Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

The F&S Gun Rights Interviews: Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States

Less than a year ago, it seemed as though only the most vehemently anti-gun politicians wanted to go near the issue of gun control. Polls persistently showed that by a wide margin, most Americans didn’t support new gun control measures. In the national media there were a few articles that declared the gun control debate over. How quickly things can change.

As we all know, the horrific mass murder of school children at Sandy Hook Elementary school, just one of a string of high-profile mass shootings, has brought the issue of second amendment rights and gun control to the forefront of the current political debate, in Washington and in the media.

It’s a serious issue that deserves serious discussion, but it seems that the concerns of hunters and recreational shooters are not being addressed in most media coverage.

That’s why Field & Stream is launching this series of interviews on the topic. In the coming weeks, we’ll be talking about gun rights with some of the leaders in the sportsmen’s community--heads of conservation and sportsmen’s rights groups, executives from firearm companies, politicians, industry leaders and representatives. Next we’ll be running an interview with one of the most prominent voices when it comes to defending second amendment rights: Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and CEO of the National Rifle Association.

We’re kicking this off with an interview with Vice President Biden, the Administration’s point man on their gun control proposals, and the most visible and vocal official pushing for them.

The Vice President understands the size and political power of the sportsmen’s community, and that is why his office approached us with a specific request: they wanted to answer questions directly from Field & Stream readers. So we put out a call, and in five days we had over 1,000 questions--the vast majority of them smart, thoughtful, and tough.

So armed with reader questions, I sat down with the Vice President in his White House office. It’s important to note that I had only a half an hour, not a lot of time for so many great questions and such an important and complicated topic. While there were a number of places where I would have liked to go deeper, I wanted to be sure I touched on all on the topics that came up again and again from readers: the Second Amendment, bans on AR-style rifles, magazine capacity limits, universal background checks and gun registry, gun control and crime, and mental health. I asked specific questions from individual readers, and I followed up with questions of my own as the discussion allowed.

Another important thing to note: this is an interview, not a debate. I was not there to argue with the Vice President about what I, or sportsmen, think about this issue. I was there to ask the tough questions that would make him explain the administration’s proposals and positions. Frankly, these questions are not being asked in much of the media. Whether it's ignorance of the issues or an outright hostility for firearms, time and time again critical points are glossed over or completely ignored in much of coverage of the issue. Sportsmen are too passionate and too knowledgeable on the subject to let that happen.

One thing we know at Field & Stream is to never underestimate the smarts and the power of the American sportsmen. We think this interview is a perfect demonstration of that, and the more that we, as a group, can make our voices heard and to talk directly to the people in power who are driving policy that directly affects us—from guns to conservation—the better we can stand up for what we believe in.

 

Exclusive Interview: Vice President Joe Biden

by Anthony Licata

Topic: THE SECOND AMENDMENT

FIELD & STREAM:
Let’s start with a baseline understanding for the discussion about the Second Amendment. And this question is from Dan Beltran, who is a chief warrant officer with the U.S. Army, and he’s an Apache helicopter fighter pilot.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Tell him, thank him for his service.

F&S: His question to you is “What do you think is the meaning of the Second Amendment? Do you think it is to allow citizens to be armed only to protect themselves from criminals, or was it written to allow the citizenry to offer defense against foreign invaders or oppressive, tyrannical government?”

V.P. BIDEN: It was written primarily for self-defense. The argument about whether or not it was, you know, that famous phrase of Jefferson’s, “The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,” which is often used by people who are super-enthusiasts—the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.

F&S: Do you think it’s an individual right?

V.P. BIDEN: It is an individual right, but it is also clear constitutionally that the government can limit the type of weapon you can own. For example, if the idea was to be able to repel a tyrannical government, then you should be able to own an F-15 if you have the money to buy it, with full ordnance. But you’re not allowed to do that, and the court says you can deny certain weapons available for individual ownership. You can’t have a nuclear bomb. So it is an individual right. You have a right for self-defense against any intruder or any illegal activity being perpetrated on you, and for your physical self-defense.

PROPOSED BANS OF AR-STYLE RIFLES

F&S:
We had a lot of questions from readers about how these proposals from the administration fit within that definition you described. We had several readers point out that in the 2010 Heller decision, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and carry firearms that are the sorts of weapons that are in common usage at the time. Weapons that are not highly unusual in society or dangerous and unusual weapons, that are used for traditionally lawful purposes.

V.P. BIDEN: Yeah.

F&S: So we have a question from Christopher Snyder from Tucson, Ariz., who says, “How does the administration plan to address the fact that over 4 million AR-15-style rifles have been legally sold and purchased, and are routinely used by sportsmen, hunters, and others for everyday legal activity? Can you explain the administration’s legal rationale for believing that these semiautomatic rifles can be regulated through Congress and now through an amendment to the Constitution?”

V.P. BIDEN: The answer is that there is a clear argument within the definition of the Supreme Court laid out that that particular weapon is not a usual weapon in the sense that you need it for your self-protection or for hunting purposes. If you have to go up into the Poconos and go bear hunting or deer hunting with that weapon, and you need a clip that has 30 rounds in it, then you shouldn’t be hunting. You’re a danger to yourself. If you can’t get the bear or the deer in four or five shots, you’ve got a problem.

F&S:
What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?

V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.

F&S: Many of our readers asked a question that gets to the heart of what you’re saying here. What’s the difference between, say, a semiautomatic hunting rifle that has traditional looks and characteristics and one that is an AR and labeled an assault rifle? One of the criticisms has been that it’s really only about cosmetic features—pistol grips, rails, barrel shrouds. How do those features make a rifle any more deadly or dangerous than a semiautomatic rifle that has a—

V.P. BIDEN: The thing that makes it the deadliest are the size of the round and how many rounds you have in a magazine. And the cops are coming to us and saying, “We’re being outgunned. We’re being outgunned.” And so there’s always a balancing test, whether it’s the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, an individual right to use the weapon, is whether or not that weapon—if it had a magazine with only 10 shells in it as opposed to 30 or more, does that make a difference?

Does it make a difference in terms of the public safety of the, in this case, police officers who are being outgunned for someone to be able to have a weapon that has a much longer range and greater lethality with, you know, 10, 20, 30 or 40 rounds?

And so the question is, is that necessary for you to protect yourself? How many legitimate hunters go out and hunt like that?

F&S: It’s a very popular rifle, and it’s popular for varmints and smaller game, and actually, the round is actually not as effective or powerful as many more traditional big-game rounds.

V.P. BIDEN: Well, I think that’s true. In fact, I know that’s true, having fired the assault weapons or however you want to characterize semiautomatic rifles. But the answer is that basically police say, “We’re being outgunned,” and the limitation on the individual right to bear arms, hunt, protect yourself, et cetera, is not infringed upon to any degree, and it’s offset by the public need for that to be eliminated as a weapon being able to be used against, in this case, police officers.

F&S: Well, this brings up a common question that we got from a lot of readers, and I’ll use the reader Mike Hooker who asked this: “AR-style rifles, or what are being called assault rifles, are in fact used for many legitimate purposes. What is the reason for banning these popular rifles when, according to the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report, they are used in fewer than 1 percent of all firearm-related criminal homicides?”

V.P. BIDEN: Because there are so many out there, and police don’t want more out there, because they’re being outgunned. That’s the reason why.

F&S: According to the statistics, more handguns are used in crimes.

V.P. BIDEN: Well, by the way, that’s true. That’s absolutely true. That’s why we want to limit the clips, the size of the magazine on handguns.

MAGAZINE RESTRICTIONS

F&S: Let’s talk about that, the magazine capacity, because that was another common question. And I guess this one can sum up a lot of the way our readers are thinking about it, and this is from David Grant from Windsor, Colo. He says, “Considering that with only minimal training, a magazine in a semiautomatic handgun or rifle can be replaced in about three seconds, what is the purpose served by limiting the magazines to 10 rounds or less?”

V.P. BIDEN: Well, let me give David a concrete example. If in fact the only thing available was 10 rounds in the AR-15 used by the guy who butchered those children up in Sandy Hook, he would have had to change that magazine three more times. And in that time frame, the police would have been there sooner, saving the lives of one or two or three children who got shot.

And by the way, it’s only when, in changing the magazine, that we understand so far, that he jammed, that he had a problem. And he faced the police, and he chose instead, rather than be able to continue to take them out, just to shoot himself. He blew his own brains out.

You talk to Gabby Gifford, what happened was that although [the shooter used] a larger magazine, had he not fumbled in changing the magazine, if he’d had an even larger magazine, he wouldn’t have to change it. If he didn’t fumble in changing the magazine, they’d all be dead. A woman leaned out, grabbed his arm. That’s what got them to knock him down. That’s what happened.

It is true that somebody who knows—you can have a Secret Service agent, it’s about a second and three quarters to change that magazine. If you’re like me, only having occasionally fired one, it’s going to take me three, and maybe if I’m in a panic mode, take me a hell of a lot longer to change the magazine. So it’s time.

And even if we could have only saved, you know, two children up there, is that worth it for what is? And I ask the reverse question. Why do you need a magazine with 30 shells or 30 bullets in it as opposed to 10 bullets to protect yourself?

LAWS PREVENTING CRIMINAL USE

F&S: You touched on this subject, so I’m going to go right to reader James Taufmann, who is from Aurora, Colo., and pointed out he had a mass shooting in his town, as we all know. And he asked, “If the proposed changes that you’re advocating—banning AR-style rifles, limiting magazines to 10 rounds, tightening background checks, improving mental health services—if all that had been in effect a year prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, do you think those new laws would have prevented the massacre?”

V.P. BIDEN:
No, but it would have saved lives, even if it was only one. We can’t say how many we’d save. Would it have saved one? Would it have saved three? Would it have saved 10? I don’t know. But it would have saved lives.

And when you’re talking about the relationship between saving some beautiful 6-year-old’s life, even if it’s only one, versus the ability of someone to have 30 rounds versus 10, how does that affect their right to either hunt or their right to protect themselves?

BACKGROUND CHECKS

F&S: Well, I have a question here that touches on that issue a little bit. A lot of our readers, frankly, are concerned that any new regulations are only going to impact law-abiding gun owners and not criminals who are going to break laws. And so let me read you this question from Mike Boville from Chicago, Ill. “I’m a hunter and gun owner who lives in Chicago, which has among the most restrictive gun laws in the country. For me to legally own firearms is an expensive and time-consuming process, yet gun crimes are among the highest in the nation, and this January was the deadliest month in a decade. Based on the volume of gun violence that takes place in Chicago, where an assault weapon ban is already in place, multiple state background checks and permits are required, and the limit on magazine capacity already exists, how can you justify applying these same policies to the rest of the U.S. when they’re failing here?”

V.P. BIDEN:
Well, look, here’s the deal. Let’s make it clear that…the President doesn’t think that merely dealing with limits on the number of bullets in a magazine or limiting assault weapons—eliminating, quote, what is being characterized by the Feinstein amendment as an assault weapon—or the background checks does everything. We’ve also proposed a federal gun trafficking statute. We have proposed the ability for a background check to increase the field that would be disqualified, including people potentially with certain additional mental illnesses, people who are fugitives who have not crossed state lines, but they are fugitives. And also by making sure that the background check system, every record that legally prohibits someone from being able to own a gun under the law, and constitutionally, legally prohibits, is in the NICS system.

And right now there are probably several million of those people who aren’t in the NICS system for multiple reasons. And the reasons relate to states that have not either had the physical wherewithal on their mind, the money to transfer them, they haven’t had the computer systems that are able to collate them all. And so that’s why we are proposing that we give incentives to states to be able to make sure all those records, all those records go into a single record.

But most of it is, most of the guns found at a crime scene are guns that have been stolen or missing. That’s why we think there should be a requirement to report a stolen weapon immediately, or within a certain time period, or a lost weapon, a requirement to report it. And so there’s no one answer. We also believe we should be looking into—which we are—we should have more studies on the impact of violent videos, the impact of violence, exposure to our children to violent films on their behavior. There’s no hard study yet, so we’re calling for that.

Thirdly, we think that it’s important that we be able to gather information on gun safety to be able to do legitimate studies. And so, for example, the idea that the Centers for Disease Control can’t keep data on guns, it’s a little bit like it used to be [when] automobile manufacturers argued that the National Highway Safety Council back in the late ’60s and early ’70s couldn’t keep records on fatalities or injuries. Then we found out, once they started to keep them, that 90 percent of the people, or whatever the exact number was, who were killed behind the steering wheel were impaled on the steering column. So guess what. There’s an answer. Spend more money and build a steering column that is more collapsible.

They found out that people weren’t getting killed by being thrown through a windshield on the passenger side, they were being killed by getting fractured skulls on the crossbar. So that’s why a seat harness, and they didn’t want to do that. That cost more money. But now we have the safest automobiles we’ve had in our history and fewer fatalities per capita than we did before.

F&S: I’d like to ask about the proposed universal background checks. That’s something else that a lot of readers were concerned about. Here’s a question from William Myers of Fairmont, W.Va., that summarizes a lot of the questions we got. “What provisions to a universal background check system would prohibit that check from being used to create a universal firearms owners list—in fact, a registry?”

