Biden meets with gun safety advocates

Updated 2:10 pm E.T.

Vice President Joe Biden kicked off a series of meetings relating to gun violence today to advance the Obama administration's effort to clamp down on gun violence.

"We're here today to deal with a problem that requires immediate action," Biden said. "And the president and I are determined to take action."

Play Video

Biden: Newtown awakened "the conscience of the entire nation"

Biden is holding two meetings, the first with gun safety advocates, including the Brady Campaign and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He is also meeting with victims and survivors of gun violence, including those impacted by the Virginia Tech Shooting and the Aurora shooting.

Thursday he will meet with gun sports advocates and proponents of less gun regulation, including the National Rifle Association. The NRA has been a thorn in gun control advocates' sides as their power and wealth has prohibited serious discussion on gun legislation.

"We are sending a representative to hear what they have to say," Andrew Arulanandam, NRA spokesperson, told CBS News Tuesday.

"Every once in a while there's something that awakens the conscience of the country, and that tragic event did it in a way like nothing I've seen in my career," Biden said with Attorney General Eric Holder sitting next to him.

President Obama called for the gun violence task force just days after the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and 7 adults were killed by one gunman.

Play Video

Gun control group seeks "middle ground"

The president indicated that he wants the task force to submit recommendations by the end of January. He also wants Congress to reestablish the ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004; limit the size of magazines; and expand background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed sellers to sidestep checks. The task force is also expected to look at broader efforts that might include a national database of gun owners and proposals that can be implemented without congressional approval.

After the task force meeting, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, said there seems to be consensus among a diverse group of organizations in support of background checks for gun purchasers. He noted that only 40 percent of gun owners have received background checks.

Gross attempted to ease fears of gun advocates that the current debate is not about the Second Amendment or taking away guns from legal gun owners. He said the meetings and the task force is about "staking out that middle ground that so clearly exists."

[hillzagain]

raymailhot replies:
Register guns so the government can do what?

Today people need to protect themselves from all the same things they did with flintlocks, so what is your point?

Why do the top politicians in DC (President Obama included) send their children to schools that are protected with gun toting security? The rest of America is to send their children to unprotected schools?
____________________________________

The point being made, and to which I was responding, was a hypothetical scenario where some gun law or other made it a felony for someone to just give or sell a gun to a family member. My assumption was there was some type of paperwork they had to fill out that recorded the transaction.

Maybe it was just beyond your grasp. I'll type slowly: If the person had filled out the proper paperwork for this hypothetical transaction under this hypothetical gun control law, they wouldn't have been committing a felony. Is that better?

[hillzagain]

Read the post QA, just read the post FCOL

[hillzagain]

Also, the 2nd Amendment is not a blanket right that bars the government or SCOTUS from applying any restrictions whatsoever. If the Government or SCOTUS deem a restrictions not to deprive a citizen of their 2nd Amendment right but does protect the general welfare, then you can count on the restriction sticking, like having to fill out some kind of "paperwork". It's called protecting the general welfare.

If you elect not to purchase a gun because you are too lazy to fill out some paperwork, then maybe you are too lazy to care for a gun properly?

[mjvwsr]

So far all I've heard is how they are going to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens; not a word on how they're going to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

[hillzagain]

+1

[hillzagain]

smehgol says:
Proposed elimination of the "gun show loophole" is frequently published as being objectionable only to diehards that regularly attend gun shows. Actually it is an intentionally misleading phrase to describe legislation that would make a felony of the simple giving or selling of even a single shot .22 caliber rifle to a family member, friend or neighbor. Many would object if they understood.
________________________________
Your scenario fails to point out that the felony would not be committed if the family member who received the gun under your hypothetical situation had registered it properly as being in their possession.

It comes to mind that, if they don't want to take the time and care to fill out paperwork and properly take possession of the firearm, then most likely they aren't going to take the time and care to store it or handle it properly. So maybe they don't need it. See how that works?

We are a nation of 310 million people. I doubt that the founders, which your side seems so fond of quoting, would agree that there is no danger in allowing guns to float around willy nilly across the countryside.

Or else they would not have constructed the Constitution (and the Freedoms listed therein) so that it could be modified as time passed and the world evolved to provide a safer environment for the public good. People aren't walking around with flintlocks anymore, in case you hadn't noticed.

[stormerF69]

The Brady Bunch are a group of nitwits,there is no middle ground, either your a subject or a citizen with rights to defend yourself from criminals or a Tyrannical Government.

[pamom2002]

Well, now that I know Joe Biden is on the case I can rest easier at night.

[mtonepa]

two things

The so called gunshow loophole is a farce. This is a made up thing, there is no loophole for gunshows. all vendors have to do background checks and private sellers can sell any where, any time according to all laws, it has nothing to do with gunshows. More media and bloomberg scare tactic.

An executive order is not a law.

[naturalcuriosity]

To clarify your statement, the vendors are required to do background checks, but private sellers are not.

The problem is that private sellers (non-vendors) are now major players in gun shows. Therefore, there are many guns to be had without background checks.

fact: Only licensed gun dealers, also known as federal firearms licensees (FFLs), are required to conduct checks and keep paperwork on buyers. Because private sellers - individuals who are not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms but who make "occasional sales" from private collections - are presumed to be hobbyists, they have no obligation to conduct checks.

