The New York Times published a piece by Joe Biden on his gun reform plans centered on an assault weapons, one that he and Diane Feinstein initiated and helped enact into the 1994 law, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years.

Republicans allowed the 1994 law to expire, insisting that the ban was ineffective. The data shows the contrary. Police reported a marked uptick in criminals using assault weapons in 2004. From Biden's essay:

And multiple analyses of the data around mass shootings provide evidence that, from 1994 to 2004, the years when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were banned, there were fewer mass shootings — fewer deaths, fewer families needlessly destroyed.

There’s overwhelming data that shootings committed with assault weapons kill more people than shootings with other types of guns. And that’s the point.

Biden, however, doesn't stop there:

And if I am elected president, we’re going to pass them again — and this time, we’ll make them even stronger. We’re going to stop gun manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor modifications to their products — modifications that leave them just as deadly. And this time, we’re going to pair it with a buyback program to get as many assault weapons off our streets as possible as quickly as possible.

I won’t stop there. I’ll get universal background checks passed, building on the Brady Bill, which establishing the background check system and which I helped push through Congress in 1993. I’ll accelerate the development and deployment of smart-gun technology — something gun manufacturers have opposed — so that guns are keyed to the individual biometrics of authorized owners.


The moment for gun control has finally reached a tipping point. The NRA is on its heels and the Republican refrain of 'thoughts and prayers' sounds evermore hollow. I honestly thought the Sandy Hook massacre would tip the scales. But the NRA was able to push back the outcry, the horror of babies being gunned down. That was then, this is now. We win in 2020, we're going to finally start doing what we should have done all along: take battlefield weapons off the streets of America.

Good one on Joe and all our candidates for pushing this issue. The time has come.

Full essay can be read here (although it may be behind a paywall):


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/joe-biden-ban-assault-weapons.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

The Hill has an Op-Ed up today that clearly explains the reason Joe Biden is a favored candidate, particularly in light of the events in El Paso and Dayton. Excerpt below:

For all his faults, Biden has two great strengths. He has plenty of experience, which is important but not valued in this cycle. He also exudes empathy, which is in great demand because so many Americans are in such great pain.

The nation is so polarized and, in such anguish, that Biden's ability to relate to people is a great asset. Many Americans value Biden as the only candidate in the race who has the personal feel to comfort Americans and bring them together again.

People will need an empathetic president because it will take years to heal the divisions facing the United States after four years of Trump. A Consoler in Chief like Biden is the perfect antidote to a Divider in Chief like Trump. After tragedies like the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton, Biden can go on national TV and begin the healing process; something Trump can't or won't do.



The writer refers to Biden's speech last week that was on-point and impacted a large number of Americans, even Joe's critics. The piece also underscores the report from Iowa describing Biden's unique ability of connecting with people, offering the comfort that he's so well known for and the positive response ordinary people have to that empathetic interaction. With Trump squatting in the White House, we've forgotten what solace and comfort looks like. Joe Biden offers a strong reminder, an antidote to the hate.

Good on on Joe!

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/457027-consoler-in-chief-like-biden-is-the-perfect-antidote-to-a-divider-in-chief

I've just had my cable capacity restored after a major power outage in our area. Lost all my in-house electronic connections--TV, phones and computer. Consequently, my husband and I (and our dog Kiera) listened to last night's debate via my car's Sirius connection. Which meant we sat in the driveway for 2+ hours running the car, switching to battery assist, running the car, etc., etc., etc. We did this bc our pooch gets motion sickness, so a 2+ hour drive was out of the question. Anyway . . .

I listened to the debate devoid of the optics. I was a bit startled the some DUer's were making reference to Joe Biden's appearance or that he sounded 'shaky.' To me (husband and puppy agree), Biden defended himself and threw some punches back without getting nasty. He was also one of the few debate participants who honored the time limits. Only heard Joe go over his time allotment once though I might have missed another occasion running into the house to use the bathroom. In any case, he had a much better night than in the first round. He held his own, he answered his critics and he passionately defended President Obama's record.

Kamala Harris had a reversal of fortune last night, IMHO. She was not forthcoming on the details of her healthcare proposal, eg. that people will be kicked off their employer-based insurance programs. Simply saying that private insurance will still be available is tap-dancing around the major issue, specifically removing people from plans they have and want to keep. Then there was the surprise attack from Tulsi Gabbard which was pretty harsh and for which Harris seemed unprepared. Maybe a little karma worked its way into the room!

Cory Booker was as aggressive as I'd anticipated. According to Booker, we're all to believe that every flaw/fault of our criminal justice system is Joe Biden's responsibility. A step too far in my mind. Plus, Booker definitely got prickly when Biden mentioned Booker's own shortcomings in Newark. It was a 'what's okay for thee is off-limits for me' moment. Not an effective approach if you're that thin-skinned. That being said, I'm sure Booker will get the attention he wanted. Whether it will be good or bad remains to be seen. But I must say, criticizing President Obama could result in a huge backlash. Not a good strategy from where I was sitting.

Tulsi Gabbard was ready to rumble last night. Just can't figure her out. She's not going to be the nominee but I wonder if she's hoping for a cabinet position in a Biden Administration. She's not a fan of Kamala Harris that's for damn well sure. But I don't know why the laser focus on Harris' background and AG history? Puzzling.

Inslee is the go-to man for all things climate related. DiBlasio was a jerk for a second time and Gillibrand was ineffective (though I liked her Clorox the Oval Office line).

Castro needs to drop the decriminalization discussion because this is a fatal subject for Dems with all our current immigration problems. More effective would be a call for a renewed push on an actual immigration policy, so everyone knows the rules upfront and underscoring the right of asylum for those at the border. There are other strategies of increasing funds (rather than Trump's cutting) for our southern neighbors to improve their economies and reduce crime so people don't feel the desperation to leave in the first place. But the word 'decriminalization' is toxic in the present atmosphere.

Andrew Yang brings an interesting and important perspective to the discussion--the guaranteed income idea in face of the AI revolution which will decimate employment. It's something we're going to deal with in the future whether we want to or not. But I don't think it's enough to move the needle, at least not yet. Poor Michael Bennet's voice was lost in the noise. What became clear to me, however, is that Bennet shares a lot of Biden's positions, a liberal to moderate pragmatic platform, things we can get done and restore.

So, that was my personal reaction without seeing the expressions, gestures or body language. Biden (who is my choice at the moment) held his own. Harris took a number of slings and arrows and a few I suspect left a mark. As for Booker? Guess we'll have to see the post-debate polling to determine if the pugilistic debate style worked. It didn't for me (my husband and puppy as well). But we're just three entities and Kiera doesn't vote.