V.P. BIDEN:
Because it’s that way now. The system that exists right now is not able to be used for that purpose. There’s no mechanism to use it for that purpose. For example, when you purchase a gun, the serial number of that gun doesn’t go down to the NICS. So it is prohibited now to be used for that purpose. And there is no evidence in the time it’s been in place that it has been used for that purpose at all. And so expanding the number of people who would be disqualified would in no way suggest that that would lead to a national registry.

F&S:
I don’t think the question is about expanding the number of people who would be disqualified. It’s more a question of how to implement background checks on sales between individuals.

V.P. BIDEN: Oh, I got it. I got it. The exact same way. It would be the exact same way. So, you know, it would cost a few bucks, but what happens is a sale between individuals, what you do is you go down to a licensed gun dealer. I’m going to sell you the gun, or you’re going to sell me. So, “I want to sell my 12-gauge to Biden.”

O.K., we’re going to run a check on Biden, just like if I was purchasing from that store. The only cost you would incur would be the cost to—that it costs the licensed gun dealer to run the check. And so it’s inconvenient.

But guess what. Ask it another way. Why should we believe that you know if…you’re selling to someone [who] is not a felon? How do know you’re not selling to someone who’s been adjudicated mentally incompetent to own a weapon? I mean, that’s the reason. It’s an inconvenience. It’s an inconvenience to stop for street lights. But it’s for the public’s safety.

F&S: One of the questions we had is, how would this law be enforceable? Would it be one of those laws that is widely ignored? How are we going to enforce if I want to sell it to you in my house, to my neighbor? I’m breaking the law, if that is the law, but I really—

V.P. BIDEN: You know, it is hard to do. But let’s assume that that gun ended up at a crime scene. What you can do now is that serial number goes back to—right now you can go to the manufacturer, the manufacturer tells you, traces it, what dealer did he sell it to? The dealer goes through because there is this background check and says, “Well, I sold it to so-and-so, and he sold it to you.”

And I come to you and say, “Did you leave that gun at the scene of the crime?” “Hell, no. I sold it to Charlie Shmedlap.” “You did? Well, then, you violated the law. You didn’t get a background check. You’re required to do that. Or maybe you did it.”

F&S: Well, I think that’s where the concern comes from.

V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now.

F&S: About the universal list of gun owners.

V.P. BIDEN: But guess what. It’s there now. That’s the law right now. What’s the difference between you selling a gun and a gun dealer selling a gun if the whole purpose is—and everyone agrees, and even the NRA used to agree—that we should keep guns out of the hands of people who are criminals, convicted felons, people who are a flight risk. Why did we all agree before that’s a good thing, to not have bad guys be able to buy guns, even though they can go get them somewhere else? They can get them on the black market.

F&S: Well the concern more is that ability to do what you just described, basically track. So if for instance—

V.P. BIDEN:
Well, it exists now. Just so you know—

F&S: But in the NICS system, you said, it’s illegal, and you can’t—

V.P. BIDEN: No, the NICS system is different. This is complicated, so make sure I’ve got this right. In the NICS system, all that comes up is you’re disqualified. It doesn’t say why. It doesn’t say you’re disqualified from purchasing because you have been adjudicated in a court of law that you are mentally not competent to own a weapon. It doesn’t say you’re denied the ability to own a gun because you’re a convicted felon. It doesn’t say because you are a fugitive from justice. It just says you’re denied. And it doesn’t list what type of weapon you tried to buy. And if you are cleared, it doesn’t list what weapon you buy.

But here’s what happens. The gun dealer is required to keep a record to say that “I sold this Beretta 12-gauge to John Doe. And the serial number of the weapon I sold him is 12345796.” And that goes in and has to be kept for 20 years by the guy who sold the weapon. It has to be kept in a file.

So what happens now is, they’re trying to solve a murder, trying to solve a crime. The gun is found. They look at the serial number. They can then trace that to the manufacturer. The manufacturer [is] required to keep a record [of] which gun dealer they sold that to. You then go to the gun dealer—if the police want to do all this work—go to the gun dealer and go through the paper list, find the number—it was sold to John Doe. O.K., that’s the last time it was sold.

They go to John Doe. “John Doe, you’re under arrest. Your gun was found at the scene.” “No, I didn’t—not me. I didn’t do that.” “Well, how did your gun get there? You didn’t report it lost. You didn’t report it stolen. So what did you do?” “Well, I sold it.” “Who’d you sell it to?” “I don’t know who I sold it to.” Huh. You can’t do that anymore, if we win, if this—if we change the universal—you’d be just like the gun dealer.

And you say, “I sold it to Charlie Shmedlap.” “Well, did you get a check? Did you check on Charlie?” There’s no record you checked on Charlie, because they can check whether you checked on Charlie.

And if it’s estimated 40 percent of all gun sales are sold other than through a licensed dealer in a physical facility they’re in, then if it—let me put it another way. If it makes sense at all to keep guns out of the hands of felons, doesn’t it make sense to keep guns out of the hands of all felons if you’re able to do that without a serious disruption of anybody’s life except a felon? And my answer to that is, absolutely it does.

SCHOOL SAFETY

F&S: A lot of people have talked about the proposal of having armed police officers in schools. Why isn’t this a bigger part of the administration’s proposals?

V.P. BIDEN: Well, it is. Look, I’m the guy that wrote the crime bill, the so-called Biden Crime—put 100,000 cops on the street, and it included what they call school resource officers before the Republicans cut back on the crime bill and cut out the new cops. And what was designed was sworn officers—not rent-a-cops, not the local janitor, not the principal or the teacher. If you have someone who is a sworn officer in a school, what we found out was, it was the same way community policing worked.

So what happened was that, just like community policing, the reason crime went down, all crime, is because if you get to know the cop on your block, you’re more inclined to say, “Hey, Charlie, I’ve got to talk to you. You know, there’s a drug dealer that’s been going down outside my house here for the last five days.” But you know, if you don’t know the cop, we know from experience, people are afraid to pick up the phone and say, “I’m Mary Smith. There’s a drug dealer going outside my house.”

What we found out with school resource officers is when they were in the hallway, they were in the gym, they were hanging around, kids getting to know them. So kids are much more comfortable walking up to the cop and saying, “Hey, John, I didn’t want to say anything, but—don’t rat me out here, but in locker No. 17, when I opened my locker I saw the butt of a gun hanging out of the locker.” Or, “There’s going to be a drug deal going down in the gym,” or whatever. It worked. It made sense.

Now, if you had an armed police officer, or an unarmed police officer, in a school, would that help prevent the thing that happened in Sandy Hook, or wherever else? You know, actually, they have armed police down on the campus of Virginia Tech. Would that have helped [at Sandy Hook]? Theoretically it could help.

What we’re proposing is 1,000 new school resource officers to show best practices that we help. Just like in the COPS bill, where if a community applies, if a mayor or governor applies for more cops and they meet the need, the federal government will come up with X percent of the cost of that salary for the cop for the next five years. The same way, it would work the same way.

We’ve talked to hundreds and hundreds of these principals and teachers and school boards and some, they say, “Look, we would rather have a school resource officer that was a psychologist on our staff to be able to find these kids earlier and be able to get them mental help. We’d rather have a counselor on our staff. We think that would have more impact on behavior.”

So what we’re proposing is you’d be able to apply for the COPS grants for these thousand school resource officers, and if you conclude you want to use it for the purpose of hiring a school psychologist, you could use that money toward a school psychologist.

And the other thing we’ve done is, we’re proposing that we put together what the federal government can do well, and that is go out and take a look at all the plans, emergency plans, school districts across the country have and come up with the best practices. We’re getting calls in the Justice Department and the Education Department: “I don’t have a plan. What should my plan be?” And so we can be helpful there.

The third thing that we’re proposing to do for school safety is train, just as we do in first aid, train school personnel to identify redline behavior. There are certain things that pop up that are really red flags that a child has a serious emotional problem, a serious problem.

That teacher could then either contact the parent or contact the school psychologist and try to get some help for that kid so you don’t end up with these young people—who are a rarity, but when they occur, it’s a tragedy—who act out in ways with extreme violence, mass killings and the like.

MENTAL HEALTH

F&S: We had a lot of questions about mental health and keeping mentally ill people from getting guns. Reader Tim Walsh asked, “Many of your proposals are very specific, especially when it comes to guns. But some of the mental health ones, as far as adding them to the background checks, are vague. What are your suggestions for keeping the mentally ill from obtaining firearms without violating doctor-patient privilege?”

V.P. BIDEN:
The first thing we have to do is, there are 17 states that have all these adjudications [on mental health cases] that have taken place that have only reported on average, each of them, 10 people since the system’s been in place, so obviously they’re not reporting them. So the first thing is to figure out what the problem is, and get all those records in.

The second thing is that we want to make sure that there is this balance between—most people who are mentally ill are not a threat to anybody. They’re more the victims of crime than criminals. And so the question becomes, how do you deal with someone who would clearly be a danger.

The biggest thing we can do in the mental health field is to vastly improve and make available competent mental health help that is affordable. And so one of the things we’re going to be proposing that is going to be, an ability to marry two things together to vastly increase mental health capabilities that are affordable in communities.

One is, there is a law that was passed in ’08 called the Mental Health Parity Act, meaning that your insurance company has to cover you if you go to see a psychiatrist.

That is coupled with the idea of the Affordable Care Act now, which is going to vastly increase by hundreds of thousands of people who can now afford mental health care. And part of this is giving parents tools to deal with, or society tools to deal with, people who need mental health care before they go off the rails.

But the hard part here is, we’ve got to make sure that we eliminate the stigma of seeking mental health assistance, especially where you and I grew up in Scranton, man, tough guys don’t go to psychiatrists, man. You tough it out.

For example, we’ve got an awful lot of guys coming back from the military who have unseen wounds. You know, posttraumatic stress, traumatic brain injury. And part of the thing we’re trying to do is encourage them to seek mental help.

We have 54—50,400—I ask for it every day, they put the exact number of troops wounded in Afghanistan and troops dead in Afghanistan and Iraq—50,474 as of this morning. Well, they’re the seen wounds. There are a lot of unseen wounds.

The generic point I want to make is, the vast majority of our people are coming back from war completely mentally fit and capable, the most qualified people we have in the country. But one of the things we’re trying to do is make sure that we break this stigma that seeking help, mental help, is somehow unmanly or somehow inappropriate.

Comments (97)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Karen A. Johnson wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

One participant in this discussion mentioned in his area were the "most restrictive gun laws in the country" yet gun crimes were the highest in the country. Also, these laws affect "universal background checks and gun registry, gun control and crime, and mental health."

-9 Good Comment? | | Report
from Karen A. Johnson wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

BUT -- what everyone doesn't talk about is that no gun law will be effective if it's not budgeted.

If the federal law isn't funded by Congress (the function of the ATF, for instance), the state law is not funded by the state legislature, and local laws aren't supported either by the county council or the county sheriff's office.

That's the situation in nearly every congressional district, not to mention the country as a whole.

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Karen A. Johnson wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Google The Tiahrt Amendment, a budget amendment that's been attached to every Department of Justice budget bill since 2003, It has been the main reason our national gun control laws don't work.

-9 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If I didn't have a freakin' headache before reading that, I do now.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Hoo-Wee! I can't find a place to begin, or foresee a place to end. "Why do you need a magazine with 30 shells in it or 30 bullets in it as opposed to 10 to protect yourself?" OK, VP Biden let's start with your security staff, "All Secret Service turn in your 13-15 round Sig Sauer mags and use these 7 round magazines to protect yourself and the worlds most highly valuable targets." Sheesh! I don't know about you or yours, but my family is the most valuable thing to me, and I don't want only 7 rounds to protect them with, I wish the editor had asked him if he would only want 2 or 7 rounds to protect his family if a group of 10 thugs were breaking in his house.

+17 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If I didn't have a freakin' headache before reading that, I do now.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tmmytomato wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

For being Obama's front man for gun control Joe sure missed the boat. Maybe he thinks if he talks enough people willl think he knows what he's saying.
Our forefathers didn't say you can own a gun but only have so many bullets anymore than these modern day kooks that hold public office can say you can only have a clip that holds ten shells although the perp who is stealing your stuff and raping your daughter has four 30-round clips.
These political suits have been out of touch and off the streets for so many years they are totally incapable of comprehending anything in the real everyday world.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from K25 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just change his name to "Shotgun" Joe. It seems his only advice revolves around the old double barrel. Funny he mentioned how difficult it could be for someone to change magazines in a stressful situation, yet maintains that a shotgun is the requisite home defense tool. I'd rather change a magazine during a confrontation than fumble around a pocket of shells after every 2 or 3 shots.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pistolhunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Cops say they are outgunned?They get dressed up as a Rambo at any chance they get ,to play Army. Most now have a full auto weapon in their cars, I know, Ive seen them,I have many cop friends.None of them like what Biden wants to do, nor will they go along with it.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nathan Julie Mc... wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

So, if there's trouble in your house, you just step outside and fire off a couple of shots with your shotgun. Or, you just fire that shotgun through the front door of your house? Isn't one of the Ten Commandments of Firearm Safety know your target and what's behind it? Sounds like the VP is an expert on firearm safety.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Fire a shotgun through the door? OK.

Some of us are old to remember Joe claiming to his supporters he was a Vietnam Vet.

