Biden Speaking in CT Next Week

by Categorized: Newtown Date:

Vice President Joe Biden will deliver the keynote address at a conference on the federal response to reducing gun violence at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury.

\"bidenThe conference is being hosted by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, and Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty.

The conference will include panel discussions on ways to reduce gun violence, protect children, and make our communities safer. It will include national, state, and local leaders, law enforcement, mental health experts, sportsmen, faith leaders, families and survivors of gun violence.

The conference will take place from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Feb. 21 at Western. More details later.


The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

61 thoughts on “Biden Speaking in CT Next Week

  1. Peter

    Connecticut is being targeted as the gun control capitol, with example laws currently being drawn from California and New York. If they are successful, Connecticut will have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. And given the current leadership, this looks to be a reality no matter how many people say no.

        1. Kim

          Here you go Peter. Can’t wait for your response proving otherwise – link at bottom of comment:

          “Let’s examine the Australian ban and see if it did anything useful other than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens … There is evidence that the late ’90s gun ban had little or no effect on overall crime whatsoever.

          The trends continued according to this report, which states, “The homicide rates [in Australia] provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad.”

          Even TIME Magazine was not able to spin the facts to make a case for the ban:

          “The conclusions of these studies were ‘all over the place,’ says [Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic]. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer ‘is there in black and white,’ she says. ‘The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.'”

          Ultimately Joyce Lee Malcolm in the Wall Street Journal stated the blindingly obvious when it comes to gun “control” in her recent piece:

          “What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.”


          1. Harry Hoko

            Hi Kim. You are correct but I doubt that these emotion-laden gun control, knuckle-headed advocates will listen to the facts.

            But I applaud your efforts to hold the line and keep expressing the reality of the situation. Bottom line; bearing arms gives the population protection against external threats. And yes, it is our right to own.

    1. Realist

      I, for one, say yes to reasonable limits on gun ownership. Most people, including most sensible gun owners, agree that the current state of affairs is untenable.

      With any luck, new laws and enforcement mechanisms will be applied at the national level, so guns can’t flow from less responsible states into Connecticut.

      1. Kim

        which ‘current state of affairs’ are you referring to ‘realist’?

        The violence imposed upon the mostly unarmed and helpless, usually occupying gun-free zones?

        Or the attempts to disarm responsible, law abiding citizens who have a natural AND a constitutional right to defend themselves and their families?

        Please define ‘reasonable limits on gun ownership. Try to include regulations/controls that don’t already exist, if you would.

        1. Realist

          The current state of affairs to which I refer, Kim, is well-described in the Courant’s recent editorial “No Letup in Gun Violence,” which ticks off this past week’s examples of gun-inflicted homicide and injury, and sets them in the context of 1,774 gun deaths since Newtown.

          I would be the first to point out that gun-free zones are too small a sphere of focus, because as long as guns are easily available outside those zones, those who mean to do harm can easily attain guns and bring them into the zones. Nor should the focus be at the state level. If CT bans assault weapons, it will be relatively easy to import them from other states.

          I would suggest the approach taken by John Howard, the center-right prime minister of Australia, in the 1990s. That would mean a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, alongside a national weapon purchase program.

          As to the simplistic and incorrect claim that the 2nd amendment is inviolate, those who are familiar with our country’s judicial system know that constitutional provisions are interpreted through case law, examples of which (e.g., Robertson v. Baldwin) have established reasonable limits to the right to bear arms.

          I will grant that ownership of guns that could seriously be considered appropriate for hunting and self defense should be allowed. The possession of weapons beyond that classification is not natural and need not be protected as constitutional.

          1. Jack

            Could not disagree more with Realist. Has no memory of history, specifically nearby places known as Lexington and Concord, Mass.


            to wit :
            The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

          2. post 5,500 gun control rally bill

            Realist: Of course I agree with you. It is hard to convince those who want universal access to all kinds of weaponry that the very real probability exists that these guns can and will eventually and inadvertently full into the black market from law-abiding owners.

            You won’t make much progress with Kim on this issue, however. I’m afraid he is a very angry and immature man from previous blogs. And he happens to be a gun owner. What a nice mix.

            Veronique Posner said it well at the rally in Hartford that we should ban all semi automatic rifles instead of only limiting the magazine size. She should know. The bottom part of her 6 year old son’s face was blown off by a semi automatic rifle and before his wake, she tried to place little glass globes with an angel embedded in each of his hands. But she couldn’t because Noah didn’t have much of one hand remaining. Where were his rights?

            But some people just don’t care about trifling things like that. They huddle in fear and paranoia about the government breaking down their doors and they lead their little cloistered lives with the false knowledge that it is their right to bear any arms.

