1994.

Quite a stretch to suggest that were that law still in place that there would have been songs in the hills, pink ribbons on pretty boxes and harmony in every neighborhood in the U.S.

If you remember, Sen. Obama was also a director at the Joyce Foundation, which has been working for years on gun control measures and is the bankroll behind a lot of statewide gun control groups in various states, including my own Buckeye State. Hmmm . . . but if he isn't about taking away hunting or sporting firearms, how come that is what the Joyce Foundation has been working on through the various shell organizations it fronts?

Yesterday, there was yet another murder here in Columbus. A guy was found dead in his apartment on the city's east side, and the man's pit bull, also found dead, had been hung. Violent. Horrible violence. Retribution the LEOs say for some other altercation or drug incident. It had nothing to do with competition rifles.

But if they could, the other side would paint it as such. The logic of these arguments escapes me. So back to Obama. The man says one thing, his surrogates echo him. But the bills he has sponsored say another. The organizations he has associated himself with clearly have other ideas in mind. And while he says he has no designs on sporting rifles, the largest gun ban group in the United States endorses him and once again starts rolling out reasons why one of those very popular sporting rifles that he doesn't say he will ban . . . should be banned.

Is anyone else confused? Or raising an eyebrow?