Senator Obama's position on the second amendment, like all of his other crucial policy positions, has been subject to change (there's that word again). But then he is a politician, so inconsistency and lack of core belief is to be expected.
On 26 June, before the Heller ruling was released, Obama was asked to define his position on the second amendment. Specifically, whether or not he believed it to be an individual or a collective right. Obama deferred defining his position until after the ruling, but added the comment that he has always been in favor of what he termed "common sense gun laws" that keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. Well, everyone is in favor of "common sense." But he is forgetting that such "common sense" gun laws already exist. It is illegal for criminals to posses firearms. It is illegal, except under certain circumstances - i.e. hunting or at a firing range, and always with an adult - for children to "posses" firearms. Let us not forget that mere possession of an operable unloaded long gun has been illegal in D.C. for more than 30 years.
Why, then, is Washington, D.C. the murder capital of the United States? "Common sense gun laws" have obviously not prevented this fact. Only criminals have possessed guns in the District under "common sense gun laws." Even an otherwise law-abiding person (such as Heller) has been considered a criminal, subject to draconian persecution and prosecution, should he have the audacity to protect himself from the rampant crime in D.C.
I am amused by the statement of a leftist pundit concerning the Heller ruling: "Policy has been trumped by the constitution." Horrors! Why should we be bound by some faded old dusty piece of parchment signed into law by racist white slave-owning men!
The second amendment is correctly interpreted as an individual right. If we could speak with the founders about the Heller decision, the would unanimously exclaim: "It took a Supreme Court ruling to figure this out for you?"