Please cite his record on federal firearms policy. Note that advocating a local or even statewide ban does not mean that one believes the federal government has the power to do the same.
:rolleyes: Yeah, right. He’s going to so much different if he’s elected President.
Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
Good enough? I have more, if you’re not satisfied.
ExTank has a good start on this, but I also have to ask - the Obama campaign wants us to take the totality of his experience into account when we consider him as a candidate, right? And that would presumably include his record as a community organizer and state legislator, you would agree?
I think this is the right way to go - but it also means we have to account for his views and voting record on guns during that period, and evaluate that.
**If I might insert a factual question into Great Debates . . . **
How effective has the handgun ban been in reducing gun violence in DC?
(I realize there’s no way to know exactly how much reduction is due to the ban, but I’d settle for a general idea.)
And, a less-factual followup question: What legislation or other measures could be used to achieve this same reduction in violence without going against the Supreme Court’s ruling.
It would be almost impossible to determine, but gun violence is certainly not unheard of in the District. I take it back, gun violence is probably more prevalent in the District than in the gun friendly suburbs of Virginia.
Well hard data seems to be hard to come by. There’s a homicide graph on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
DC banned handguns in 1975, the graph starts in 1986 with climbing homicide rates until 1992, when the rates started falling and have leveled off or even increased in the early 2000’s.
In looking over the law in question, I see nothing in there about allowing reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. Maybe if you toned down the demagoguery people would take you more seriously.
This is the same old tired questionnaire from 10 years ago. It has been discussed to death in other threads.
Hmm. The ammunition banned in this amendment is:
Explain how this affects me, an avid sport shooter please. I can’t imagine how it could possibly do so.
No.
Are they as stupid as these three?
I know a guy from Virginia that attended a college class in DC, he said there was gunfire all night long.
Wow, my longest college classes only lasted from 7:00 to 9:40 p.m.
The law in question was intended to prevent people from suing gun manufacturers because guns were used in a crime. This law limited them to strict product liability, e.g. if the gun blew up because of shoddy workmanship.
The questionnaire notwithstanding, Obama has asserted that he wants the AWB reinstated. It remains to be seen whether he’ll attempt to if he is elected. I don’t think that he will, he has more important fish to fry and he doesn’t have the votes.
With the exception of smaller caliber rifle ammunition, all are capable of penetrating the type of armor most commonly used by police officers (and most military, for that matter). See here for a demonstration.
The bottom line is that such ammunition by the writing of that law would be deemed illegal, thus the legislation is rightfully opposed.
I wouldn’t characterize any of them as “stupid”.
Heh, ok. Obviously he stayed on campus, in a dorm.
Were there any final judgments against gun manufacturers for liability for the use of their products in crime? I would imagine the tort system (as I learned it) would be pretty good at dealing with such cases. As a pro-gun rights person, I would have voted against such special interest legislation to give a particular industry a pass from coverage by the law that applies to other manufacturers.
We did this a while back. Please forgive the rhetoric, I’ve toned it down quite a bit since then.
Does there have to be final judgements? Isn’t it enough that manufacturers that obeyed every single federal and state law WRT to firearms had to shell out millions in frivolous lawsuits because someone somewhere used one of their products in a crime?
Do any of the auto manufacturers ever get sued by the victims of drunk drivers?
The lawsuits against firearms manufacturers had one of two goals in mind: bankrupt the manufacturers out-of business, or drive the price of firearms through the roof so that hardly anyone (except “the right people,” of course) could afford them.
I remember that thread. I don’t remember there being any final judgments of liability against gun manufacturers, though. Personally I would rather see (for example) Rule 11 used more heavily against “frivolous” law suits than federal government legislation designed to exempt a particular industry from coverage by state law.
My point was that it is perfectly possible to be, like myslef, in favor of individual gun rights, but not in favor of exempting gun manufacturers from tort liability.
Two of them were from the U.S. Senate’s website.
I would have a hard time digging up anything else that is even 2/3 as stupid as the U.S. Senate.
Huh? Who are the “right people” alluded to, here? Rich liberal elites? Rich conservative elites? Hippies? Vivisectionists?
Entertainers and politicians.
“As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”
Barack Obama, 26 June, 2008