As far as his crazy assertions, he's right up there with Arlen Specter.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tpr430 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This guy is a clown and is ultra dangerous. He sounds dumber and dumber every time I hear him.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from elkslayer wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The only major problem I read from the Vice Presidents answers were in the discussion about universal checks leading to a gun registry. He danced around it but in the end his hypothetical scenario of a gun found at a crime scene revealed that he intends for the registry to happen. If a gun can be traced to the person who purchased it, then that is a gun registry and I do not believe that law abiding citizens should be on a list somewhere as if we are criminals.

As for magazine capacity, we must realize that we gun owners often use the argument that even with lower capacity magazines, a trained person can switch magazines and continue shooting in a few seconds, so a criminal would be able to kill just as many people with three 10 round clips as one 30 round clip. If we make that argument then the other side is that you should be able to defend yourself as easily with three 10 round clips as one 30 round clip.

I would support background checks in private transactions by making the sale at a licensed gun dealer, as long as there is no way for a gun registry to be compiled.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dennis Corvello wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

These same laws are in place in Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and California. They sure work well don't they. These ARE the safest places in the U.S. RIGHT?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

@Elkslayer: Private Sales can only be regulated by registration. Even with registration the Prosecution has to prove the private transfer happened post background check law requirement by digging through decades of records, most likely interstate. Joe's assertion there be only one or two gun transfers from the original buyer is fanciful. Also: How can Congress *ban* much of anything?

If Congress can *ban* why was there an 18th Amendment?

It is important to note that there was enough sentiment from the temperance groups to get the 18th Amendment; there clearly is absolutely NO sentiment to get an anti-gun amendment. And alcohol was not constitutionally protected as guns are.
Given that, there will never be a federal ban on which states like NY can depend to coerce enforcement.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from constitution what wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If cops are outgunned, can't Joe just loan them his 12 gauge? According to the reasoning I'm hearing, it's better than having a large clip.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

what a bunch of bull $hit! while i and every other field and stream subscriber thought it was a great idea to present these type of questions to our wonerful vp crazy joe biden, there is CLEARLY A HIDDEN AGENDA IN EVERY ONE OF HIS ANSWERS. what a waste of time when the man and the rest of his organization does not respect any of my or my fellow sportsmen's rights to own or bear firearms, especially in a time of need when our government is CLEARLY incompetent.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from dnhdaddy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If they set it up to have a background check done on private sales, the only reason the seller of the weapon would have his name on anything would be if the government wanted to keep a registry of all gun owners. Why would I as a seller need to have my name attached to paperwork of someone that is trying to get a background check to buy a weapon unless they are trying to keep a registry?

In part I do agree with the background check for private sales but I do not believe anything associated with knowing what I am trying to buy or who might be selling it should have a record kept of it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coosabass2012 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

What an idiot, I now feel 30% dumber than I was before I read the interview.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from tonysr55 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just like this current administration, Joe is full of double talk. The more he talks, the more both of us are confused. This interview reminds me of the old snakeoil salesmen that tried to make it seem like they were doing you a favor by taking your money.The most aggravating thing is that they realize that none of these laws are going to accomplish anything, so they will keep banning more and more guns until there aren't any legal guns except for single shots. Biden has been a staunch gun control proponent for years.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from CyCurtis152 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I can see it now. Since every gun transaction will use NICS system then the next thing will be: Well gun owners should pay for their personal background checks performed. Also checks for "certain" guns (ARs,handguns) will take longer so they will cost more. Also, did you make a profit off of that sale? We show you sold 3 guns this year yet you didn't pay a sales tax or report it as income! Ole Joe doesn't get it at all. He got to choose his shotgun and no one said he had to use a 20 gauge since only cops could use 12s so they wouldn't be outgunned! Let's see the last VP was known for using his shotgun for.....oh yeah SHOOTING SOMEONE and he did it in the open without using a door to blindly shoot through. I trusted him more than this one.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robbin Steele wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"V.P. BIDEN: Because there are so many out there, and police don’t want more out there, because they’re being outgunned. That’s the reason why."

Who is saying that? Please go on record with specifics. In addition, they SHOULD be outgunned by law-abiding citizens. It discourages abuse of the populace.

Lastly, Biden basically admitted that there is ALREADY a gun registry (which according to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, is ILLEGAL):
"F&S: Well, I think that’s where the concern comes from.
V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now.
F&S: About the universal list of gun owners.
V.P. BIDEN: But guess what. It’s there now. That’s the law right now..."

So what do we do about this? Who can we get legal action started against? If there is a registry, or the government is keeping a database of gun owners or a database linking guns to their owners it is ILLEGAL. Look up the Firearm Owner's Protection Act.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from zombiekiller wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden, a shotgun is not easier to shoot accurately than an AR-15. It is more deadly at close range, but not easier to shoot accurately. At the range in which a shotgun is lethal, I can hit the same target with the same accuracy with either weapon. Unless you are using slugs. Then the AR-15 is much more accurate. The difference is, a shotgun has far less range, far fewer round capacity, and takes longer to reload. So how is a shotgun a more effective weapon for self defense than an AR-15? Both defend with a high rate of destruction. The shotgun may cause more damage at close range, but OVERALL the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is the best weapon available for self defense. Please call me because I really would like to know your thought process. It is obvious you don't understand self defense or the weapons used. But just so you know, the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms "being necessary to the security of a free state" which means it is not for self defense. It is for the defense of freedom. "And the Lord said unto him, Now do you Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness...But woe unto you ... for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them." Luke 11:39-44

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alan Butterworth wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It must be nice to know that You have an Army of WELL equipped Agents protecting You 24/7, I guess that's why Old Laughing Joe thinks a Shotgun is Everybodys answer to Self Protection, less than half of the Population could hold on to a Shotgun long enough to get off a 2nd shot and it will be the instrument of Your Death if it is dropped in front of a Bad Guy.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from IND_NRA wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Why even conduct these pointless interviews? Joe skirted around every question. Even questions that asked him what his opinion was he gave a BS answer that talked about what the Supreme court says. Snake oil for sale

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

anthony licata,

field and stream should take all of the questions/answers and print them in a separate pamphlet and be given out to every law abiding citizen/gun owner/sporting goods store in america to advertise what a$$holes our government has become. because the bottom line is the media is protecting these a$$holes and most people in america truly have no idea.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hernando Cardona wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe should just quit while he's ahead. Shooting up into the air within city limits? Shooting through a door at whomever may be on the other side? What if he or his wife shoot the neighbor's drunk kid coming back to the wrong home one night after having his first couple of beers? Whatever happened to identifying your target?

Shotguns are just as lethal as rifles and handguns. I'd say that shotshells and handgun bullets are more dangerous in an urban environment that are the typical 223 bullet, that starts to tumble after the first layer of drywall. Isn't that why police officers prefer ARs?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hutter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I hang my head in disgust at what kind of drivel he "they" believe and put out. I think gun owners know that we can't possess nuclear weapons and machine guns,what an asinine statement. I couldn't even finish the interview because Joe makes NO sense at all. This kind of thinking is running the country, I feel sick !

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Army8711 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Here are my opinions, concerns, and feelings on this matter.
1. The only places that police are "out gunned" are in crime ridden neighborhoods, where the guns being fired at the police are illegally owned! I know, I have over 50 friends and family in Federal, state, and local law enforcement.
2. A shotgun is not the best weapon for defense. Shotguns do not kill people, unless you use slugs, buckshot, or shoot them at close range with bird shot. Birdshoot, can barely penetrate the skin of a person, especially as distances get further. So the statement is just full of falsehoods. When I was in Iraq, I carried a shotgun, but it was loaded with slugs and only used to breach doors. I carried a M4 with eight 30 round magazines and a 1911, with eight 8 round magazines. Yes I understand the difference between Iraq and USA, that's not the point of what I was saying. My point is that in Iraq, we had to protect ourselves. Insurgents and terrorists carry the same weapons that most criminals can illegally get their hands on here. That's a fact! So why should we not be able to obtain what soldiers use for protection?
3. I know this is lengthy but I promise this is the last one. This is America! Who cares why we should be able to own an AR15? What does it matter that we should be able to purchase magazines the hold more than 10 rounds? This is America! We can purchase and own these items because we can! No man or woman, should have the right to limit or control what another can do. It is not my concern what a millionaire or billionare does with their money. It is not our place to tell them not to buy that $100,000 car, and it sure as hell is not their place to tell me what guns I can buy and how many rounds my magazines can hold. We live in a country that should be ruled and controlled by the people, not regulated by tyrants. This is the problem with the country, too many people telling others what they can and should do, it is absolutely none of their business what law abiding citizens choose to do with their lives!

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bobby K wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

VP Biden is a lackey. He is told what to say and is told to stick to the script. I used to be a Democrat, but since the party was taken over by socialists, I am now converted. Fellow hunters, please wake up before you lose your rights. Town by town, state by state, your rights are being taken away and yet you refuse to call your representatives and voice your opinion. In Pennsylvania alone, 3 bills against our rights have been introduced. We need to act to combat these bills now. Soon it will be too late and we will only be able to blame ourselves. When your sons and daughters can no longer hunt and they ask you what you did to save the sport, what will you be able to tell them.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ellery E. Worthen wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

What jumps out out me is vast increase in the bureaucracy necessary to enforce and conduct this monstrosity. Who is going to pay for it? New gunowner tax? More income tax? All to fund a system proven not to work. Welcome to 1984, comrade! All together now, "I love Big Brother".

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Police say they are out gunned- really? All the cops I know support gun rights and voted for Romney. Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of gun crimes according to the FBI - so how many cops are outgunned? Liberals created far more social problems than they've solved when they made work optional. Now they want to take away our guns because their failed communities are lawless. I guess Scapegoating firearms beats looking in the mirror.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from woodpecker wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Since the Fed, State and Local gov's have a long track record of dropping the ball, let's suppose that the most honest, trust worthy all around good citizen tries to buy any legal gun and is disqualified. what are his options? Is there at the present time anything in place that will tell him why he was disqualified and will judge his grievance?...... and I'm sure Joe's answer would be " Look I know there's some bugs we've got to take care of, but if it saves just one kid".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ohiosam wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If I shoot through a door with a shotgun and wound or kill my mailman, a cop, the neighbor will I be cleared of charges because the VP recommended it?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from BigAndy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I stopped reading halfway through as it's not worth getting my blood pressure up.

It is amazing at how comfortable this man is with lying through his teeth. Worst administration in a long, long time.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ian in Miami wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The problem with this guy is not that he is an idiot, it's that he is smart. He made short work of Paul Ryan in the VP debate. Whether he is misinformed or malicious is hard to say. But he and gun grabbers like him need to be stopped. There was a guy who had to shoot a Grizzly in Alaska back in 2010 and it took 9 rounds of 45 acp before it backed off. What if it was a little bigger and took a few more. That magazine change is gonna cost you or your family member their lives. Sure, you could backpack with Joe's shotgun but that is a lot of weight.

This is what America gets for electing the gun grabbers. We all knew it was coming but we voted away our civil rights for a few bucks saved on our taxes or retirements or whatever everyone thought the republicans were gonna take from them.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jgor2022 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The interview was typical political doubletalk. The only takeaway is VP Biden's clear arrogance and condescending attitude toward the questions being asked, as if the interview was a bother. He was simply checking the box so later he will say "I spoke to sportsmen."
Our great forefathers realized the importance of the right to bear arms. Thomas Jefferson wrote “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” If not for our forefathers' acts of bravery(treason) in the face of oppression, we would be bowing to a monarchy today.
Gun control does not work. Look at Mexico. One of the most violent countries because criminals ignore laws and law abiding citizens are outgunned. To understand a politician, remember how they got to a position of power. Through votes. If gun control happens and our 2nd amendment rights are compromised, the current administration will secure millions of illegal Mexican immigrant votes because the politicians said "look at how we banned guns and protected your people". Politicians only care about being reelected and holding power.
Also, regarding magazine capacity, I like Army8700s comments. I do not question why an individual buys a $500,000 Ferrari that can go 200 mph. I do not question why someone needs a private jet for $40 million. This is America! We have the right to be free to make decisions. If I want to own an AR15 and shoot $500 worth of ammo down range, that is my choice.
My fellow Americans, our country is being undermined by a cancer within and this administration is a tumor. This is our awakening to rally as citizens and contact our state representatives to prevent any more gun control and to reverse those in place.
As VP Biden states, to save just one or two kids. What is the cost? I love my children. Who doesn't love their children. But when policies place the value of lives on everything (airplanes, car accidents, etc.) and determine if the solution is cost effective. Gun control does not work and is a cost to the American tax payer. I challenge the administration and other gun control advocates to reveal their true reasons for gun control. They are afraid and when the government is afraid of the people, we have Liberty. Again, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.
Thank you for hearing my voice.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from sp1975 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"If in fact the only thing available was 10 rounds in the AR-15 used by the guy who butchered those children up in Sandy Hook, he would have had to change that magazine three more times."
Haven't they confirmed that AR was NOT used in that shooting? How can you possibly guarantee you could have saved a life if that firearm wasn't even used????

"The thing that makes it the deadliest are the size of the round and how many rounds you have in a magazine." I had no idea my Semi Auto Browning BAR 300 Win Mag wasn't as deadly of a size round as the round my AR's shoot either! Thanks for the ballistics lesson Biden!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rwminard wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Via NBC News

This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

=

When will the real facts about SH be released. This is a load of crap that they are using the incident still to drive their agenda without the people really knowing what happened.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RDBlakeslee wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe Biden: "fire a shotgun through the door" (!!!)

