On the recordJuly 29, 2005
I have already registered my disappointment at the majority leader's decision to cease work on an important defense authorization bill in order to move to the bill before us, S. 397. Today, I would like to speak about S. 397, the gun liability bill, and some of the amendments relating to firearms that have been offered to it. Listening to the debate on this bill, the American people might get the impression that there are just two sides to this issue. On one side are those who view the right to bear arms as absolute and oppose any proposals that could remotely be considered as restrictions on that right. On the other side are those who view gun use as an evil in our society that must be limited in any way possible. Sometimes the rhetoric gets turned up so high that reasoned analysis and debate is obscured. That is unfortunate. I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of ``you're with us, or you're against us.'' Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the second amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes--for hunting and sport and for self-protection.…
Source
govinfo.gov