          3. 5,500 post rally Bill

            Realist: Some of the most insecure, paranoid and angry people are legal gun owners. And they will argue in your face till the cows come home that without their unique interpretation of the 2nd amendment to keep guns all around, that their world will collapse in on them along with government troopers stomping through their front doors without these killing machines.

            Yes, indeed.

          4. Kim

            2 points in response, realist:
            1–gun violence has exploded in Australia since the ‘ban’ has gone into effect. The data is easily found on the internet if you’re interested in the truth.
            2–the data you refer to about gun violence is one-sided and completely subjective. If you want an honest discussion on this issue you need to take into consideration the thousands of incidents every month that take place in this country where innocent people are protected from violence and possible death, by legal, responsible gun owners. the press does not report on these issues – that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

            We can discuss this honestly if you wish – but it requires honesty on both sides. Not the pablum that ‘rally’ likes to spew

          5. Kim

            as usual, ‘rally’ only provides name-calling, innuendos, character attacks, emotion-based solutions, and lies. That is the ‘pablum’ I am referring to.

            He speaks to history on these blogs but leaves out his many lies and character assasinations while accusing others of being ‘angy’, etc. Not exactly someone you’d want as your point man if you’re trying to take the reasonable approach.

            Did he tell you how the West Hartford cops booted him out of their station because he kept running to them complaining about imaginary, delusional threats?

          6. Kim

            ‘rally': You state that Kim is “a very angry and immature man from previous blogs”.

            Please tell realist about how the West Hartford cops booted you out of their station because you kept running to them complaining about imaginary, delusional threats from posters on these threads. That should convince him of your credibility and your ability to accurately assess others, shouldn’t it?

            And by the way, you seem to be confusing Kim with someone else. Not everyone has multiple sign-in names and argues with themselves on thes threads. You, for example, have at least two separate log-ins on this page alone. Could it be that you are fully aware that no one would believe you so you have to repeat your position as if it’s coming from many instead of just you?

          7. Kim

            Realist, I appreciate your response. I refer you to ‘The Founders’ Second Amendment’ by Stephen Halbrook. The books makes the founding fathers’ intentions with this amendment, quite clear.

            This is the first step towards an honest discussion on the second amendment.

            ‘Rally’ likes to accuse those who respect our constitution of paranoia. He conveniently overlooks the fact that as recently as President Kennedy there were serious concerns about a military coup in this country. Our rights are eroded and diminished daily. The threat of losing our freedoms is very clear and quite current – try buying a large soft drink in NY. Or ask the people in CT about eminent domain. I could go on forever

          8. post 5,500 gun control rally bill

            Kimmerina: I am the Realist. Indeed, I am everyone who contradicts your paranoid view on self-arming as a protection against the US Marines breaking down your little wood door. I am glad that you made your view point clear as to why you need weapons in your home. The rest of society must suffer your delusions while 6 year old angels are savagely cut down. Because you need your guns. Because you NEED your guns.

            I am hoping that those who need it take advantage of increase mental health services as the nation bulks up on these services for those unhinged or close to being unhinged.

            And lastly, nobody has booted me out of any police station. If there is reference here to a previous psychological profile that was expressed on one of these blogs about those who now closely hug their guns as substitute for lack of early maternal reinforcement bonding and you personalized it,then you or anyone else should ask yourself/themselves why you might think it was intended for only one person.

          9. 5,500 post rally Bill

            Kim: I have even been accused of being you as a way to incite some kind of backlash. Imagine that. And the truth be known, I am you.

            Who’s yo daddy?

          10. Kim

            more pointless, diversionary, inane, unintelligent blather from Rally. But I guess you have to stick with your strong suit.

          11. post 5,500 gun control rally bill

            Last year, the poster, Kim, was also known as Kimmerian in the Hartford Courant threads at the end of articles. If you didn’t agree with him, he became aggressive and negative as he is now. At one point, he began a repetitive invitation for a leftist-leaning poster called “The Professor” and “Carl Soloman” to perform fellatio on him. This outrageous demand went on for days.

            I finally drew on my nascent readings of Freudian psychology and composed a portrait of Kim relating this fixation to early childhood dysfunction and a lack of sufficient parental bonding. After I expressed this theory, Kim stopped repeating his obnoxious request.

            Since he apparently cannot engage in civil dialogue with those whom he disagrees with, I will not have anything more to do with this character. FYI; I contacted a psychology friend of mine and asked her about this profile I made of Kim. She told me that although there was insufficient information to determine the origins of this abnormal request, the prospect for being correct was quite good.

          12. Patrick_Henry

            as usual Rally, your selective memory is nothing at all like the actual truth. But readers of your many posts know that your continual lies and misrepresentations are part of your character, along with your twisting of the truth to make you appear as the rational one. Nothing could be further from the truth. And your claim to being ‘everyone’ is borne out by your multiple logins on these pages, each with a slightly different personality but recognizable as you none the same.

