liberties, we treat criminals in this country better than civilians. the reason america is such a great country, every one of its citizens is entitled to constitutional rights. you trample with that at your peril, lisa. continue to tweet me@piersmorgan with the #dearpiers. we'll have more for you tomorrow. "anderson cooper" starts right now. welcome to a live roundtable edition of ac 360. all week long we'll be joined by christian amanpour, jeffrey toobin and amy holmes, every night a different guest is going to be in our tip chair. we'll tell you who tonight's special guest is in a few minutes. very excited about him being here. you can join the conversation by tweeting with #ac 360.

tonight a whole new string of developments in the boston bombings. three new suspects. and also, the hunger strike at guantanamo. prisoners are being held down and force fed. some lawmakers are paying a higher price for blocking gun laws. and one school you won't believe what the administrators did. a very full day in the boston bombing case. three full suspects, one charged with lying to investigators, another charged with obstructing justice. a revelation about the older alleged bomber and his widow shortly before the bombing. what do you make of the case between these three. two kaszak students and the other a u.s. citizen.

>> one question we should never ask is, ask people be that stupid? if these allegations are true, the idea that these guys given the pressure you in the country. >> it wasn't help before the bombing, it was help after the alleged bombing. >> you make an important point. there's no evidence at all that these three were conspirators to do the bombing. no allegation that they were involved with the brothers. >> althouthough there is an allegation that tsarnaev said a month ago, i know how to make a bomb. >> true. the core allegations in today's case are, that these three were friends of the younger brother at the university of massachusetts at dartmouth and they were somehow -- they became aware that he was a suspect and

they were in communication with him by text message and phone. >> after the photos were released by authorities. one of them texted, you look like the bomber. tsarnaev texted back and said, lol, come by my place, you can take whatever you want. >> they did. they went to his room and took out his backpack which had -- firecrackers with the explosives removed. >> the powder removed? >> correct. >> and then vaseline which is a sort of weird aspect to this whole thing. they say, apparently they knew from tsarnaev that vaseline is used in the making of bombs. something that i think most people are not aware of. >> that's not common knowledge. >> something i wasn't aware of. they took these laptop computers and dumped them, they threw them in a dumpster. they were then interviewed by the authorities, one of them is accused of lying to the authorities, and they've now been arrested for obstruction of

justice and for making false statements to the fbi. >> it raises all sorts of questions about what they knew and when they knew it. vaseline, unless it was in the bag. do we know, was it in the bag? >> that's not clear from the complain the. >> if they went and grabbed this vaseline, would you think that that means tsarnaev had a conversation with them saying getting the vaseline. >> they are accused of being aware that vaseline was being used for making bombs. how else would they know that if they didn't talk to him? >> in the after the daft, it says they saw the vaseline, and they recognized that was for bomb making purposes. for most of us, that's not general knowledge. >> we have exclusive video from may 19th, after authorities have released the photos of the suspect -- excuse me, april 19th. authorities have released photos of the suspects.

the authorities go to a house that they believe tsarnaev is at. this is a house that the two kaszak students are living at. this is taken by a neighbor. you hear them yelling, they've surrounded the house, you hear them yelling for tsarnaev to come out of the house. he wasn't at the house. let's watch this video. >> oh, my god, do you think it's him? >> everybody stay down. >> it's a little hard to hear. but you hear them saying, come out with your hands up.

susan, we're learning that the wife allegedly called him after police released an image. do we know what she said to him? >> no, we don't know. and that's, of course, what investigators are very concerned about, that's with our sources are telling us. she called him, we know that much. what did she say? the question, of course, did she warn him? did she say, they're looking for you? that's the thing that investigators are concentrating on, because, of course, if she had, you know, she could be considered to be an accessory. it's far too early to know, we don't know the answers to any of that, except to say that we keep learning that she is cooperating, that's what her lawyer is saying. she keeps having these meetings with them. so -- >> do we know that for a fact? early on her lawyers put out this press release and made a statement saying, she's cooperating as best as she can. which doesn't really mean she's fully cooperating. does she -- >> it seems to me that she must

be, because they're going in and out of her house all the time. >> not necessarily, they may have a search warrant. they may have a subpoena. it's not entirely. >> and what about this idea of a wife calling her husband? is there anything privileged about that? is there any -- is it always incriminating? >> it is privilege. it depends a lot on what was said. and, of course, one party to this conversation is dead. she has a privilege to decline to say what went on. no one will be in a position to say she's lying because no one else knows what was in that conversation. a lot depends on what was said. if she simply said, what is going on? like a wife might say to a husband, there's nothing wrong with that. if she said, they're after you, can i help you escape, that's something else. >> i have a question, for a little bit of clarification. the affidavit doesn't address the last pop, and whether or not our officials have recovered it.

