Gary, your starting point gives me some concern. For one, the authorities end up making decisions about what I can and can't do based on some expert's evaluation of my family or friends.
Let's consider marriage; what authority has the government in how we conduct our relationships? We are now entrenched in a horrendous battle in which same-sex marriage is seeking legitimacy through government licensure. What next? Years ago I learned that whenever the government requires a license to do something it means that the government has essentially made that action illegal and is now in the business of issuing caveats for profit; marriage, dog ownership, etc. BTW, are you now pushing the abuse of requiring marriage licensees to suggest that maybe we should be required to register our children along with our dogs? When and why did the government even get into the business of controlling marriage?
Furthermore, and I realize your argument is seemingly couched in "common sense," but the Law is clear, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and I take that to mean under any circumstances. We can debate the meaning of the word people and we would probably agree that that encompasses all those rightful and lawful citizens but to now drag in a person's family seems to be no part of the intent that I can perceive in that statement nor have I read that interpretation anywhere else. My opinion, you need to rethink this one.

BTW, it might interest all to know that Mr. Biden in his White House meeting with the NRA essentially informed the NRA, and by extension the American people, that the present administration does not have the time to adequately enforce existing gun laws...and I quote, "...regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately" (Joe Biden).
Bottom line, to heck with the laws let's just get the guns in the easiest way possible.

Sorry, Paul, but your logic is flawed. You seem to be saying that if we can't enforce laws 100%, we shouldn't have any laws at all. That's obviously absurd; at least it's obvious to me. We have laws against murder, and yet people are still murdered, against theft, and people still steal. Likewise for laws against arson, spousal abuse, child pornography, and driving faster than the speed limit. Laws attempt to protect citizens from each other, and though they're frequently broken, I've not heard anyone suggest that we should eliminate them just because they don't result in 100% compliance. Laws are a tool that is used to try to prevent anti-social behavior, and when laws are broken and offenders are apprehended, there are penalties that can be applied. Murderers and thieves and arsonists and kiddy porn fans can be tried, hopefully convicted, and held accountable for their actions. Without laws, there are no remedies. Without laws, society becomes a free-for-all, where the strong can victimize the weak, the majority can subjugate the minority, where brute force can dominate the helpless, and where no one has any rights at all. Yes, even with laws, people cheat on their taxes, drive with suspended licenses, and throw trash out of their car windows. The laws are not perfect, but they demonstrate society's willingness to strive for a better world for all citizens. Existing gun laws may not be 100% enforceable, but they're a step in the right direction.

In the section you quoted, Biden says the same thing I've said - that a law can't be enforce all the time. But his words say nothing about not passing laws simply because they can't all be enforced all the time. You're the one who interprets that as "Bottom line, to heck with the laws let's just get the guns in the easiest way possible." It's hard to imagine you're actually suggesting that there should be no gun laws. We both know Biden would never say such a thing.

Your response is rude and insulting. You imply that I don't understand the English language and that I am incapable of forming an educated opinion. People who don't have the facts on their side often resort to personal attacks, and I must conclude that is what you are doing.
As for the laws that you suggest are already on the books, they are being enforced in the majority of cases. Biden is the man chosen by our President to formulate a gun control plan, so your suggestion that he doesn't think we should have such laws is ludicrous. I admire our Vice President, and I believe he is one of the most sincere and intelligent people serving in government. But the laws you are refering to are not the issue in the nation's current discussion of gun control laws. Sadly, the law banning assault weapons was allowed to expire, and I believe it needs to be reinstituted. Laws regarding background checks do not apply to gun shows, and I believe they should. There are no current laws limiting the number of bullets in a clip, nor are there laws limiting the amount of ammunition nor the type of ammunition that can be purchased.
This will be my last reply, since no one but you seem to be reading them, and we both know your opinions and mine.

I know I'm late to the party, but I just happened across this article when I was doing research on my recent rescue dog. The premise between background checks for adopting a dog and background checks for purchasing a firearm, while is an interesting one doesn't hold up much weight if analyzed from a practical stand point . The whole inanimate object vs living creature aside, full background checks of family member would do little help stop rare incidents like Newtown. Yes, Adam Lanza obtained the firearms from his mothers house, but he killed his mother. Somebody capable of that atrocity is very capable of breaking into a house, killing a random neighbor or even a police office and obtaining a weapon. Most of the violence that occurs with respect to gun ownership is carried out due to the drug trade. If you want to end gun violence, address the societal issues that lead to someone picking up a weapon and miss using it.