TOP
Joe Biden
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Joe Biden
Joe Biden is the 47th president of the United States. At the time of this interview, he was vice president, serving under Barack Obama. Biden previously served as a U.S. senator from Delaware.
This interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Jim Gilmore on November 14, 2014, for the film Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA. The film, which originally aired in 2015, is an investigation into the NRA, its political evolution and influence, and how it has consistently succeeded in defeating new gun control legislation. This interview was also featured in the 2020 FRONTLINE film NRA Under Fire.
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
If you would please, sir, take us to the early days after Sandy Hook happens.The trauma is fresh in all our minds.The president comes to you and has a discussion with you.I’d like to know what was said, the mood of the president at that point and sort of what he asked you to do.
It was a combination of anger, sorrow and overwhelming frustration.He knew that I had done this once before as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, passed the Brady Bill and the Biden Crime Bill, the limitations on magazine sizes, the number of bullets you could have in a gun, etc.And he asked me, he said, “Joe, could you give me a report within a month, a comprehensive approach of what we should do about gun safety in America?”
But I remember talking about—him talking about, thinking about it could have been Sasha; it could have been Malia; it could have been my granddaughters.They all go to school together, Finnegan or Maisy.I mean, it was—and I think that’s what communicated to everyone in America.
And I remember going up to Sandy Hook and meeting with all the state police privately who had gone in, and they were traumatized.They were traumatized.There were things I wouldn’t even say here on television how gruesome what happened was to these little first-grade kids.And it just shocked the conscience of the country.
So it was in a context of sorrow, extreme, I mean, anger and frustration about why can’t we do something about this.There had already been—Columbine had already occurred, other—But this one, because it was little children, there wasn’t—all anybody had to do was look into Mark [Barden]’s eyes when he was on television and see the depth of the pain.And I think every parent, every grandparent could look and say, as my mother would say, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
This was not a rough section of town.This was not a tough school.This was a classic suburbia kind of school, middle-class people.It was like my God, this can happen anywhere.
So you’d been through this fight before, though.You knew the terrain.
I did.
What did you think was possible at that point?
Well, what I thought was possible, I thought was possible was actually doing what—it's just common sense, expanding the background checks as to who was eligible to purchase a gun and to bring into play more simple rules relative to handling of weapons and just gun safety generically, because, you know, we kept the—the Brady Bill up to that time had kept over a million guns out of the hands of a million felons, a million people who were—shouldn’t have guns.And I had done a lot of research, my staff as well, and realized that there were people still able to purchase guns that we didn’t capture the first time around who shouldn’t have guns: people on the no-fly list; people engaged in domestic violence; people who in fact had serious mental problems.And there’s an outfit, Jim, called NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System].It’s the place where all these records of people who should be denied the ability to purchase a gun where their names are kept and the reason why they can be denied.
And we realized that there are an awful lot of states that weren’t complying with the law.They had records—tens of thousands of them, it turned out—that weren’t in this pile.So when a gun—when you went into a federal gun shop that was covered by the federal gun control efforts, and you’d say, “I want to buy this gun at Dick’s Sporting Goods,” they’d pick up the phone, they’d call a number, they’d say, “I’ve got so-and-so here.Here’s his background.” Not his background. “Here’s his name, address, Social Security.Is he able to purchase a gun?”
Well, it turns out there were thousands of people who should have been on that list but were able to walk in and purchase guns.So I just thought it was just sort of to use a trite expression, a no-brainer.And there was overwhelming support for it.Over 91% of the American people supported expanding background checks.Ninety percent of all the households in which there was a gun supported it.Eighty percent of the households that had an NRA member supported it.NRA doesn’t represent the membership of this.
So you were optimistic?
I was optimistic.
Some people will say, why did it take this horror of Sandy Hook before the president, the administration acted?Even the shooting of Gabby Giffords, which, again, was a startling thing, a member of Congress, there was no legislation.There was no big moves made by your administration, by the Obama administration.Why?Was it that difficult a situation?