            Your pseudo-intellectual, self-aggrandized playing at psychoanalysis only goes to demonstrate your delusions of grandeur and pompous affect.

            And, for the record, you admitted to being laughed out of the West Hartford police station because of your paranoid delusions. After that rejection by truly rational people, you ran back behind the professors’ skirts. You are, in short, quite the fool.

            You claim that you will no longer interact with me. Your history shows your inability to tell the truth and keep a promise – this one in particular being made on several occassions. I do hope that you keep this one – but I won’t hold my breath. Without insults, personal attacks and attempts at character assassination, you have nothing of value to offer. We all expect more of the same from you.

          13. Kim

            rally: I think your posts on this thread alone clearly show who is incapable of ‘civil dialogue’ and who resorts to negative posting. Typical wildbill liberal trick: accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of and expect others to forget what is really taking place and who really started with the negativity and incivility. Such buffoonery only works with the simple-minded with whom you relate and who you hope to sway with your twisted ‘logic’. As usual, you’re busted

          14. Rally Against Guns Bill

            Kimmerian: What’s this? Did you forget to change your name back, Patricia Henry?

            He. ha. ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

            Ya, the pot calling the kettle black.

            Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    2. 5,500 post rally Bill

      I enjoy a few kinds of entertainment these days. Two of them are: Watching Russion car accidents on YouTube and the 2nd is to read Kim the Kimerian blabber on about the latest thing to monkey into his head.

      1. Kim

        is this the civil discourse you accuse others of being incapable of engaging in? Hypocrisy is thy middle name

  2. Jeff

    He should just focus on the real problems in this country, things like the economy, jobs, outsourcing and the rest of the mess his boss created in this country. Just leave us law abiding sportsmen alone and forget about gun control. Take our guns away and the criminals will have even more. Resources would be better used to clean up the disaster created by the Obamination that Americans call the president which is a much more dangerous weapon than any amount of guns could ever be!

  3. janet

    I wish he would come here and speak about not cutting the defense budget which will have a huge impact on peoples lives once all our defense contractors layoff 1000’s of workers.

    1. Kim

      the sequestration is about cutting INTENDED spending, not the current levels of spending. Let’s be clear

  4. Mitchell

    The Joe Biden show goes on the road … at the same time the president is out campaigning himself. It never stops. Never focusing on the real problems in the country and we pay the price. Oddly enough, less than two weeks ago, Biden was caught on camera saying that any new gun legislation will have no impact on crime. Go figure.

    But the dog and pony show will roll into Connecticut, the exploitation will continue and the roots of the gun-crime problem will be ignored: mental illness and criminals.

  5. Norm

    Vice President Biden has been for gun control for decades. He has recently claimed publicly that shotguns are more dangerous than ar-type semi- automatic rifles. Guess what’s next on the gun control agenda once they ban semi-auto rifles?
    The UK and Australia have all but banned guns in private hands. Both nations violent crime rates have skyrocketed as a consequence.
    Once the remaining gun manufacturers, and defense contractors, close up shop in Connecticut, the combined tax rate can rise to 90% in order to pay for all the government workers that will be hired to replace the private sector jobs that have moved to lower tax base States. You go, Joe. Do the hustle. Democratic Party leadership: Bringing back the 1970’s as fast as possible.

    1. post 5,500 gun control rally bill

      Have crimes in those countries sky-rocketed on account of guns used in these assaults?

      A big fat NO. You are being disingenuous with the facts, Mr.

    2. 5,500 post rally Bill

      Norm; let me specify the Australian ban on semi automatic rifles. Gun violence has decreased from 59 to 80 percent since the legislation took effect. That you would quote from some non factual place not only shows that you can or prefer not to screen your sources. Or that you knew it was a ridicules bold-faced lie.

      The former prime minister of Australia who implimented the reform just cited these statistics on Fareed Zakria. AndI prefer to believe his assessment over your sources.

      1. Kim

        talk about fast and loose with so-called ‘facts’. How does something ‘decrease’ from 59 to 80%. You’re spending too much time thinking about others’ ‘extremities’ wildbill, and not enough time on the truth

  6. JBlock

    All these gun laws will make people feel better but it does not address the overall question about what it takes to make society safer. How about increasing the crimes for illegal posession of a firearm? They won’t do it becasue a disproportionate amount of crime occurs in the inner city an minority groups would be more affected.

    1. Kim

      JBlock, no need to increase the crimes. Simply ENFORCING the laws in place and not coddling the real criminals would go a long way towards reducing violence. But criminals are misunderstood and more important than honest citizens (we know the these honest citizens as ‘victims’)

  7. Diane

    Hopefully the speech will include information about ‘people violence’, too. Guns don’t kill…. deranged/mentally ill/unstable/violent PEOPLE DO. What happens when if guns are outlawed and background checks are so thorough that the government knows exactly when you poop? No more killings? In your dreams blind sheepies. Unless the violent, mentally ill are locked up, the mass killings will continue.

