While his recent comments may not have been necessary, wouldn't to little response be bad as well?

Yes. Too little response would be bad, but I thought his comments came off as a bit glib -- and I'm a supporter!

But, I just read this at Politico about his counterpunching style: "Attack first, sort out the details later, if at all. No apology, no immediate regret, just a sharp counterattack. For a candidate sometimes mocked for being too soft to win a political fistfight, he has shown an uncanny ability to take a punch and then rear back and deliver one in return.

When Obama responds this way, it leaves him open to charges that he's undermining his so-called politics of hope. But, showing remarkable dexterity, he has a knack for using these flare-ups to pivot back to the central theme of his candidacy: that politics is broken, and he knows how to change it."

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9601.html

Speaking as the resident gun enthusiast, Hillary's voting record and past support of gun control is well-known, well-documented and is largely the reason why I fear/hate her more than syphilis. Obama is a little harder to read. He supports "sportsmans rights", which is dandy, but sportsmans rights and gun control are two very different things, so it worries me. Add to that the traditional draconian outlook on guns from the Illinois political machine, and I have serious (though as yet unfounded) concerns about what he will do in this area. If it wasn't for that aspect, I would be very tempted to throw my hat into Obama's ring.

Crom-

Here are some of the statements regarding guns and gun ownership that Obama has made over the last few years.

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/14/27/

I think his position is pretty clear.

Yes, and now that I see that, I disgree with his position.

Let me address a few of the things that he said:

1. You have to fill out and pass a FEDERAL backround check to buy a gun at a gun show. This has been law for many years now. There are no exceptions to this for dealers, and there have been no exceptions for many years.

2. Banning ammunition sales for assault weapons is stupid, because it's not as if they use special ammunition, or a caliber specific to assaulting.

3. Technically, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Practically, I can concede the point, at least to an extent. Assault weapon implies some sort of gun intended soley for assault, which can be true for any gun from a flintlock musket to a M-16.

4. To date, there has been no statistical correlation between concealed carry permits and increased violence. Gun-rights advocates will tell you that crime rates are reduced when concealed weapons are allowed, which I don't totally buy into, but the point is that there is no increase. This would also be why the bulk of the States now have what is called a "right to carry" law, Colorado included, Illinois excluded.

5. His idea to require sellers to possess a state license is ridiculous in view of the fact that a federal license is already required for dealers. Why require a state license on top of that?

6. I am willing to believe that he didn't see the 1996 survey that showed that he wanted to ban handguns, given his later statements.