Idiot. A perfect way to kill the postman or a Mormon missionary.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackjac wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I'd like to say his "IQ" matches his age but can't.

Remember, he is "ONE BREATH AWAY" from leading this country.

God save us as we march backwards into the future.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from weswes088 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Maybe the most depressing part of all this is that they (meaning Obama, Biden, & Co.) really do not care what we (or anyone else probably) think. They have their own agenda and will do whatever it takes to ram it down the country's throat, the same way they did with health care.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shane Michael D... wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Ok, it's a fact that JB isn't as elegant an orator as BHO, which is a definite reason this was a hard read. And yes, he skirts many issues. However, what I see in the comments above really speaks to what is the real issue here, and that is that nobody knows what to do.
On one hand, we have those who say "ban all guns" -- which will never happen.
on the other hand, we have those who say "I should be able to own whatever gun I want" -- which is almost (with few exceptions) what we have today.
The problem is trying to find the middle ground (on which either everyone is happy or everyone is pissed off) that satisfies what most of us want: safety for our families.
All I read are people saying that whatever the gov does isn't going to work.. that's all well and good if that's your opinion... but at least try to then come up with some idea that might help this situation from your perspective rather than just being absolute on one side of the issue or the other.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg Arnold wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Referencing the concept of one breath/heartbeat away from the Oval Office, Biden just did a better job of talking out of his a$$ than Jim Carrey's "Ace Ventura" character.

No worries, right?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MICHMAN wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Thank you F&S for displaying the true agenda of the current Presidential Administration. Even though he is a public relations nightmare, VP Biden was chosen to be the point man for the task force on gun violence by Pres. Barrack Hussein Obama.

In his meeting with the NRA, VP Biden stated "we don't have the manpower to enforce the laws that we currently have." In this interview we read that his answer to the gun violence issue is to "Enact more laws!" I realize that the common sense meter has been broke in Washington for sometime, but come on!

Who are these laws suppose to suppress/deter/punish? As is pointed out time after time, Chicago, Washington D.C. etc have the most stringent gun control laws and yet these regions are the leaders in gun murders. Felonies are constantly plead down to lower misd. or outright dismissed.The shooter in the SH murders broke countless laws and yet he was not deterred to carry out such a evil endevour. What the shooter did do is what most of these evil socialpaths do and that is to perform his hanous crime in a gun free zone.

Another disturbing trend with VP Biden and the current administration is the outright lies told to advance their anti-gun agenda. "Cops are coming to us and saying, we are outgunned." I work in law enforcement and the outcry is that the bad guys are not being punished or sentenced for their criminal behaivors! Automatic weapons are already outlawed. Those are the guns being used by drug cartels and inner city gangs. Lets actually SENTENCE these criminals and have stricker penalties. Adding more laws/restrictions only deters law abiding citizens and creates a bigger bureaucracy aka bigger government.

Another blatant lie is the VP's statement "my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15." There is a video circulating on facebook right now showing just how absurb this statement is.

And last but not least.....The #2 in command of the USA proclaims, "Just shoot (your shotgun) through the door!" Is that the message that our police officers want broadcast across the nation. As if responding to a call isn't dangerous enough, people are now told to just shoot a shotgun through the door! Audaciouly Absurb!!!

How does this mindset even get elected. By issueing entitlement programs. I hope we have all learned a lesson. Elections have consequences!

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The first reader comments on this post talks about the budget required, yeah as if we are not enough over-budgeted as is. We are in DEBT, so why would we want to add a several billion dollar project to the long list of debts?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steven Taylor wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If Obama wanted to buy a gun, he'd never pass the background check.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Don Sportsman wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

V.P Biden seems to have a thing with shooting blindly for effect, a dangerous practice. In this interview he says shoot through the door. In another he said he would tell his wife to shoot in the air. This is unrealistic and irresponsible. How can anybody give him credibility on the subject of gun control after uttering those statements?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fourwhlhntr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Great replies from all! I agree that Obama & Biden are the greatest threat to our country at this time. Having said that, it is apparent that you all have acces to Internet. I hope you all have contacted, and continue to contact, your respective legislators, both at state level and national. Please express your extreme displeasure to them about the continuing attempts to disarm citizens. [I know, they wouldn't do that :):)]

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tlak wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden is from PA and doesn't know that semiautomatic rifles are not allowed for deer and bear hunting in PA. He brings new meaning to the word clueless. I wonder if Field and Stream is aware of that?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gary Hill wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe. You're an idiot to the 10th degree! There is no hope for you!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hallas82 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This idiot hasn't got a clue or he and the rest of them don't care about facts. The fact of the matter is that the AR-15 WAS NOT USED at the school in Conn. The officials cleared that up by reporting that it was found in his car and that there were only handguns used ( 4 as a matter of fact ). This is about one thing and one thing only they want to disarm us and they will use any means necessary even down right lies to do it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mosco Alkalai wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It's hard to say which is worse, his stupidity and cluelessness on core issues, or the contempt he shows for the people through responses he knows are deceptive. His entire shtick is continual rhetorical fallback to vapid straw-man arguments and hyperbole. He unintentionally makes the case for distrusting and rejecting all the proposed legislation.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Trapper Vic wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

When I took my conceal to carry classes, the instructors were police officers and swat team members. They informed us that the best home protection weapon was a pump shot gun. The truth is we have to figure out how to keep weapons from the mentally ill and convicted felons but I'm not sure that any of the above will work.More laws just have to be inforced and most of this looks like after the fact data to me. I think resourse officers in the schools are an excellant idea.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnnyAppleSeed wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

GET RID OF THE FEDS. Leave it up to the states to make their own laws. If you want to live in a state where it is illegal to possess a firearm more power to you. V.P. Biden obviously isn't a firearm inthusiest so he can live in one of these states. I hope when the real crimminals that will possess any type of firearm they want (wrather laws are inplace or not) come to harm him or his family he has his knife ready!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Owen Glendower wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden says:

"... we think there should be a requirement to report a stolen weapon immediately, or within a certain time period, or a lost weapon, a requirement to report it."

I say:

"Officer, last week I decided to be a good citizen and dispose of all my firearms. Took 'em all out in my boat and dropped them in the deepest part of the lake, right about 500 yards east of that big tree with the eagle's nest in it.

"Now, I bought all of these in private sales, some of them 20 years ago. Never bothered to write down any serial numbers. And I haven't 'lost' these, I just threw them away.

"But the new laws say I gotta report any lost guns, so that's what I'm doing. Anything else I can help you with?"

Of course, there's no reason to think that anyone but me would ever come up with such a brilliant idea, right?

Also, let's say that tomorrow morning, they pass a law mandating that EVERY sale of an AR-15 must be reported, NO EXCEPTIONS. Are they also going to pass a law saying that you can't disassemble one and sell the parts?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad McCool wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

These politicians think they know what is right for everyone, when they can not get simple facts straight. Where is it documented that the Sandy Hook shooter used an AR-15? Everything I have read/heard/seen stated that he had handguns on him and there was an AR-15 in the trunk of his car. Even then I have read some articles that dispute it even being an AR-15. The whole lot of them Obama, Biden, Congress they are all a joke.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mathiashunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

LIE LIE and LIE again, that is all this administration knows how to do, all that on top of just being a freakin IDIOT, but what do expect from somebody who thinks JOBS is a 3 letter word. Unbelievable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Doug Seibel wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I'm not seeing any real answer to the question of "Why ban these guns?". His answer of "size of the round and magazine capacity" does not hold up under the lightest of scrutiny. It is a small, lightweight round...many, MANY calibers are FAR more powerful (as he later admitted. And as for magazine capacity, they are trying to limit that in a completely separate bill. So the question still stands, "Why ban these guns?". As of yet, no valid answer has been given by anyone.

(And they never will be able to give a valid answer...because the answer is that by creating a "class" of weapon and then demonizing said class of weapon until able to ban it, they set a precedence to do it all over again to another created "class" of weapon.)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lee Hix wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden doesn't realize he just outed the ATF for keeping lists of legal gun owners and firearms lists which is a violation of Federal Law. The key there is current law.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oldclimber wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"Shoot through the door..." ?????!!!!!!! I didn't know what his legal status was/is in being able to get away with that, but I know if I did that, it would be prison time for me. Anyone want a cheap lawyer when he leaves office? Real cheap.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ed Caro wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Police have and use some of the most modern weapon systems available including fully automatic weapons. So how is it they are being outgunned by a guy in suburbia that is using his gun legally? Bottom line, it's not about the police. It's about control. And they have been trying to get it for the last 40 or so years.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve Thomas wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. It is about protecting ourselves from tyranny.
Did everyone notice the recent change in the wording. It was "ban "assault rifles' with high capacity magazines." Now it is "ban 'assault rifles' AND high capacity mags". That will allow them to ban almost all semi-auto rifles AND most semi auto pistols.
The big issue still is, a ban is totally INEFFECTIVE without confiscation. There is a Federal memo being circulated (by the NRA) that admits that point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

hey shane michael d,

i will tell you what our government SHOULD do:
1) take care of all of the out of control spending.
2) get rid of the illegal immigration problem.
3) start prosecuting the second, third and fourth offenders of all criminal activity.
4)stop micro managing every aspect of every single american's life.
example to drink soda or not, abortion or not, buying a truck vs a car, and whether or not to OWN AN AR 15 OR NOT...stay the hell out of my business!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris Vince wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The first Wednesday of November 2012 I knew this was going to happen. As soon as it became official that Barrack and the rest of the Looney Tunes group were re-elected. THANK YOU America for either voting like an idiot or not getting off your a$$ and voting in the first place. All we can hope for now is in 2014 the American people wake and throw morons like Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the gun grabbers out of office.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from maneshop4hair wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I live in the safest place in all of far northern California. Each morning my husband takes that 3 pound stainless steel .44 magnum from under his pillow, checks the loads and after putting on his jeans, holsters it in a cross draw. Then he picks up his rifle, checks the loads and goes outside to visit with his two 140 pound dogs. Then he checks the 8 foot high wooden fence that surrounds our property and says to the sky, "Good morning world!" while he drinks his first cup of coffee!
We don't live in a city with its human predators and the four legged predators we do have give us a wide berth! Sometimes when I think of my CCW, I ask my husband, "What if they try to take our guns?" He just grins and goes on with whatever project of the moment he is involved with.
I was an employee of the US Army for fourteen years as a qualified combat medic with the rank of Staff Sargent. My husband wore an Air Force uniform and did things he can not talk about to this day more than 45 years later. I pity the political "army" that would try to disarm him! And HE has NEVER fired at a target he could not identify much less through a door!
Question: Would you rather have him or J Biden as a neighbor?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from DanielT wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Why would I listen to a man that tells his wife " Jill , if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in is not going to"? He went on but the rest was just as ridiculous. He told his wife to violate the law , at least in my state. He told his wife to shoot at an unidentified target. How did this Moron get elected Vice President , much less be allowed to own a firearm. As far as I can tell owning a firearm carries more responsibility than being VP anyway. No wonder the Liberal Democrats want Gun Control. They scare themselves. Get yourself educated Mr. Biden before you start shooting off your mouth about things you haven't a clue. Like Gun Safety, so called "Assault Weapons" (which the AR-15 is NOT), the 2nd Amendment and why someone needs more than a ten round clip. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DanielT wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

And in case someone is upset with me calling him Mr. and not Mr. Vice President. Put someone in office I can respect, and I will. That goes for Barack too.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DanielT wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

And in case someone is upset with me calling him Mr. and not Mr. Vice President. Put someone in office I can respect, and I will. That goes for Barack too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MICHMAN wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It is sad that the #2 man of power in the United States of America willfully displays such contempt for the armed sportsman and sportswomen of this country by answering our questions with political babble, contempt and irrational thought. What is even sadder is that the #1 man of power shares the same irrational views.

BHO is the least transparent President in the history of our country and he has a army of main-stream media elitist who are willing to push his agenda's no matter how irrational or illogical they are. If you are part of the media who disagree with the administration you get black-listed or as in the case of Bob Woodard and others, threatened!

