On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career.Two: But in this 1996 questionnaire, his campaign answered "Yes" (with no equivocations) to a question asking whether Obama would "support state legislation" that would "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." So did his campaign manager not understand her candidate's positions on the issues of "gun control"? Does his current campaign manager understand his positions on "gun control"? Some of the left are already swarming over this questionnaire and controversies about it. Clinton's people are definitely promoting it.
UPDATE: A questionnaire filled out by Obama (or his campaign) in late 2003 during his run for US Senate reveals more about his approach to "gun control" (e.a.):
While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.So does he have an objection to banning handguns in principle? What's "politically practicable" can change with time, after all....
