CS Monitor says public sympathetic to Obama's anti-gun views

According to the Christian Science Monitor, a majority of the public in nine of eleven "community types" favor more government restrictions on the gun availability:

So what are Americans’ attitudes toward gun control when looking through the lens of Patchwork Nation’s 11 community types? It turns out that more people seem to show sympathy for Obama’s views – especially in battleground communities that may be key in November.

In the latest county-by-county data available on the topic, a 2004 Annenberg survey question asked people whether the government should do more, less, or “about the same” when it came to restricting the “kinds of guns people can buy.” The response: A majority of people in nine of the 11 community types wanted more to be done.
...
Still, the fact that most communities – particularly 2008 battlegrounds – favor more restrictions on guns indicates that the candidates may not need to show their gun-culture bona fides.The big question for voters in key places may not be where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, but how and to what extent each wants the government to involve itself in America’s gun laws.

Read the article here. The article cites a 2004 Annenberg county-by-county survey, which classified each county by community type, such as urban city, wealthy suburb, etc. Not surprisingly, the article states that those in "industrial metropolis" communities were most inclined to support more government gun restrictions, while those in "tractor country" were least supportive of gun restrictions. Unfortunately, this isn't exactly a revelation. Tell us something we don't know.

The article states that

The big question for voters in key places may not be where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, but how and to what extent each wants the government to involve itself in America’s gun laws.

To me, this seems to be precisely related to where the candidates stand on the Second Amendment, i.e., whether or not the candidates believe that amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the government from infringing citizens' right to own and carry guns.

Most voters support some "reasonable" restrictions (such as bans on convicted rapists, robbers, and murderers possessing guns), just as they support such restrictions on freedom of speech (the oft-used falsely-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre example), or religion (e.g., no mandated religion classes in public schools). The question, therefore, becomes what restrictions do the candidates think are reasonable, which is generally congruent with the candidates' view of the role of the Second Amendment in restricting government action.

Senator Obama has consistently supported a panoply of restrictions on law-abiding gun owners (you know, the only ones who obey the law). According to the cited link, restrictions Senator Obama supports or supported include a ban on almost all rifle ammunition (including that used for hunting), and a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or park (which would eliminate virtually all gun stores). Senator Obama is on the record as being against law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons for self-defense, despite the fact that 48 states recognize that right in one form or another (notably, Senator Obama's home state of Illinois is one of only two states that do not allow concealed carry in any form by ordinary law-abiding citizens).

Senator Obama, has said recently that the Second Amendment is an "individual right", while supporting Washington, D.C.'s complete and total ban on operable firearms, including in the sanctity of one's home. Senator Obama has indicated he thought D.C.'s gun ban was constitutional. So Senator Obama would have Americans believe that the right to own a gun is an individual right, but that the government can completely ban exercise of that right. That's like saying that you have a individual right to free speech, but that the government can ban all books, keyboards, and writing instruments.

When the Supreme Court was considering the challenge to the D.C. gun ban, Senator Obama refused to sign on to a friend-of-the-court brief, signed by a majority of both houses of Congress, urging the Court to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and to strike down D.C.'s complete ban. And when the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment was an individual right and struck down the D.C. gun ban, Senator Obama did not exactly praise the Court's ruling as a victory for freedom and individual rights. Instead, he rather grudgingly acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and focused almost entirely on the Court's discussion (in non-binding dicta) of restrictions that might survive constitutional scrutiny, and on additional gun-control restrictions that he would seek to impose on the American people. All in the name of "common-sense", "reasonable" restrictions, of course.

In constrast, Senator McCain signed the Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief. And when the Supreme Court handed down its Heller decision, holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and striking down the D.C. gun ban, Senator McCain was effusive in his praise, referring to the Second Amendment as a "fundamental right", and "sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."