All of us in the "fly-over states" need to be vocal and fight the constant socialist attempts to further remove our Freedoms! If you don't think that it can happen look at the examples that already exist. Our socialist neighbors in Canada can no longer own a handgun. Penn. doesn't allow semi-automatics for hunting deer and bear. NY outlawing magazines that hold over 7 rounds. Chicago and Washington D.C etc.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from khoff5190 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The problem here is that the current administration has an a** backwards way of looking at the issue. I am a resident of Newtown and the shooter was not right mentally which was only compounded by his nature as an outcast. Blaming the firearm is like blaming General Motors for a drunk driving accident. The blame lies with the shooters mother for being irresponsible with her firearms but in a nation which advocates irresponsibility what else can be expected. How can the public be expected to practice responsibility with anything while the Obama administration rewards failing banks with bailouts and gives those who are unwilling to work (most cases) welfare? Meanwhile no one stops to think about how many guns Timothy Mcveigh used to kill a building full of people in Oklahoma City or how many kids are killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bottom line is first evil intentions cannot be stopped and second guns do not kill people anymore than cars or airplanes do, people kill people therefore mental issues and keeping weapons of any kind out of mental compromised individuals hands should be the focus.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daryl Lucas wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If the police are outgunned, then so am I.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from AZsparrow wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe Biden is a loose cannon (pun intended) and really (I mean really) does not know what he is talking about. Following his advice could get you arrested depending on the state/city you reside in, and perhaps even killed by potential intruders. Do your own homework on local laws, and ignore this and other foolish advice. Though having a shotgun is not a bad idea in itself, he's flat out wrong about the AR rifle/platform and using one if making a choice. I just love how the progressive political elite think they know what we "need," let alone may want, and all for our good of course... they know best and will take care of you, NOT! Totalitarian thinking of the collective vs individual liberty, a false illusion, and a realization of the book Animal Farm in progress.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from WRF3 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just shoot through the front door, huh? Halloween is going to be real interesting around the Biden's neighborhood.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

www.youtu.be/DKPP4SSKKYs

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Myron J. Poltroonian wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

My right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is predicated on the inviolability of the foundational principles as set forth in the Contract of America; the Constitution of the United States and its first ten amendments thereto. The rights are God given and, therefore, are not given by "The State", commonly called the government, which is controlled by men. The Constitution has been called a "Charter of negative liberties" by the "Fearless Leader" of this current band of freedom grabbers. That would be because it proscribes the government from doing many of the things it would otherwise like to do to the people beyond what it says it must do for the national security and general welfare. Which, by the way, was understood to put in place, encourage and maintain policies to promote trade and commerce between the states, thereby enriching the entire country and her citizens [not to put as many people on the dole as possible]. The right in question here, "The right to keep and bear arms", truly, "Shall not be infringed" by men as it, along with others, were given to us by God and are protected by the Constitution.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from netmindr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I call BS on Biden on background checks equalling registration! Ok, I call it on the entire interview, but here's a concrete example.

"There’s no mechanism to use it for that purpose. For example, when you purchase a gun, the serial number of that gun doesn’t go down to the NICS. So it is prohibited now to be used for that purpose. And there is no evidence in the time it’s been in place that it has been used for that purpose at all."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from netmindr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Here's the link to the background check form. See top of page 3 asking for model, serial number, caliber, etc.

www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

This is the form that anyone buying a gun, new or used, through an FFL dealer must fill out.

They can claim all day long that they destroy records after so many days. Yeah, OK. Since we trust the federal gov't with everything else, why would they lie to us on this?

Biden's responses are typical of him. He likes to continue talking when he clearly does not know the facts, yet he will eagerly make them up for you. He may be quite personable, but his conversational skills never made it past high school level.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from netmindr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now.

F&S: About the universal list of gun owners.

V.P. BIDEN: But guess what. It’s there now.

.....

F&S: Well the concern more is that ability to do what you just described, basically track. So if for instance—

V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now. Just so you know—

Straight from the horse's mouth.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from khoff5190 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Daryl and WRF3,
First Daryl good point no one in their right mind can say that the police are outgunned by the majority of people. Most officers carry an AR-15 and a shotgun in their cruisers and a sidearm oh and at least one back up sidearm if not two. I guess that information does not get to the executive office. WRF3 glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the suggestion that we should start shooting shotguns through doors... someone should have asked Biden if "the VP suggested this" defense will hold up in court in the future. Maybe Biden should claim insanity in defense to the idiocy contained in this interview.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from the Preacher wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

SHotguns are for birds and rabbits. 223 s for human. When one is defending themselves, are they defending against a turkey, or a human?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rockdodger wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I suggest that this interview and our comments be forwarded to our reps in the government, and probably, more importantly, to everyone we know so that everyone can see just what's going on. Almost everyone I talk to only knows what the mainstream media is telling them, which, as we all know, is mostly propaganda.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mdezort wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

F&S...GREAT job asking the right questions!! Very impressive. Uncle Joe didn't do a terrible job but I think the most compelling question and subsequent non-answer from Joe was the question from Mike in Chicago. Simply put, if the most comprehensive gun-control in the nation is not working in this city, why do we think it will work across the nation? Joe went into full political mode and danced around the subject and attempted to divert his response to his agenda instead of the question at hand. Bottom line...they have no good answer or rationale for why it could/would work. And that, my friends, is the heart of this issue. We all want safety for our children, our families, our friends and our community. But we want what works and more gun control laws will never work.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MICHMAN wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"Biden kept cracking lame jokes that no one got....He reminded me of someone's drunken uncle at Christmas dinner." Mark Owen from his autobiography "NO EASY DAY" speaking about meeting BHO and Biden after the navy seals successful mission to kill Bin Laden.

Why was this person chosen to be 2nd in command? Is is because BHO likes "YES" Men who readily go along with his irrational thinking w/o sharing any objections?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JS76 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I largely support the proposed changes. If you actually read them, which I question whether many of the people on this string have, they have little to no impact on anyone's ability to hunt. You can plink or "mist" with something else besides an AR15 or megamag.

I fear by throwing our hat in with the extreme gun nutters on this issue sportsmen are going to lose influence and damage our credibility on things that actually affect hunting. We are crisis mode today losing habitat and access, it's sad to me that we are spending political capital on this issue.

I have a semiauto shotgun. It's ironic to me that I have to plug it in the field to prevent firing more than 3 shells in a row; but when I come back to town I can take the plug out. Why isn't the NRA on that? Do they care more about ducks than people?

I hope F&S tries to maintain a balanced voice in this. The Gun Nuts blog has been off-base so far. It would be good to offer the other side.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kurt Wilk wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

In reply to JS76, the problem is that we don't have marksmanship as an option to the majority of youth today, and so people are open to any propaganda involving firearms, or Archery for that matter. There was a time when the YMCA (in my case), Boys and Girls Clubs, many High Schools, the Boy Scouts, even the Camp Fire Girls had Marksmanship or rifle teams. As you read this the Boy Scouts are now in the "open the doors to LBGT or cease to exist battle", much less teach Marksman ship. While the Voices of Gun Control were earning Liberal Arts Degrees, I was in the Marine Corps so maybe my experience with weapons has allowed me to overcome a fear of firearms. As far as "reading proposed changes" read where? Biden's transcript? Bumbling Joe says over and over that the Police are claiming they are Out Gunned, by whom?, Ladies delivering Newspapers in Los Angeles. I never want to see militarizing Police Forces through the excuse they are outgunned, because as long as automatic weapons are manufactured outlaws will always find a way to possess them. Where we are headed is "if your not a criminal you won't mind bringing all your firearms to Police HQ's and being photographed and fingerprinted, in fact it will be your civic duty". What's the harm we'll still let you Hunt if you fill out the paperwork two months in advance and pay the fee to have your gun released for 24 hours.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JS76 wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

Marksmanship would not be limited in the proposals, which can be found on the White House site or any major newspaper (this website wouldn't allow me to post a link, said I was using obscene words).

Re. militarizing police force: I'm concerned that's exactly what having armed guards in my kid's schools would amount to. Short of mind control, I couldn't think of a better way for the government to control me.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fieldandstreamdkf wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

Quick question:

Biden says:

"We have proposed the ability for a background check to increase the field that would be disqualified, including people potentially with certain additional mental illnesses, people who are fugitives who have not crossed state lines, but they are fugitives."

If the person is a fugitive -- especially for some kind of serious violent crime -- can't the system flag the person for arrest?

David Friedman

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from gstairs wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

Its not about gun control but rather gun confiscation. Biden even said they don't have the ability to enforce gun laws that are already on the books so its not a matter of new laws.
He didn't even get the Thomas Jefferson quote correct, he left out the word Tyrants.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from guzzihd wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

This discussion is not about hunting-this is about protection, here in Wisconsin we had Ed Gein, Jeff Dalmer, two shootings one at at Temple and another at a Salon, we have a Police Chief that wants no guns and a Sheriff that tells us we should have guns as a first line of protection till the police arrive. Last year I was working in a Catholic school, my van was broken into, I lost 4000.00 worth of tools and waited 7hrs for the Police to come and take a report. I was told just to report it to my insurance and never heard from the Police again. The VP tells me to shoot threw the door? This is the society I live in. Not one of these proposed changes would affected the outcome of any of these crimes! How do you want to protect your family--like Barney Fieff or SEAL TEAM SIX!!! How about a public referendum vote on never changing the SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Phillip Cook wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

The Answer to any liberal anti gun advocate is a simple statement. "Remember Lexington", second comment is, "The ones who drafted the Bill of Rights. certainly did"!
I just found out today, that this reply can drive a true liberal to distraction. Yes the British march upon Concord, (you remember your history, those who had become tyrants to the people of the Colonies)was being made to confiscate thier weapons.
Now we haven't aeen anything to give us reason to question this, Have we?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Ray wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

I can't believe the administration lets him speak. He does not understand the first thing about hunting, guns, and he seams ignorant about the United States Constitution and our laws. Pro gun, or not, this guy seams to not know what he is talking about.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom343 wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

The problem is that Biden is not speaking in good faith. He has apparently sold his soul to this Obama policy of disarming the middle class (oh! And you thought this was about public safety? I wisj I had a dollar for every cop I know who's buried his evil black rifle in the backyard in New York State alone!) and has responded to appropriate questions with flawed rationalizations. When sportsmen think some voluable pro-2nd amendment types like Ted Nugent are reaching, remember Biden's words. These proposals have been in the wings for years. The drap, lying proponents work on three fronts:
1- there is some sort of collective guilt borne by say, sportsmen and the NRA, and penance is required.
2- Some guns are more evil than others. Call them assault rifles; weapons of war. Divide and conquer.
3- Most people are ignorant of both the devices and their menace. Keep these folks ignorant and terrified.
4- Worst; there is some sort of policy or plan Obama wants to implement and its nature is such that the middle class must be disarmed before this scam gets announced.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom343 wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

I note from the dates my comments are rather late but the book only got here and I spend for the book, not the website. At any rate, I hope Biden reads it. I hope too that all the guys from the flyover states understands their media is about to be crushed by the lame duck mayor of New York City. You will see expensive, well produced, slick commercials explaining why you should sell your birthrights. Please inform everyone this pathetic old man is trying to exercise his will on you. Don'y give an inch. I live in New Jersey. My 'upstate' had always been New York. That's where I hunted. Since Childe Andrew threw his hissy fit on sportsmen both resident and non-resident I cannot spend money there anymore. I know many Jersey people have hunting camps in NY but if we really care about this stuff, we gotta hit our enemies in the wallet. I only pray New York's government sees an enormous hemorage in hunting and fishing licenses, particularily non-resident ones.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom343 wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

I note from the dates my comments are rather late but the book only got here and I spend for the book, not the website. At any rate, I hope Biden reads it. I hope too that all the guys from the flyover states understands their media is about to be crushed by the lame duck mayor of New York City. You will see expensive, well produced, slick commercials explaining why you should sell your birthrights. Please inform everyone this pathetic old man is trying to exercise his will on you. Don'y give an inch. I live in New Jersey. My 'upstate' had always been New York. That's where I hunted. Since Childe Andrew threw his hissy fit on sportsmen both resident and non-resident I cannot spend money there anymore. I know many Jersey people have hunting camps in NY but if we really care about this stuff, we gotta hit our enemies in the wallet. I only pray New York's government sees an enormous hemorage in hunting and fishing licenses, particularily non-resident ones.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from txcoonhunter wrote 40 weeks 3 days ago

I know my comment is very late but i would like to know how Biden intends to keep criminals from getting guns, he just talks about law abiding citizens

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 37 weeks 5 days ago

Txcoonhunter, that's because to him there are no (NO) criminals, they are just "misunderstood".

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Hoo-Wee! I can't find a place to begin, or foresee a place to end. "Why do you need a magazine with 30 shells in it or 30 bullets in it as opposed to 10 to protect yourself?" OK, VP Biden let's start with your security staff, "All Secret Service turn in your 13-15 round Sig Sauer mags and use these 7 round magazines to protect yourself and the worlds most highly valuable targets." Sheesh! I don't know about you or yours, but my family is the most valuable thing to me, and I don't want only 7 rounds to protect them with, I wish the editor had asked him if he would only want 2 or 7 rounds to protect his family if a group of 10 thugs were breaking in his house.

+17 Good Comment? | | Report
from Army8711 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Here are my opinions, concerns, and feelings on this matter.
1. The only places that police are "out gunned" are in crime ridden neighborhoods, where the guns being fired at the police are illegally owned! I know, I have over 50 friends and family in Federal, state, and local law enforcement.
2. A shotgun is not the best weapon for defense. Shotguns do not kill people, unless you use slugs, buckshot, or shoot them at close range with bird shot. Birdshoot, can barely penetrate the skin of a person, especially as distances get further. So the statement is just full of falsehoods. When I was in Iraq, I carried a shotgun, but it was loaded with slugs and only used to breach doors. I carried a M4 with eight 30 round magazines and a 1911, with eight 8 round magazines. Yes I understand the difference between Iraq and USA, that's not the point of what I was saying. My point is that in Iraq, we had to protect ourselves. Insurgents and terrorists carry the same weapons that most criminals can illegally get their hands on here. That's a fact! So why should we not be able to obtain what soldiers use for protection?
3. I know this is lengthy but I promise this is the last one. This is America! Who cares why we should be able to own an AR15? What does it matter that we should be able to purchase magazines the hold more than 10 rounds? This is America! We can purchase and own these items because we can! No man or woman, should have the right to limit or control what another can do. It is not my concern what a millionaire or billionare does with their money. It is not our place to tell them not to buy that $100,000 car, and it sure as hell is not their place to tell me what guns I can buy and how many rounds my magazines can hold. We live in a country that should be ruled and controlled by the people, not regulated by tyrants. This is the problem with the country, too many people telling others what they can and should do, it is absolutely none of their business what law abiding citizens choose to do with their lives!