      1. Kim

        time to outlaw people, according to wildbill/rally. This is the ultimate goal of the liberals. People are ruining this world – what a wonderful place it would be without them. Of course, those like wildbill/rally will get to determine who goes and who stays. And they’ll use their distorted version of the constitution with which they are so ‘enamored’ to make it all proper.

  8. Mike Robinson

    John Howard prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007 published this op-ed in the NY Times Jan 16, 2012

    “today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

    Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.”

  9. 5,500 post rally Bill

    I favor a complete ban on semi automatic rifles. Period. No and, ifs or buts. Veronique Posner, the mother of slain son Noah, said it so well at the rally.

    If we offer a buy-back program, fines for not complying with a threat of prison, these guns will eventually by cleared up. It needs to be nationalized.

    For pro gunner NRA types who hope that this emotional reaction will die down after a few months, get real. We all have just begun. The silent and sleeping majority had arisen. We will not stop until we end this cycle of violence.

    I would only hope that well meaning assault weapon owners wake up and join in this movement. Turn in you weapons.

    We have sent the first message. Stay awake and you might learn something. Watch for major events in the near future.

    The future is on our side.

    1. The Conn-servative

      I applaud individuals for being active and supporting issues in our society.However,on this particular issue,gun banning,I wonder how many of you think it’s ok to have a few drinks and not be “bombed” and then get behind the wheel of a car,because after all, it won’t happen to you right? Or how many of the female activists utilized that God(atheists cringe!)given right,embedded somewhere in the Constitution,albeit we’re still looking to find it,to abort a human life.I might turn in my rifle if you are willing to surrender your so called “right” to murder a living human being. A “right” that I still can’t find in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But the right I believe in, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is being stripped away in front of
      our very eyes. Isn’t it ironic that that which is spelled out is being whittled down to the bare bone and that which is not spelled out has become law. Yes,secular regressives, you yourselves are bi-pedal mental disorders.

      1. post 5,500 gun control rally bill

        conn-ser: You got a deal. now turn in your weapon. And I hereby give up my right to murder another human being. I’m sorry the cost of this accord is so dear for me. But I agree to never murder another human. Now, can I pick you up and drive you to the nearest police station? I’ll buy you a beer after.

        Now you weren’t just blowing air out the side of your mouth, were you?

        1. Kim

          this is the civil discourse and lack of negativity that billy pretends he is so adept at, while accusing others of failing to maintain both

          1. Carl Solomon

            Kim Pat Henry: Your various iterations are no small laughing matter here. No, they are perfectly leg-slapping hilarious and right about this time I am having trouble catching my breath. And thank you for bringing me back from the tombs.

            Rally WildBill Peggy Day is here to stay.

            Peggy Day, threw my poor heart away
            Oh by golly what more can I say
            Love to spend the night with Peggy Day

  10. russell

    In 1989, President Bush banned the importation of 43 models of military styled firearms via an executive order WITHOUT Congress. I / we still can’t believe how little President Obama has done on the isssue. If the President followed President Bush’s example he could effectively cut off all the AK 47 style rifles and assault shotguns. Almost all of these rifles and shotguns are either imported or made with imported parts and virtually all the high capacity magazines for them are imported. I just wish someone in the media would ask the question why he chooses to do nothing but talk about the issue??? Please ask the question…

    1. post 5,500 gun control rally bill

      russell: A good question and I sometimes don’t think he acts fast enough. but a president can only pursue so much. His first battle was to insure almost universal access to health care. that was a battle that didn’t need to be so resisted by the republicans. Richard Nixon himself was in favor of universal care during his term. it shouldn’t be reduced to left and right politics.

      The biggest problem we have in this country is that every single issue is deconstructed into right and left. and nothing gets done.

      Obama will do as much as he legally can on gun control. When he pleaded to congress for an up or down vote, he admitted defeat on this issue for now. But we all would like the congressmen to yaa or naa so we can identify those who blocked in prep for 2014.

      1. Fake Thomas Jefferson

        He can’t executive order models of weapons off the market as the Supreme Court has already ruled that only fully automatic weapons or sawed off shotguns can be limited to the general public. They are still available to any American who wishes to obtain special permit for them.

  11. Sharpshooter

    Just wondering why Chris Murphy’s mentor(former senator Chris Dodd, and now head lobbyist for the Motion Picture Industry)wasn’t asked to keynote address this select group of people…is it because he frowns on eliminating violence in the motion picture industry?

Comments are closed.