He was for it before he was against it

[Mainecoons]

Using a technique pioneered by former Sen. John Kerry, President Obama was actually for ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws before he was against them. As the National Review’s John Fund discovered, in 2004 Obama didn’t just vote for — he co–sponsored — S.B. 2386 that actually expanded Illinois’ ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.

Democrats — who controlled both houses in the legislature — had no problem with Obama’s law or the concept of self–defense. His bill was passed unanimously by the state senate and with only two votes against in the state house.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/Obama-IllCo-Sponsor-Stand-Your-Ground/2013/07/26/id/517322#ixzz2aFZ4OhcF

So let's see, he cosponsored SYG in Illinois and now he's demagoguing against it on the basis of the Zimmerman case where it was not claimed by the defense or used in the verdict.

OK. In the insanity of the brave new ObamaWorld, this sure makes sense.

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/wKJiI.jpg

[patrickt]

In the next official Barack Obama autobiography we will read of his valiant struggle against the Stand Your Ground Law in Illinois. We will also learn how he was the first man to set foot on the moon and how he personally ran the underground railroad back in 1836.

Of course, our racist president is evolving so we will see two sets of laws called US and THEM.

[fyrenza]

On the one hand, we expect our politicians to have the courage of their convictions;

on the other hand, we demand that they do the will of the people ...

[Chris]

In the next official Barack Obama autobiography we will read of his valiant struggle against the Stand Your Ground Law in Illinois. We will also learn how he was the first man to set foot on the moon and how he personally ran the underground railroad back in 1836.

Of course, our racist president is evolving so we will see two sets of laws called US and THEM.

The Ministry of Truth will see to it! Rest assured.

[Chris]

On the one hand, we expect our politicians to have the courage of their convictions;

on the other hand, we demand that they do the will of the people ...

Their convictions nor the will of the people necessarily coincide with " to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" that they're sworn to uphold.

[fyrenza]

Actually, ^those^ should BE their "convictions."

[Adelaide]

He may have supported it without realising that it could one day be abused (obviously doesn't apply to Zimmerman). That would be incredibly short-sighted but probably one of many possible reasons for switching stances.

[Agravan]

He may have supported it without realising that it could one day be abused (obviously doesn't apply to Zimmerman). That would be incredibly short-sighted but probably one of many possible reasons for switching stances.
Or he's just changing sides for partisan political purposes, which is more likely.

[Peter1469]

SYG laws are simply responses to English common law that requires a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force- even in your own home. SYG is a very America reaction: why must I run from a criminal who seeks to harm me or my family? As a middle ground, many states have "castle doctrines" which operate as SYG laws, only in your home (or car). So elsewhere, you have a duty to retreat.

[Chris]

Interesting. Other day my brother, a Berkeley prof and liberal, not a flaming liberal, but a liberal, came through town and we ate at my parents. Topical politics came up and naturally the court case and SYG. I said I think it goes too far, and my brother said no it makes perfect sense. I argued it can be abused, shoot someone, claims he was attacking. He argued, when I'm home and someone breaks in and attacks I'm not going to think that out, I'll defend myself and family. I imagined that and had to concede, yes, if I'm defending home and family.