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pistolhunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Cops say they are outgunned?They get dressed up as a Rambo at any chance they get ,to play Army. Most now have a full auto weapon in their cars, I know, Ive seen them,I have many cop friends.None of them like what Biden wants to do, nor will they go along with it.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from constitution what wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If cops are outgunned, can't Joe just loan them his 12 gauge? According to the reasoning I'm hearing, it's better than having a large clip.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nathan Julie Mc... wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

So, if there's trouble in your house, you just step outside and fire off a couple of shots with your shotgun. Or, you just fire that shotgun through the front door of your house? Isn't one of the Ten Commandments of Firearm Safety know your target and what's behind it? Sounds like the VP is an expert on firearm safety.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dennis Corvello wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

These same laws are in place in Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and California. They sure work well don't they. These ARE the safest places in the U.S. RIGHT?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

what a bunch of bull $hit! while i and every other field and stream subscriber thought it was a great idea to present these type of questions to our wonerful vp crazy joe biden, there is CLEARLY A HIDDEN AGENDA IN EVERY ONE OF HIS ANSWERS. what a waste of time when the man and the rest of his organization does not respect any of my or my fellow sportsmen's rights to own or bear firearms, especially in a time of need when our government is CLEARLY incompetent.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from K25 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just change his name to "Shotgun" Joe. It seems his only advice revolves around the old double barrel. Funny he mentioned how difficult it could be for someone to change magazines in a stressful situation, yet maintains that a shotgun is the requisite home defense tool. I'd rather change a magazine during a confrontation than fumble around a pocket of shells after every 2 or 3 shots.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robbin Steele wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"V.P. BIDEN: Because there are so many out there, and police don’t want more out there, because they’re being outgunned. That’s the reason why."

Who is saying that? Please go on record with specifics. In addition, they SHOULD be outgunned by law-abiding citizens. It discourages abuse of the populace.

Lastly, Biden basically admitted that there is ALREADY a gun registry (which according to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act, is ILLEGAL):
"F&S: Well, I think that’s where the concern comes from.
V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now.
F&S: About the universal list of gun owners.
V.P. BIDEN: But guess what. It’s there now. That’s the law right now..."

So what do we do about this? Who can we get legal action started against? If there is a registry, or the government is keeping a database of gun owners or a database linking guns to their owners it is ILLEGAL. Look up the Firearm Owner's Protection Act.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Police say they are out gunned- really? All the cops I know support gun rights and voted for Romney. Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of gun crimes according to the FBI - so how many cops are outgunned? Liberals created far more social problems than they've solved when they made work optional. Now they want to take away our guns because their failed communities are lawless. I guess Scapegoating firearms beats looking in the mirror.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tmmytomato wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

For being Obama's front man for gun control Joe sure missed the boat. Maybe he thinks if he talks enough people willl think he knows what he's saying.
Our forefathers didn't say you can own a gun but only have so many bullets anymore than these modern day kooks that hold public office can say you can only have a clip that holds ten shells although the perp who is stealing your stuff and raping your daughter has four 30-round clips.
These political suits have been out of touch and off the streets for so many years they are totally incapable of comprehending anything in the real everyday world.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tpr430 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This guy is a clown and is ultra dangerous. He sounds dumber and dumber every time I hear him.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from tonysr55 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just like this current administration, Joe is full of double talk. The more he talks, the more both of us are confused. This interview reminds me of the old snakeoil salesmen that tried to make it seem like they were doing you a favor by taking your money.The most aggravating thing is that they realize that none of these laws are going to accomplish anything, so they will keep banning more and more guns until there aren't any legal guns except for single shots. Biden has been a staunch gun control proponent for years.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from hutter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I hang my head in disgust at what kind of drivel he "they" believe and put out. I think gun owners know that we can't possess nuclear weapons and machine guns,what an asinine statement. I couldn't even finish the interview because Joe makes NO sense at all. This kind of thinking is running the country, I feel sick !

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from MICHMAN wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Thank you F&S for displaying the true agenda of the current Presidential Administration. Even though he is a public relations nightmare, VP Biden was chosen to be the point man for the task force on gun violence by Pres. Barrack Hussein Obama.

In his meeting with the NRA, VP Biden stated "we don't have the manpower to enforce the laws that we currently have." In this interview we read that his answer to the gun violence issue is to "Enact more laws!" I realize that the common sense meter has been broke in Washington for sometime, but come on!

Who are these laws suppose to suppress/deter/punish? As is pointed out time after time, Chicago, Washington D.C. etc have the most stringent gun control laws and yet these regions are the leaders in gun murders. Felonies are constantly plead down to lower misd. or outright dismissed.The shooter in the SH murders broke countless laws and yet he was not deterred to carry out such a evil endevour. What the shooter did do is what most of these evil socialpaths do and that is to perform his hanous crime in a gun free zone.

Another disturbing trend with VP Biden and the current administration is the outright lies told to advance their anti-gun agenda. "Cops are coming to us and saying, we are outgunned." I work in law enforcement and the outcry is that the bad guys are not being punished or sentenced for their criminal behaivors! Automatic weapons are already outlawed. Those are the guns being used by drug cartels and inner city gangs. Lets actually SENTENCE these criminals and have stricker penalties. Adding more laws/restrictions only deters law abiding citizens and creates a bigger bureaucracy aka bigger government.

Another blatant lie is the VP's statement "my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15." There is a video circulating on facebook right now showing just how absurb this statement is.

And last but not least.....The #2 in command of the USA proclaims, "Just shoot (your shotgun) through the door!" Is that the message that our police officers want broadcast across the nation. As if responding to a call isn't dangerous enough, people are now told to just shoot a shotgun through the door! Audaciouly Absurb!!!

How does this mindset even get elected. By issueing entitlement programs. I hope we have all learned a lesson. Elections have consequences!

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from maneshop4hair wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I live in the safest place in all of far northern California. Each morning my husband takes that 3 pound stainless steel .44 magnum from under his pillow, checks the loads and after putting on his jeans, holsters it in a cross draw. Then he picks up his rifle, checks the loads and goes outside to visit with his two 140 pound dogs. Then he checks the 8 foot high wooden fence that surrounds our property and says to the sky, "Good morning world!" while he drinks his first cup of coffee!
We don't live in a city with its human predators and the four legged predators we do have give us a wide berth! Sometimes when I think of my CCW, I ask my husband, "What if they try to take our guns?" He just grins and goes on with whatever project of the moment he is involved with.
I was an employee of the US Army for fourteen years as a qualified combat medic with the rank of Staff Sargent. My husband wore an Air Force uniform and did things he can not talk about to this day more than 45 years later. I pity the political "army" that would try to disarm him! And HE has NEVER fired at a target he could not identify much less through a door!
Question: Would you rather have him or J Biden as a neighbor?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from AZsparrow wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe Biden is a loose cannon (pun intended) and really (I mean really) does not know what he is talking about. Following his advice could get you arrested depending on the state/city you reside in, and perhaps even killed by potential intruders. Do your own homework on local laws, and ignore this and other foolish advice. Though having a shotgun is not a bad idea in itself, he's flat out wrong about the AR rifle/platform and using one if making a choice. I just love how the progressive political elite think they know what we "need," let alone may want, and all for our good of course... they know best and will take care of you, NOT! Totalitarian thinking of the collective vs individual liberty, a false illusion, and a realization of the book Animal Farm in progress.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If I didn't have a freakin' headache before reading that, I do now.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from coosabass2012 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

What an idiot, I now feel 30% dumber than I was before I read the interview.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from zombiekiller wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden, a shotgun is not easier to shoot accurately than an AR-15. It is more deadly at close range, but not easier to shoot accurately. At the range in which a shotgun is lethal, I can hit the same target with the same accuracy with either weapon. Unless you are using slugs. Then the AR-15 is much more accurate. The difference is, a shotgun has far less range, far fewer round capacity, and takes longer to reload. So how is a shotgun a more effective weapon for self defense than an AR-15? Both defend with a high rate of destruction. The shotgun may cause more damage at close range, but OVERALL the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is the best weapon available for self defense. Please call me because I really would like to know your thought process. It is obvious you don't understand self defense or the weapons used. But just so you know, the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms "being necessary to the security of a free state" which means it is not for self defense. It is for the defense of freedom. "And the Lord said unto him, Now do you Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness...But woe unto you ... for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them." Luke 11:39-44

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jgor2022 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The interview was typical political doubletalk. The only takeaway is VP Biden's clear arrogance and condescending attitude toward the questions being asked, as if the interview was a bother. He was simply checking the box so later he will say "I spoke to sportsmen."
Our great forefathers realized the importance of the right to bear arms. Thomas Jefferson wrote “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” If not for our forefathers' acts of bravery(treason) in the face of oppression, we would be bowing to a monarchy today.
Gun control does not work. Look at Mexico. One of the most violent countries because criminals ignore laws and law abiding citizens are outgunned. To understand a politician, remember how they got to a position of power. Through votes. If gun control happens and our 2nd amendment rights are compromised, the current administration will secure millions of illegal Mexican immigrant votes because the politicians said "look at how we banned guns and protected your people". Politicians only care about being reelected and holding power.
Also, regarding magazine capacity, I like Army8700s comments. I do not question why an individual buys a $500,000 Ferrari that can go 200 mph. I do not question why someone needs a private jet for $40 million. This is America! We have the right to be free to make decisions. If I want to own an AR15 and shoot $500 worth of ammo down range, that is my choice.
My fellow Americans, our country is being undermined by a cancer within and this administration is a tumor. This is our awakening to rally as citizens and contact our state representatives to prevent any more gun control and to reverse those in place.
As VP Biden states, to save just one or two kids. What is the cost? I love my children. Who doesn't love their children. But when policies place the value of lives on everything (airplanes, car accidents, etc.) and determine if the solution is cost effective. Gun control does not work and is a cost to the American tax payer. I challenge the administration and other gun control advocates to reveal their true reasons for gun control. They are afraid and when the government is afraid of the people, we have Liberty. Again, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.
Thank you for hearing my voice.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If I didn't have a freakin' headache before reading that, I do now.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from elkslayer wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The only major problem I read from the Vice Presidents answers were in the discussion about universal checks leading to a gun registry. He danced around it but in the end his hypothetical scenario of a gun found at a crime scene revealed that he intends for the registry to happen. If a gun can be traced to the person who purchased it, then that is a gun registry and I do not believe that law abiding citizens should be on a list somewhere as if we are criminals.

As for magazine capacity, we must realize that we gun owners often use the argument that even with lower capacity magazines, a trained person can switch magazines and continue shooting in a few seconds, so a criminal would be able to kill just as many people with three 10 round clips as one 30 round clip. If we make that argument then the other side is that you should be able to defend yourself as easily with three 10 round clips as one 30 round clip.

I would support background checks in private transactions by making the sale at a licensed gun dealer, as long as there is no way for a gun registry to be compiled.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from IND_NRA wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Why even conduct these pointless interviews? Joe skirted around every question. Even questions that asked him what his opinion was he gave a BS answer that talked about what the Supreme court says. Snake oil for sale

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ellery E. Worthen wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

What jumps out out me is vast increase in the bureaucracy necessary to enforce and conduct this monstrosity. Who is going to pay for it? New gunowner tax? More income tax? All to fund a system proven not to work. Welcome to 1984, comrade! All together now, "I love Big Brother".

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ohiosam wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If I shoot through a door with a shotgun and wound or kill my mailman, a cop, the neighbor will I be cleared of charges because the VP recommended it?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from BigAndy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I stopped reading halfway through as it's not worth getting my blood pressure up.

It is amazing at how comfortable this man is with lying through his teeth. Worst administration in a long, long time.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RDBlakeslee wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe Biden: "fire a shotgun through the door" (!!!)

Idiot. A perfect way to kill the postman or a Mormon missionary.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steven Taylor wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If Obama wanted to buy a gun, he'd never pass the background check.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oldclimber wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"Shoot through the door..." ?????!!!!!!! I didn't know what his legal status was/is in being able to get away with that, but I know if I did that, it would be prison time for me. Anyone want a cheap lawyer when he leaves office? Real cheap.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Daryl Lucas wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If the police are outgunned, then so am I.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Fire a shotgun through the door? OK.

Some of us are old to remember Joe claiming to his supporters he was a Vietnam Vet.

As far as his crazy assertions, he's right up there with Arlen Specter.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

@Elkslayer: Private Sales can only be regulated by registration. Even with registration the Prosecution has to prove the private transfer happened post background check law requirement by digging through decades of records, most likely interstate. Joe's assertion there be only one or two gun transfers from the original buyer is fanciful. Also: How can Congress *ban* much of anything?

If Congress can *ban* why was there an 18th Amendment?