Well, I’ll tell you why.If you look at the years when President Bush let the gun safety legislation expire, it had to be—in order to get it passed the first time in 1994, I had to commit that it would have to be reauthorized every 10 years.When it came up time to reauthorize it, the Bush administration said, “We don’t want it.”
And in the meantime, the NRA had even gained more power, because they were actually passing legislation.For example, in that interim period they passed legislation saying the Centers for Disease Control could not keep records on gun violence in America.1There were places where legislation was passed saying, cities, counties, states could not pass legislation banning a certain owner—the ownership of certain kind of weapons, etc.
So you had, it seemed like, a plethora of erosion that seemed to be—have popular support, which it didn’t, in my view, of lessening gun safety regulations.And so it was that environment.
Secondly, in fairness to the president, initially when we came in we were overwhelmed with an economic crisis that was on the verge of a depression.We were trying to end two wars, etc.But it was—and we discussed it, and when Gabby was—and she’s a good personal friend—when she was shot and we discussed it, the issue became all right, what is the rational way to go about it?I started looking at it.But it wasn’t until Sandy Hook that it was like, “Enough is enough is enough.Put together something for me, Joe.”
Manchin-Toomey, let’s talk about that a little bit.2What was the view of the White House towards Manchin-Toomey?This is the significance that here you have a senator from West Virginia, an A rating with the NRA, that he’s the guy, and Toomey, a conservative Republican.3
2
PolitiFact: A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal
3
The Hill: The NRA and Joe Manchin
Pennsylvania, big gun-owning state, my home state.
What was the view of the Manchin-Toomey bill and sort of why it was important that those guys were the guys that brought it?
My view was very positive.It was important for the reason that they in fact were—no one could attack them for saying they’re against the Second Amendment.They clearly supported the Second Amendment, as I do, by the way, and the president.But they clearly were associated with protecting the Second Amendment.
And what they proposed was common sense, because what happened since the Brady Bill was passed, the plethora of gun shows—and I mean gun shows where thousands of people show up, and a large number of guns are sold.People became aware, all the people walking in to buy a gun there, they didn’t have to go through any background check.If they went across the parking lot to Walmart to buy one, they’d have to have a background check.
And so—and secondly, with online sales increasing significantly, people selling relatively large numbers of weapons online, advertising to sell, there was a whole new avenue to purchase guns that was outside of what everybody agreed should be inside a rational gun policy.You don’t want felons being able to go out and buy guns, for example.If you walked into Walmart, you couldn’t buy it.If you walked into a gun show, you could, because you didn’t have to have a background check.
So they came along and said, “Look, we have a way to capture gun shows and commercial sales that heretofore weren’t considered commercial sales, not being sold by a gun dealer, but being sold by someone who sells more than a gun or two, does it—advertises the sale or does it on internet.
And so it was a very rational approach, and I might add, it got 54 votes.Everybody said it was defeated.A majority of the members of the United States Senate voted and said, “Manchin-Toomey makes sense.”
But it is defeated.
It is defeated because they invoked a rule called the filibuster requiring a 60-vote majority—I mean, supermajority in order to pass.4
So take us to that moment when it goes down.What’s the mood?You’re looking up in the gallery, and there are all the Newtown families looking down.What’s at stake for them?What’s the mood of that hall?
They felt betrayed.That was the word I most often heard.I went and saw all of them who were there.They probably told you.And I spent time with them.They felt betrayed.That’s the word: <i>betrayed</i>.How could they—I will not mention specific names, but I could, but I don’t have permission to do it: “Joe, how could they vote that way?Don’t they understand what happened?How can they do that?How can this be?”I mean, it was disbelief and a sense of betrayal.That was the mood.
And when Pat Maisch shouts out, “You should be ashamed,” to the senators.
They should be ashamed.Should be ashamed.Look—but we’re going to succeed.I’ve been telling this to Mark and all the Newtown families and all the other people that I’ve had an opportunity to console or be with.Look what happened in this election.Big Republican win across the country.But what happened in the state of Washington, where there’s I don’t know how many gun owners?Over 54, 55, 56 percent, given a choice of expanding background checks or reducing them, voted for a binding—a binding referendum saying, “Extend background checks.” …5
Look what happened with Gov. [John] Hickenlooper [D-Colo.].Took on a courageous stand making—dealing with gun violence in the—in the state of Columbine, where Columbine happened.And he won, restricting the ridiculous application of the law as it has been in the past.Solid gun saving.He won, even though the party took a shellacking.