[stormerF69]

Natural curiosity,there have always been guns for sale on the street,why do you think a druggy steals guns,to sell them for money for drugs. Just make a law that allows states to kill all drug dealers and cut off the left hand of drug users and the crime rate will drop to almost zero,after a year or so.

[hillzagain]

Nobodyhasthisname replies:
So many of our law enforcement are brainwashed into thinking they make their own laws when they feel it's in their best interest. We need to re establish the United States Constitution as the highest law of the land and hold states and county governments responsible for their actions against that.
_____________________________
FYI, the constitution IS the highest law of the land.

We have certain freedoms, like speech, public assembly and bearing arms. Those freedoms are not blanket freedoms. They have limitations, generally these limitations are applied for the public good. That's why restrictions on the type of arms one may possess and the hoops one must jump through to lawfully possess them are constitutional.

Also FYI, in order for each of the States to become part of the Union, they had to ratify the Constitution, agreeing to the Constitution AS WRITTEN AND INTENDED. So no State laws can supercede or contravene the constitution.

[hillzagain]

A third option would be that you just weren't very good at making your point. Your point of "reestablish the Constitution as the highest law of the land" means that you think it is not the highest law of the land currently, but it once was and needs to get back there. I was simply informing you that the Constitution never lost its status as "highest law of the land".

BTW, were you also aware that certain areas of law remain sovereign to the states and the Constitution has no jurisdiction? Maybe you weren't.

[Ike-K]

"that tragic event did it in a way like nothing I've seen in my career," Biden said with Attorney General Eric Holder sitting next to him.....

Oh, wait, you mean he wasn't talking about "Fast and Furious" where ATF allowed and facilitated the sale of thousands of "assault weapons" to be delivered to drug cartels in Mexico. You know, the so-called 'sting' that resulted in the deaths of HUNDREDS of Mexican Nationals - including Fourteen young men and women killed with 12 more wounded at a birthday party in Juarez in 2010, and 18 young men at a Juarez rehab center in September 2009. Where's the outrage about that? But those were only Mexicans, weren't they?

[conrad_gudgel]

On Friday, December 14, 2012 - the very same day that Adam Lanza opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut twenty-two primary school children were wounded in a knife attack at the entrance to the Chenpeng Village Primary School in Henan province. The suspect is a 36-year-old man from the village. Initial assessments suggest the man is mentally ill... just like it appears that Adam Lanza was suffering from some type of mental illness long before he entered the national spotlight.

Is there therefore a hue and cry to outlaw knives - similar to the current outcry to outlaw so-called assault weapons? No, there is not. And no reasonable person would suggest such a ban.

If someone who is mentally impaired; or is suffering from excessive consumption of alcohol; or is high on drugs; if someone gets in an automobile and creates a fatal 'accident', is there an outcry to outlaw automobiles? No, there is not. And no reasonable person would suggest such a ban.

In both of these circumstances, there is a complete lack of public outcry - even when the drunk driver is a repeat offender. Where is the media hype calling for the long-term incarceration of repeated DUI offences? Where is the media hype calling for laws allowing the long-term hospitalization and treatment of mentally disturbed individuals? Where are the laws that are supposed to protect us from this outrage?

Why do the media immediately demonize the tool that the mentally ill person is using to create havoc? Why are firearms treated differently from knives... or automobiles... or bows and arrows... or baseball bats... or rocks... or fists? Why do we focus on the tool that is being used rather than looking at the user of the tool? Where is individual responsibility? And in the case of mental impairment or disability, where is the responsibility of our society?

If outlawing something is supposed to be so effective, how is it that Heroin, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, LSD, Ecstasy, Opium, Psilocybin Mushrooms, and PCP are still readily available on the street and in our schools? Yes, those drugs are readily available in practically every high school, middle school, and even most elementary schools in our beleaguered nation. And that list doesn't include all the readily available prescription drugs that are widely used for 'recreational' purposes - like Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Diazepam, Dexedrine, and many others. But we'd rather not admit that there's a problem. And how is it that we've started the process of removing the prohibition of Marijuana in Washington and Colorado when the Federal government still considers this a controlled and illegal substance?

Only when the 'war on drugs' has eliminated the scourge of readily available 'recreational drugs' from our schools and the drug cartels are a thing of the past will any reasonable person be convinced that outlawing so called assault weapons will really take them away from anyone, especially the criminals who enter banks; convenience stores; and even homes to obtain cash or goods... probably so they can obtain more drugs.

Outlawing so called assault weapons is like giving someone with a serious disease aspirin - so they might feel better. It's not a cure, and it can easily make the real problem more severe. Let's treat the real cause of the disease in our society and stop trying to sell snake oil... leaving the law-abiding citizens even more at the mercy of the nefarious criminals.

But that would take intelligently addressing the issues facing our society... and apparently even congress doesn't have the mental and intestinal fortitude to step up to the plate and admit that there's a real problem that we need to address. And what about the media? The media outlets are apparently too busy stirring up the hornets' nest and creating more hype so they can get more market share and sell more advertising to make more money. They apparently can't be bothered by the real issues. That would take too much time and be too involved for a fifteen second sound bite.

I guess the American people get the government and the media that they deserve - and until people get involved and inform themselves about the complex underlying issues that are creating tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary School, we will continue to look for scapegoats and easy answers. It's too bad that that kind of response will never address the real issues or solve the real problems. This is probably why we find ourselves in the situation we are in.

But that's just my opinion.

[Tank_Commander]

Sounds great to me. So long as it's televised on C-SPAN.