It is important to note that there was enough sentiment from the temperance groups to get the 18th Amendment; there clearly is absolutely NO sentiment to get an anti-gun amendment. And alcohol was not constitutionally protected as guns are.
Given that, there will never be a federal ban on which states like NY can depend to coerce enforcement.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CyCurtis152 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I can see it now. Since every gun transaction will use NICS system then the next thing will be: Well gun owners should pay for their personal background checks performed. Also checks for "certain" guns (ARs,handguns) will take longer so they will cost more. Also, did you make a profit off of that sale? We show you sold 3 guns this year yet you didn't pay a sales tax or report it as income! Ole Joe doesn't get it at all. He got to choose his shotgun and no one said he had to use a 20 gauge since only cops could use 12s so they wouldn't be outgunned! Let's see the last VP was known for using his shotgun for.....oh yeah SHOOTING SOMEONE and he did it in the open without using a door to blindly shoot through. I trusted him more than this one.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hernando Cardona wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe should just quit while he's ahead. Shooting up into the air within city limits? Shooting through a door at whomever may be on the other side? What if he or his wife shoot the neighbor's drunk kid coming back to the wrong home one night after having his first couple of beers? Whatever happened to identifying your target?

Shotguns are just as lethal as rifles and handguns. I'd say that shotshells and handgun bullets are more dangerous in an urban environment that are the typical 223 bullet, that starts to tumble after the first layer of drywall. Isn't that why police officers prefer ARs?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from woodpecker wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Since the Fed, State and Local gov's have a long track record of dropping the ball, let's suppose that the most honest, trust worthy all around good citizen tries to buy any legal gun and is disqualified. what are his options? Is there at the present time anything in place that will tell him why he was disqualified and will judge his grievance?...... and I'm sure Joe's answer would be " Look I know there's some bugs we've got to take care of, but if it saves just one kid".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ian in Miami wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The problem with this guy is not that he is an idiot, it's that he is smart. He made short work of Paul Ryan in the VP debate. Whether he is misinformed or malicious is hard to say. But he and gun grabbers like him need to be stopped. There was a guy who had to shoot a Grizzly in Alaska back in 2010 and it took 9 rounds of 45 acp before it backed off. What if it was a little bigger and took a few more. That magazine change is gonna cost you or your family member their lives. Sure, you could backpack with Joe's shotgun but that is a lot of weight.

This is what America gets for electing the gun grabbers. We all knew it was coming but we voted away our civil rights for a few bucks saved on our taxes or retirements or whatever everyone thought the republicans were gonna take from them.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from weswes088 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Maybe the most depressing part of all this is that they (meaning Obama, Biden, & Co.) really do not care what we (or anyone else probably) think. They have their own agenda and will do whatever it takes to ram it down the country's throat, the same way they did with health care.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from fourwhlhntr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Great replies from all! I agree that Obama & Biden are the greatest threat to our country at this time. Having said that, it is apparent that you all have acces to Internet. I hope you all have contacted, and continue to contact, your respective legislators, both at state level and national. Please express your extreme displeasure to them about the continuing attempts to disarm citizens. [I know, they wouldn't do that :):)]

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnnyAppleSeed wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

GET RID OF THE FEDS. Leave it up to the states to make their own laws. If you want to live in a state where it is illegal to possess a firearm more power to you. V.P. Biden obviously isn't a firearm inthusiest so he can live in one of these states. I hope when the real crimminals that will possess any type of firearm they want (wrather laws are inplace or not) come to harm him or his family he has his knife ready!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Doug Seibel wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I'm not seeing any real answer to the question of "Why ban these guns?". His answer of "size of the round and magazine capacity" does not hold up under the lightest of scrutiny. It is a small, lightweight round...many, MANY calibers are FAR more powerful (as he later admitted. And as for magazine capacity, they are trying to limit that in a completely separate bill. So the question still stands, "Why ban these guns?". As of yet, no valid answer has been given by anyone.

(And they never will be able to give a valid answer...because the answer is that by creating a "class" of weapon and then demonizing said class of weapon until able to ban it, they set a precedence to do it all over again to another created "class" of weapon.)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lee Hix wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden doesn't realize he just outed the ATF for keeping lists of legal gun owners and firearms lists which is a violation of Federal Law. The key there is current law.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris Vince wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The first Wednesday of November 2012 I knew this was going to happen. As soon as it became official that Barrack and the rest of the Looney Tunes group were re-elected. THANK YOU America for either voting like an idiot or not getting off your a$$ and voting in the first place. All we can hope for now is in 2014 the American people wake and throw morons like Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the gun grabbers out of office.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MICHMAN wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It is sad that the #2 man of power in the United States of America willfully displays such contempt for the armed sportsman and sportswomen of this country by answering our questions with political babble, contempt and irrational thought. What is even sadder is that the #1 man of power shares the same irrational views.

BHO is the least transparent President in the history of our country and he has a army of main-stream media elitist who are willing to push his agenda's no matter how irrational or illogical they are. If you are part of the media who disagree with the administration you get black-listed or as in the case of Bob Woodard and others, threatened!

All of us in the "fly-over states" need to be vocal and fight the constant socialist attempts to further remove our Freedoms! If you don't think that it can happen look at the examples that already exist. Our socialist neighbors in Canada can no longer own a handgun. Penn. doesn't allow semi-automatics for hunting deer and bear. NY outlawing magazines that hold over 7 rounds. Chicago and Washington D.C etc.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WRF3 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just shoot through the front door, huh? Halloween is going to be real interesting around the Biden's neighborhood.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dnhdaddy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

If they set it up to have a background check done on private sales, the only reason the seller of the weapon would have his name on anything would be if the government wanted to keep a registry of all gun owners. Why would I as a seller need to have my name attached to paperwork of someone that is trying to get a background check to buy a weapon unless they are trying to keep a registry?

In part I do agree with the background check for private sales but I do not believe anything associated with knowing what I am trying to buy or who might be selling it should have a record kept of it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alan Butterworth wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It must be nice to know that You have an Army of WELL equipped Agents protecting You 24/7, I guess that's why Old Laughing Joe thinks a Shotgun is Everybodys answer to Self Protection, less than half of the Population could hold on to a Shotgun long enough to get off a 2nd shot and it will be the instrument of Your Death if it is dropped in front of a Bad Guy.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

anthony licata,

field and stream should take all of the questions/answers and print them in a separate pamphlet and be given out to every law abiding citizen/gun owner/sporting goods store in america to advertise what a$$holes our government has become. because the bottom line is the media is protecting these a$$holes and most people in america truly have no idea.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bobby K wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

VP Biden is a lackey. He is told what to say and is told to stick to the script. I used to be a Democrat, but since the party was taken over by socialists, I am now converted. Fellow hunters, please wake up before you lose your rights. Town by town, state by state, your rights are being taken away and yet you refuse to call your representatives and voice your opinion. In Pennsylvania alone, 3 bills against our rights have been introduced. We need to act to combat these bills now. Soon it will be too late and we will only be able to blame ourselves. When your sons and daughters can no longer hunt and they ask you what you did to save the sport, what will you be able to tell them.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sp1975 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"If in fact the only thing available was 10 rounds in the AR-15 used by the guy who butchered those children up in Sandy Hook, he would have had to change that magazine three more times."
Haven't they confirmed that AR was NOT used in that shooting? How can you possibly guarantee you could have saved a life if that firearm wasn't even used????

"The thing that makes it the deadliest are the size of the round and how many rounds you have in a magazine." I had no idea my Semi Auto Browning BAR 300 Win Mag wasn't as deadly of a size round as the round my AR's shoot either! Thanks for the ballistics lesson Biden!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rwminard wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Via NBC News

This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

=

When will the real facts about SH be released. This is a load of crap that they are using the incident still to drive their agenda without the people really knowing what happened.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg Arnold wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Referencing the concept of one breath/heartbeat away from the Oval Office, Biden just did a better job of talking out of his a$$ than Jim Carrey's "Ace Ventura" character.

No worries, right?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The first reader comments on this post talks about the budget required, yeah as if we are not enough over-budgeted as is. We are in DEBT, so why would we want to add a several billion dollar project to the long list of debts?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Don Sportsman wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

V.P Biden seems to have a thing with shooting blindly for effect, a dangerous practice. In this interview he says shoot through the door. In another he said he would tell his wife to shoot in the air. This is unrealistic and irresponsible. How can anybody give him credibility on the subject of gun control after uttering those statements?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tlak wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden is from PA and doesn't know that semiautomatic rifles are not allowed for deer and bear hunting in PA. He brings new meaning to the word clueless. I wonder if Field and Stream is aware of that?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gary Hill wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Joe. You're an idiot to the 10th degree! There is no hope for you!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hallas82 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This idiot hasn't got a clue or he and the rest of them don't care about facts. The fact of the matter is that the AR-15 WAS NOT USED at the school in Conn. The officials cleared that up by reporting that it was found in his car and that there were only handguns used ( 4 as a matter of fact ). This is about one thing and one thing only they want to disarm us and they will use any means necessary even down right lies to do it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mosco Alkalai wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It's hard to say which is worse, his stupidity and cluelessness on core issues, or the contempt he shows for the people through responses he knows are deceptive. His entire shtick is continual rhetorical fallback to vapid straw-man arguments and hyperbole. He unintentionally makes the case for distrusting and rejecting all the proposed legislation.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Owen Glendower wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Biden says:

"... we think there should be a requirement to report a stolen weapon immediately, or within a certain time period, or a lost weapon, a requirement to report it."

I say:

"Officer, last week I decided to be a good citizen and dispose of all my firearms. Took 'em all out in my boat and dropped them in the deepest part of the lake, right about 500 yards east of that big tree with the eagle's nest in it.

"Now, I bought all of these in private sales, some of them 20 years ago. Never bothered to write down any serial numbers. And I haven't 'lost' these, I just threw them away.

"But the new laws say I gotta report any lost guns, so that's what I'm doing. Anything else I can help you with?"

Of course, there's no reason to think that anyone but me would ever come up with such a brilliant idea, right?

Also, let's say that tomorrow morning, they pass a law mandating that EVERY sale of an AR-15 must be reported, NO EXCEPTIONS. Are they also going to pass a law saying that you can't disassemble one and sell the parts?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad McCool wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

These politicians think they know what is right for everyone, when they can not get simple facts straight. Where is it documented that the Sandy Hook shooter used an AR-15? Everything I have read/heard/seen stated that he had handguns on him and there was an AR-15 in the trunk of his car. Even then I have read some articles that dispute it even being an AR-15. The whole lot of them Obama, Biden, Congress they are all a joke.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ed Caro wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Police have and use some of the most modern weapon systems available including fully automatic weapons. So how is it they are being outgunned by a guy in suburbia that is using his gun legally? Bottom line, it's not about the police. It's about control. And they have been trying to get it for the last 40 or so years.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve Thomas wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. It is about protecting ourselves from tyranny.
Did everyone notice the recent change in the wording. It was "ban "assault rifles' with high capacity magazines." Now it is "ban 'assault rifles' AND high capacity mags". That will allow them to ban almost all semi-auto rifles AND most semi auto pistols.
The big issue still is, a ban is totally INEFFECTIVE without confiscation. There is a Federal memo being circulated (by the NRA) that admits that point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

hey shane michael d,

i will tell you what our government SHOULD do:
1) take care of all of the out of control spending.
2) get rid of the illegal immigration problem.
3) start prosecuting the second, third and fourth offenders of all criminal activity.
4)stop micro managing every aspect of every single american's life.
example to drink soda or not, abortion or not, buying a truck vs a car, and whether or not to OWN AN AR 15 OR NOT...stay the hell out of my business!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DanielT wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Why would I listen to a man that tells his wife " Jill , if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in is not going to"? He went on but the rest was just as ridiculous. He told his wife to violate the law , at least in my state. He told his wife to shoot at an unidentified target. How did this Moron get elected Vice President , much less be allowed to own a firearm. As far as I can tell owning a firearm carries more responsibility than being VP anyway. No wonder the Liberal Democrats want Gun Control. They scare themselves. Get yourself educated Mr. Biden before you start shooting off your mouth about things you haven't a clue. Like Gun Safety, so called "Assault Weapons" (which the AR-15 is NOT), the 2nd Amendment and why someone needs more than a ten round clip. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DanielT wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

And in case someone is upset with me calling him Mr. and not Mr. Vice President. Put someone in office I can respect, and I will. That goes for Barack too.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from khoff5190 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The problem here is that the current administration has an a** backwards way of looking at the issue. I am a resident of Newtown and the shooter was not right mentally which was only compounded by his nature as an outcast. Blaming the firearm is like blaming General Motors for a drunk driving accident. The blame lies with the shooters mother for being irresponsible with her firearms but in a nation which advocates irresponsibility what else can be expected. How can the public be expected to practice responsibility with anything while the Obama administration rewards failing banks with bailouts and gives those who are unwilling to work (most cases) welfare? Meanwhile no one stops to think about how many guns Timothy Mcveigh used to kill a building full of people in Oklahoma City or how many kids are killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bottom line is first evil intentions cannot be stopped and second guns do not kill people anymore than cars or airplanes do, people kill people therefore mental issues and keeping weapons of any kind out of mental compromised individuals hands should be the focus.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from netmindr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I call BS on Biden on background checks equalling registration! Ok, I call it on the entire interview, but here's a concrete example.