Look at Connecticut, Gov. [Dannel] Malloy.In a state where most of the gun manufacturers live—I know Sandy Hook is there, but that’s where the gun manufacturers are.He was in a tough race.He won.What I’m telling you is we will prevail on this.I believe in the Second Amendment.The vast majority of people believe in the Second Amendment.But we believe in common sense, straightforward common sense.
But federally?
Federally. I believe we will pass it federally.
How do you get to that point if it’s only happening at the state level?
Well, what happens is it’s the same way we got to it the first time around.It started happening back in 1988 in the so-called Biden Crime Bill.It was happening in the states.There was no federal mandate for it at all.We just kept at it. We just kept at it.And it takes time. It takes time.
Look, the NRA, they don’t represent their membership.They really don’t represent their membership.A combination of gun manufacturing, gun manufacturers organizations like the NRA are now up against Gabby Giffords and her husband, who put together a forum that raises significant amounts of money to make the case.
You have—the guy’s a great guy, the former Mayor Bloomberg, taking this to the people and putting his money behind it, so that it’s no longer just the—now I’ll be very practical with you.What senators and congressmen are worried about, in my view, having served there a long time, wasn’t whether or not the people would support what they were doing, but that so much money would be spent by the opposition.
For example, when I—when I wrote the first assault weapons ban and we did the background check bill and limit the amount of bullets in a clip, etc., back in the 1994 Crime Bill, I was running the next time out.And I went up and down every tributary—I’m not joking.In the southern part of my state, they’re big gun owners because of duck hunting, and I’d go walk up through these streams, and I’d say to people—because the NRA put out notices saying, “Biden wants to take your shotgun.”
So I essentially went to where the sportsmen were.I said, “That’s simply not true.Here’s what I’m talking about.”And when you explain it to them, they went, “OK, Joe.”And I won handily in reelection, even though I offered all that legislation.But what happens is, up until now, you had the NRA come in with $2, $3, $4 million, and they wouldn’t honestly debate it with you.They wouldn’t say, “Joe Biden supports background checks, and our guys are against them.”They’d say, “Joe Biden wants to confiscate your gun.Joe Biden doesn’t believe you have a right to hunt.Joe Biden doesn’t have a right to believe you can protect yourself in your home,” None of which is true.
That’s what happened.Now we have a countervailing force, and the other side is able to be heard.That’s why we’re going to prevail.
Mr. Vice President, give us a dose of reality here, though.What’s it going to take to move Congress?A lot of people say the thing about the NRA supporters is that this is their religion; this is life and death.You spit on the NRA, it’s like spitting on the flag almost.… What will it take to see real change on the federal level?
I don’t think there’s a single congressman or senator who serves in the states of Washington, Illinois, Connecticut or Colorado who doesn’t understand that this is the wrong side of the issue to be on with the NRA.The NRA is losing their own membership in terms of support.
You have the vast amount of gun owners saying, “I don’t want people making me look bad.I want them to have to be responsible.I want to know that other people owning a weapon, a gun, are responsible.It’s the irresponsible people that make me look like as a gun owner.”I own two shotguns.I haven’t fired them now in the last—I haven’t had a chance to go out skeet shooting since—well, that’s not true.I did it at Camp David on one occasion since I’ve been here.
But the point is that, you know, there’s nothing wrong.I support people owning hunting weapons and guns.But it is, I think, the vast majority of gun owners, they don’t like being categorized as they are when they associate themselves with the NRA.And I just think we’ve got to keep at it, just keep at it.Maybe I was a legislator too long.It takes time.It doesn’t happen once.You just keep at it and keep at it.And the best news to happen is what spontaneously happened in this election, where conservatives won across the board, but rational gun safety prevailed wherever it was on the ballot.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
