Or perhaps more precisely, msnbc.com chose not to include it as an issue in both a "how does your 'vote' on an issue compare to Clinton's and Obama's?" sniglet and a companion article on how Obama voted on a number of issues. Not one word.
They also barely discussed his Senate voting positions on what he proposes to do about securing the border, what he wants to do about the illegal alien problem, whether or not to pull the troops out of Iraq, how many and by when, and other things of interest to those on the forum like his stand on public land and national park access.
I believe this is called 'misdirection.'
One point they did mention, albeit with the presumption that Obama would be the eventual winner (start telling that Big Lie often and early, folks!) of the general election, was who he would appoint to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Stevens, who is coming up on his 90th birthday. Given that a Supreme Court justice serves for life or until he/she chooses to retire, and that in all probability their tenure in office will outlast that of the president who appointed them, in many ways who makes it onto the Supreme Court is more important than who makes it into the Oval Office. What we need are strict constiructionists. Obama would probably appoint a liberal justice antithical to our position that the Second Amendment supports an absolute, individual right to keep and use firearms. Something to keep in mind as the election approaches, boys and girls.
But given the fact the mainstream media have not shifted their support to a pro-gun candidate but merely to another candidate with an anti-gun rights voting records similar to the one they have shoved in our faces for the past year, we had better pray that the Supreme Court rules our way and as broadly as they can in DC vs Heller. It may be the best chance we're going to get to secure our gun rights against the braying of hostile media and moronic representatives and senators.