"There’s no mechanism to use it for that purpose. For example, when you purchase a gun, the serial number of that gun doesn’t go down to the NICS. So it is prohibited now to be used for that purpose. And there is no evidence in the time it’s been in place that it has been used for that purpose at all."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mdezort wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

F&S...GREAT job asking the right questions!! Very impressive. Uncle Joe didn't do a terrible job but I think the most compelling question and subsequent non-answer from Joe was the question from Mike in Chicago. Simply put, if the most comprehensive gun-control in the nation is not working in this city, why do we think it will work across the nation? Joe went into full political mode and danced around the subject and attempted to divert his response to his agenda instead of the question at hand. Bottom line...they have no good answer or rationale for why it could/would work. And that, my friends, is the heart of this issue. We all want safety for our children, our families, our friends and our community. But we want what works and more gun control laws will never work.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MICHMAN wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"Biden kept cracking lame jokes that no one got....He reminded me of someone's drunken uncle at Christmas dinner." Mark Owen from his autobiography "NO EASY DAY" speaking about meeting BHO and Biden after the navy seals successful mission to kill Bin Laden.

Why was this person chosen to be 2nd in command? Is is because BHO likes "YES" Men who readily go along with his irrational thinking w/o sharing any objections?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from guzzihd wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

This discussion is not about hunting-this is about protection, here in Wisconsin we had Ed Gein, Jeff Dalmer, two shootings one at at Temple and another at a Salon, we have a Police Chief that wants no guns and a Sheriff that tells us we should have guns as a first line of protection till the police arrive. Last year I was working in a Catholic school, my van was broken into, I lost 4000.00 worth of tools and waited 7hrs for the Police to come and take a report. I was told just to report it to my insurance and never heard from the Police again. The VP tells me to shoot threw the door? This is the society I live in. Not one of these proposed changes would affected the outcome of any of these crimes! How do you want to protect your family--like Barney Fieff or SEAL TEAM SIX!!! How about a public referendum vote on never changing the SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackjac wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I'd like to say his "IQ" matches his age but can't.

Remember, he is "ONE BREATH AWAY" from leading this country.

God save us as we march backwards into the future.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Trapper Vic wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

When I took my conceal to carry classes, the instructors were police officers and swat team members. They informed us that the best home protection weapon was a pump shot gun. The truth is we have to figure out how to keep weapons from the mentally ill and convicted felons but I'm not sure that any of the above will work.More laws just have to be inforced and most of this looks like after the fact data to me. I think resourse officers in the schools are an excellant idea.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mathiashunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

LIE LIE and LIE again, that is all this administration knows how to do, all that on top of just being a freakin IDIOT, but what do expect from somebody who thinks JOBS is a 3 letter word. Unbelievable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DanielT wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

And in case someone is upset with me calling him Mr. and not Mr. Vice President. Put someone in office I can respect, and I will. That goes for Barack too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

www.youtu.be/DKPP4SSKKYs

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Myron J. Poltroonian wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

My right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is predicated on the inviolability of the foundational principles as set forth in the Contract of America; the Constitution of the United States and its first ten amendments thereto. The rights are God given and, therefore, are not given by "The State", commonly called the government, which is controlled by men. The Constitution has been called a "Charter of negative liberties" by the "Fearless Leader" of this current band of freedom grabbers. That would be because it proscribes the government from doing many of the things it would otherwise like to do to the people beyond what it says it must do for the national security and general welfare. Which, by the way, was understood to put in place, encourage and maintain policies to promote trade and commerce between the states, thereby enriching the entire country and her citizens [not to put as many people on the dole as possible]. The right in question here, "The right to keep and bear arms", truly, "Shall not be infringed" by men as it, along with others, were given to us by God and are protected by the Constitution.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from netmindr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Here's the link to the background check form. See top of page 3 asking for model, serial number, caliber, etc.

www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

This is the form that anyone buying a gun, new or used, through an FFL dealer must fill out.

They can claim all day long that they destroy records after so many days. Yeah, OK. Since we trust the federal gov't with everything else, why would they lie to us on this?

Biden's responses are typical of him. He likes to continue talking when he clearly does not know the facts, yet he will eagerly make them up for you. He may be quite personable, but his conversational skills never made it past high school level.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from netmindr wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now.

F&S: About the universal list of gun owners.

V.P. BIDEN: But guess what. It’s there now.

.....

F&S: Well the concern more is that ability to do what you just described, basically track. So if for instance—

V.P. BIDEN: Well, it exists now. Just so you know—

Straight from the horse's mouth.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from khoff5190 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Daryl and WRF3,
First Daryl good point no one in their right mind can say that the police are outgunned by the majority of people. Most officers carry an AR-15 and a shotgun in their cruisers and a sidearm oh and at least one back up sidearm if not two. I guess that information does not get to the executive office. WRF3 glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the suggestion that we should start shooting shotguns through doors... someone should have asked Biden if "the VP suggested this" defense will hold up in court in the future. Maybe Biden should claim insanity in defense to the idiocy contained in this interview.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from the Preacher wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

SHotguns are for birds and rabbits. 223 s for human. When one is defending themselves, are they defending against a turkey, or a human?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rockdodger wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I suggest that this interview and our comments be forwarded to our reps in the government, and probably, more importantly, to everyone we know so that everyone can see just what's going on. Almost everyone I talk to only knows what the mainstream media is telling them, which, as we all know, is mostly propaganda.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kurt Wilk wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

In reply to JS76, the problem is that we don't have marksmanship as an option to the majority of youth today, and so people are open to any propaganda involving firearms, or Archery for that matter. There was a time when the YMCA (in my case), Boys and Girls Clubs, many High Schools, the Boy Scouts, even the Camp Fire Girls had Marksmanship or rifle teams. As you read this the Boy Scouts are now in the "open the doors to LBGT or cease to exist battle", much less teach Marksman ship. While the Voices of Gun Control were earning Liberal Arts Degrees, I was in the Marine Corps so maybe my experience with weapons has allowed me to overcome a fear of firearms. As far as "reading proposed changes" read where? Biden's transcript? Bumbling Joe says over and over that the Police are claiming they are Out Gunned, by whom?, Ladies delivering Newspapers in Los Angeles. I never want to see militarizing Police Forces through the excuse they are outgunned, because as long as automatic weapons are manufactured outlaws will always find a way to possess them. Where we are headed is "if your not a criminal you won't mind bringing all your firearms to Police HQ's and being photographed and fingerprinted, in fact it will be your civic duty". What's the harm we'll still let you Hunt if you fill out the paperwork two months in advance and pay the fee to have your gun released for 24 hours.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from fieldandstreamdkf wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

Quick question:

Biden says:

"We have proposed the ability for a background check to increase the field that would be disqualified, including people potentially with certain additional mental illnesses, people who are fugitives who have not crossed state lines, but they are fugitives."

If the person is a fugitive -- especially for some kind of serious violent crime -- can't the system flag the person for arrest?

David Friedman

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from gstairs wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

Its not about gun control but rather gun confiscation. Biden even said they don't have the ability to enforce gun laws that are already on the books so its not a matter of new laws.
He didn't even get the Thomas Jefferson quote correct, he left out the word Tyrants.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Phillip Cook wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

The Answer to any liberal anti gun advocate is a simple statement. "Remember Lexington", second comment is, "The ones who drafted the Bill of Rights. certainly did"!
I just found out today, that this reply can drive a true liberal to distraction. Yes the British march upon Concord, (you remember your history, those who had become tyrants to the people of the Colonies)was being made to confiscate thier weapons.
Now we haven't aeen anything to give us reason to question this, Have we?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Ray wrote 1 year 4 weeks ago

I can't believe the administration lets him speak. He does not understand the first thing about hunting, guns, and he seams ignorant about the United States Constitution and our laws. Pro gun, or not, this guy seams to not know what he is talking about.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom343 wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

The problem is that Biden is not speaking in good faith. He has apparently sold his soul to this Obama policy of disarming the middle class (oh! And you thought this was about public safety? I wisj I had a dollar for every cop I know who's buried his evil black rifle in the backyard in New York State alone!) and has responded to appropriate questions with flawed rationalizations. When sportsmen think some voluable pro-2nd amendment types like Ted Nugent are reaching, remember Biden's words. These proposals have been in the wings for years. The drap, lying proponents work on three fronts:
1- there is some sort of collective guilt borne by say, sportsmen and the NRA, and penance is required.
2- Some guns are more evil than others. Call them assault rifles; weapons of war. Divide and conquer.
3- Most people are ignorant of both the devices and their menace. Keep these folks ignorant and terrified.
4- Worst; there is some sort of policy or plan Obama wants to implement and its nature is such that the middle class must be disarmed before this scam gets announced.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom343 wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

I note from the dates my comments are rather late but the book only got here and I spend for the book, not the website. At any rate, I hope Biden reads it. I hope too that all the guys from the flyover states understands their media is about to be crushed by the lame duck mayor of New York City. You will see expensive, well produced, slick commercials explaining why you should sell your birthrights. Please inform everyone this pathetic old man is trying to exercise his will on you. Don'y give an inch. I live in New Jersey. My 'upstate' had always been New York. That's where I hunted. Since Childe Andrew threw his hissy fit on sportsmen both resident and non-resident I cannot spend money there anymore. I know many Jersey people have hunting camps in NY but if we really care about this stuff, we gotta hit our enemies in the wallet. I only pray New York's government sees an enormous hemorage in hunting and fishing licenses, particularily non-resident ones.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom343 wrote 1 year 3 weeks ago

I note from the dates my comments are rather late but the book only got here and I spend for the book, not the website. At any rate, I hope Biden reads it. I hope too that all the guys from the flyover states understands their media is about to be crushed by the lame duck mayor of New York City. You will see expensive, well produced, slick commercials explaining why you should sell your birthrights. Please inform everyone this pathetic old man is trying to exercise his will on you. Don'y give an inch. I live in New Jersey. My 'upstate' had always been New York. That's where I hunted. Since Childe Andrew threw his hissy fit on sportsmen both resident and non-resident I cannot spend money there anymore. I know many Jersey people have hunting camps in NY but if we really care about this stuff, we gotta hit our enemies in the wallet. I only pray New York's government sees an enormous hemorage in hunting and fishing licenses, particularily non-resident ones.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from txcoonhunter wrote 40 weeks 3 days ago

I know my comment is very late but i would like to know how Biden intends to keep criminals from getting guns, he just talks about law abiding citizens

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mspl8sdcntryboy wrote 37 weeks 5 days ago

Txcoonhunter, that's because to him there are no (NO) criminals, they are just "misunderstood".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shane Michael D... wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Ok, it's a fact that JB isn't as elegant an orator as BHO, which is a definite reason this was a hard read. And yes, he skirts many issues. However, what I see in the comments above really speaks to what is the real issue here, and that is that nobody knows what to do.
On one hand, we have those who say "ban all guns" -- which will never happen.
on the other hand, we have those who say "I should be able to own whatever gun I want" -- which is almost (with few exceptions) what we have today.
The problem is trying to find the middle ground (on which either everyone is happy or everyone is pissed off) that satisfies what most of us want: safety for our families.
All I read are people saying that whatever the gov does isn't going to work.. that's all well and good if that's your opinion... but at least try to then come up with some idea that might help this situation from your perspective rather than just being absolute on one side of the issue or the other.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JS76 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I largely support the proposed changes. If you actually read them, which I question whether many of the people on this string have, they have little to no impact on anyone's ability to hunt. You can plink or "mist" with something else besides an AR15 or megamag.

I fear by throwing our hat in with the extreme gun nutters on this issue sportsmen are going to lose influence and damage our credibility on things that actually affect hunting. We are crisis mode today losing habitat and access, it's sad to me that we are spending political capital on this issue.

I have a semiauto shotgun. It's ironic to me that I have to plug it in the field to prevent firing more than 3 shells in a row; but when I come back to town I can take the plug out. Why isn't the NRA on that? Do they care more about ducks than people?

I hope F&S tries to maintain a balanced voice in this. The Gun Nuts blog has been off-base so far. It would be good to offer the other side.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JS76 wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

Marksmanship would not be limited in the proposals, which can be found on the White House site or any major newspaper (this website wouldn't allow me to post a link, said I was using obscene words).

Re. militarizing police force: I'm concerned that's exactly what having armed guards in my kid's schools would amount to. Short of mind control, I couldn't think of a better way for the government to control me.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Karen A. Johnson wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

BUT -- what everyone doesn't talk about is that no gun law will be effective if it's not budgeted.

If the federal law isn't funded by Congress (the function of the ATF, for instance), the state law is not funded by the state legislature, and local laws aren't supported either by the county council or the county sheriff's office.

That's the situation in nearly every congressional district, not to mention the country as a whole.

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Karen A. Johnson wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

One participant in this discussion mentioned in his area were the "most restrictive gun laws in the country" yet gun crimes were the highest in the country. Also, these laws affect "universal background checks and gun registry, gun control and crime, and mental health."

-9 Good Comment? | | Report
from Karen A. Johnson wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Google The Tiahrt Amendment, a budget amendment that's been attached to every Department of Justice budget bill since 2003, It has been the main reason our national gun control laws don't work.

-9 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment