He’s “unwilling to expend his political capital” on reinstituting the AWB.  At least he understands the risks, even if he doesn’t understand the legislation.  This article demonstrates how Obama (and even Jake Tapper) have an abject lack of understanding about what the Clinton-era AWB was all about.

“As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals,” then-Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign stated. “Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen.”

That ban expired in 2004, and Mexican President Calderon recently told Nightline that he thought “it was very good legislation. During that period, we didn’t suffer a lot, like we suffered in the four or five years” since it expired.

But the White House has indicated it is not willing to expend political capital on the issue. At a joint press conference with President Calderon, President Obama just now said that he has not backed “off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban made sense…Having said that, none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

Gee, ya think?  I guess Obama thinks the 2nd Amendment was included only to protect the rights of “hunters and sportsmen,” rather than the rights of every citizen to stave off governmental tyranny.  Constitutional scholar indeed.  Now let’s poke the holes in the President’s understanding of what the AWB was all about.

Mr. Obama apparently thinks that the Assault Weapons Ban was a ban on “fully automatic weapons,” and thus he demonstrates his woeful ignorance.  Fully automatic weapons (one trigger pull, multiple shots) were banned from civilian use long before Bill Clinton took office and signed the AWB.  In fact, fully automatic weapons were banned before Bill Clinton was even born, in the National Firearms Act of 1934. 

So if those people who possess and use fully automatic weapons were criminals even before the AWB was passed, then what was the purpose of the AWB?  It was to ban semi-automatic weapons (one trigger pull, one shot.)  The AWB was quite the draconian joke.  Since no legal definition of an “assault weapon” existed prior to 1994, the Democratic Congress had to invent one on the spot.  Rather than determining what characteristics made a weapon “dangerous” (ha), they determined which models of guns they deemed to be unfit for civilian hands and then quantified the common characteristics of those weapons.  Their definition of an “assault weapon” became any gun which possesses these “dangerous features.”  (Essentially, “it looks like a machine gun, so it must be an assault weapon!)  So what were those “dangerous features,” one might ask?

• Pistol grips.  (Because pistol grips are so deadly.)
• Telescoping or folding stocks.  (Again:  Deadly!)
• Bayonet lugs.  (Because so many deranged lunatics had attacked people with fixed bayonets, I guess.)
• Detachable ammunition magazines.  (Presumably because it’s faster to reload than a 6-shot revolver.)
• Threaded barrels.  (Because you might be able to attach a flash suppressor to it!)

Ladies and Gentlemen, THIS is what the AWB banned.  Not “fully automatic weapons.”  So what was the point?  The point was that the Federal government didn’t want its citizens to possess anything more effective than a pop gun.  The methodology they used to define “assault weapons” was simply a poorly constructed back door to limit the effectiveness of the 2nd Amendment.  These weapons can still only fire one shot at a time.  To define that as an “assault weapon” is laughable. 

The argument about guns showing up in Mexico from America has already been debunked, but even if it were true, the AWB is a straw man argument.  Fully automatic weapons are already illegal here.  If people have them, they’re getting them illegally and are already criminals.  So the AWB only limits (and punishes) law abiding citizens.

I would say that we should be thankful that cooler heads seem to be prevailing, but that’s clearly not the case.  This is only a pragmatic decision based solely on the fact that Obama doesn’t think he can get away with it.  If he can’t get away with it when the Democrats control the Executive and Legislative (and nearly the Judiciary), then how could it ever happen?  So maybe that’s a good sign after all.  Do they fear stirring the wrath of an armed populace?  The wisdom of the Founding Fathers prevails again.  A split Congress in 2010 might put the nail in the coffin for this.

Georgetown is a private Catholic institution founded by Jesuits in 1789. The auditorium where the president spoke Tuesday is adorned with religious imagery, but only the symbols directly on the stage — those likely to be picked up by a television camera — were obscured.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, accused the university of “cowardice” for acceding to the White House, and criticized Obama’s team for asking a religious school to “neuter itself” before the president made his address.

“No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him,” he said.

The White House insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech — and said that “any suggestions to the contrary are simply false.”

Uh-huh.  For some reason I’m reminded of Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the Swastika and Eagle were burned off the crate containing the Ark of God. 

Did Obama or his staff really not see this criticism coming?  Are they really that naïve and/or incompetent?

You know what would be newsworthy and admirable?  For a religious institution such as Georgetown or Notre Dame to actually stand up for their faith and their Lord for once rather than denying Christ to please men.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l’il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

“Rules must be binding,” declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. “Violations must be punished.” (Sounds ominous.) “Words must mean something.” (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America’s missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

In other words, European conservatives believe it could have been worse. Considering the ones in power today, and especially considering Barack Obama’s goals beforehand, European commentators point out, the summit can be called a success. Obama wanted European governments to ’stimulate’ their economies just like he did at home, but in the end accepted their refusal to play along. The latter got what they wanted. They were prepared to invest heavily in the IMF and to help ailing economies survive, but they were unwilling to adopt Obama’s plans for their own economies.

European progressives are satisfied that “progressive action” has been taken, but not as progressive as Obama wanted. Conservatives, meanwhile, tell themselves: “thank God Obama and Brown didn’t get their way.”

Amazing what one election hath wrought, no?  France and Germany are now encouraging us to show some restraint.  And oh, by the way, count us in for another trillion in debt as a result of this meeting.  W00t.

Details are still emerging from the private meeting, which is expected to last 20-30 minutes and take place over tea, but a few tidbits have begun to come out. According to Time, the president gave the queen an iPod as a gift; it contained footage of her visit to the United States in 2007.

I wonder if Apple will start displaying the Royal Warrant in Apple stores?

UPDATE:  It just occured to me… could Obama be playing an April Fools joke on us all?  Will the real President please show himself?

UPDATE:  Allahpundit chimes in:

Turns out there was more loaded on there than just 2007 mementos. Tapper shares the somewhat horrifying detail that they added some music for her too, leaving us to wonder what America’s diplomatic brain trust considers appropriate for a royal mix tape. We know what a big fan The One is of that “Yes, We Can” track…

Seriously, none of this merits a firing or three in the protocol office?

One commenter states:

It’s arguably a step up from his first choice of a gift to give to her:  “Guitar Hero III:  Legends of Rock”.

UPDATE (4/2/09):  Sigh…