Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Biden: Shotguns work just fine for home protection

By NEDRA PICKLER
February 20, 2013

 Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with representatives from the video game industry in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington. As Biden finalizes a package of recommendations for the president to curb gun violence, the National Rifle Association said there is enough support in Congress to block any new laws that would ban assault weapons.  (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with representatives from the video game industry in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington. As Biden finalizes a package of recommendations for the president to curb gun violence, the National Rifle Association said there is enough support in Congress to block any new laws that would ban assault weapons. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

 

Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that Americans don’t need semi-automatic weapons to protect their homes because a couple of blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders.

“Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun,” the vice president encouraged those worried about defending themselves. He was speaking in an online video as part of a Facebook town hall hosted by Parents Magazine on the administration’s strategy for reducing gun violence, which he has led at the direction of President Barack Obama.

Biden said he keeps two shotguns and shells locked up at home and he’s told his wife, Jill, to use them if she needs protection. He presumably was speaking about before he became vice president, a position that gives the couple full-time Secret Service protection.

“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony … take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'” Biden said. “You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”

Biden’s answer came in response to a question posted by a Facebook user about whether the administration’s proposal to ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would make law-abiding citizens more of a target of criminals since they wouldn’t have a sufficient way of protecting themselves. Biden bristled at the question, saying he’s never heard such sentiments in the pages of Parents Magazine.

“But I’m delighted to answer them,” he added quickly.

Biden said he learned his lessons on gun safety from his father, who was a hunter. He said as a child, he wasn’t even allowed to point a cap gun at other children while playing cops and robbers. He said most gun owners are very responsible, but parents should make sure guns are locked up to keep children safe, just like pool gates and liquor cabinets.

He also said he doesn’t think the Second Amendment‘s right to bear arms should be changed. He said limits on the use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is compatible with that right.
___

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

4 Responses to Biden: Shotguns work just fine for home protection

  1. woody188

    February 20, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    The Second Amendment isn’t about protecting your home. It’s about keeping government in check and subservient to the people. Mr Biden knows this, which is why he is happy to change the focus of the argument to hunting and home protection every chance he gets.

  2. Bill Cravener

    February 21, 2013 at 5:29 am

    The opinion that the Second Amendment was created to keep government in check and subservient to the people is nothing more then paranoid nonsense!

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    There is nothing in that amendment that states gun ownership is given to the people to protect themselves from some paranoid thought up government attack. It is total nonsense to believe so!

    However, the Supreme Court has definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within ones home and the hunting of game, period!

    • woody188

      February 21, 2013 at 11:39 pm

      “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson

      The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46 -James Madison

      “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29 -Alexander Hamilton

      “[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 -Thomas Paine

      “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…” – George Mason

      “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” -Patrick Henry

      “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” —

      “… whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

      – Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

      Just a few other “paranoids” spewing “nonsense” I suppose…

      I feel sorry for you Bill. It’s obvious from your language that you know nothing of our rights or how to keep them safe. I do hope you figure it out before you lose them forever. Though you seem to enjoy licking the boots that crush your throat. SLURP!

      • Bill Cravener

        February 22, 2013 at 6:52 am

        For many decades federal courts overwhelmingly rejected the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right. It wasn’t until the 21st century that the lower federal courts, filled with appointees of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, started to adopt the individual-rights position.

        In the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling the court wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

        The Supreme Court ruled on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicago which challenged the city’s ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar ruling the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case saying the Second Amendment “applies equally to the federal government and the states.” Prior to these decisions the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

        Links? Look it up yourself!