do we know anything about that? >> do we have it? >> reporter: we don't have it confirmed whether they recovered the laptop. >> the new york times is reporting that the authorities do have the laptop, that's just -- >> the affidavit does say they recovered the backpack with the empty fireworks in the landfill. that was a landfill they're searching for. i want to bring in someone who knows what it takes to prosecute terror suspects and lead a major city through a terror attack, rudy giuliani joinsny now. great to have you at the roundtable. what do you make of the new arrests today? >> what i find striking about the complain the is, if the timing is correct in the complaint. these three men could have preconvenient theed the killing of officer collier, he was killed at 11:00 that night. they were in that apartment between 6:00 and 7:00. sometime shortly thereafter, they realized that tsarnaev was one of the bombers. that's when they decided to

remove the items in order to help him. so had they reported it, officer collier today would be alive. also, a prosecutor could have a pretty interesting theory that they're -- this is a conspiracy to obstruct justice. it was a conspiracy to help their friend flee. a rational expectation in fleeing a situation like this, is violence will take place. i would put the murder, the shooting of the second police officer and the kidnapping as overt acts as part of that conspiracy. >> would you do that in order to get them to cooperate? or would you do that to get them to prosecute -- >> i'd prosecute if i could develop the evidence and if they would like to cooperate, we could talk about a lesser charge. this is more serious than it originally appeared. i mean, because there's a man dead, a man kidnapped, another man seriously injured as a result of their joining this conspiracy to obstruct justice. had they done what a decent

citizen would have done, it's quite possible officer collier would be alive. possibly the other officer wouldn't have been shot and the man wouldn't have been kidnapped. >> what's incredible to me about this, only one of them is a u.s. citizen, these two guys who are here under -- because the united states has graciously allowed them into this country are now conspiring or allegedly conspiring with a guy who's committed this bombing. it's idiotic beyond just morally reprehensible. >> it's outrageous, really. >> i actually think i was probably guilty of viewing them at first as knuckle heads. this is a lot worse than being knuckle heads. i mean, i think rudy makes a very good point involving the death of collier. just the idea that you're here through the good auspices of the united states -- >> well, actually one of the students he was not supposed to come back. he was allowed back into the country. mayor, i have a question about these two students. what do you make of the fact that they so enthusiastically

cooperated in trying to destroy there evidence? they took text that looks pretty cryptic. can you go to my apartment and take whatever you want. is that a can of soda? no, it's a laptop that may contain information about the incident. >> i would use that as a conspiracy. they joined a conspiracy to help these two guys flee. that conspiracy to flee a violent crime like this, you would anticipate in a flight, you'd anticipate violence. you would anticipate that these men were going to go down shooting. so there's some responsibility for these -- to these three men for the killing of officer collier, the shooting of the other officer and the kidnapping. all of that could be anticipated, reasonably anticipated when you assist a terrorist who had just done a bombing, killing a child to flee.

and -- rather than help the authorities to find that guy. >> and add on top of that, one has told authorities weeks ago, perhaps a month before this, the suspect had said, i know how to make a bomb. stay with us, we have to take a quick break. joining us our special guest coming up, one of the best new storytellers to cnn. coming up, we'll tell you who it is.

stay top of mind with customers? from deals that bring them in with an offer... to social media promotions that turn fans into customers... to events that engage and create buzz... to e-mails that keep loyal customers coming back, our easy-to-use tools will keep you

in front of your customers. see what's right for you at constantcontact.com/try.

i'm just red carpets and big spectacles. but that's only the beginning. i have more than one red carpet. i like all sorts of spectacles. from the grandiose to the impromptu... to the completely unexpected. and the most epic thrill ride this city has ever faced. transformers the ride 3d. los angeles. endlessly entertaining. start exploring at discoverlosangeles.com

it's about a quarter past 6:00 in abu dhabi. welcome to our viewers on cnn international. our former mayor of new york rudy giuliani is with us and anthony bore dane joins us. it's good to have you on the program. >> good to be here. >> you've been following the bombings in boston. what do you make of it? >> does not appear we're dealing with criminal masterminds here by a longshot. as far as the latest three, i think our former mayor put it concisely, they're looking at at least obstruction charges. and it's good for them. >> you had a question for me? >> i did, actually, mr. mayor, i keep coming back to this idea that on social media, there were clear signs that at least

tamalan had these tendencies. there were all these jihaddy videos. i wonder what law enforcement could do and should do to seek and look at these for signs before they commit the crime. not after they commit the crime. >> it's a shame it happened that one. you would like to see the warning by the russians was taken seriously. particularly after he came back from russia. going to russia should have meant going to dagastan. he was going to russia in order to go to dagastan. the moment he did that, it should have set off alarm bells, maybe this information the russians gave us is serious, and they should have taken a better

look at the guy. >> why didn't they? if they had interviewed him, there were these signs. i asked google's ceo eric schmidt today about this. he said, if there was an ail gore algorithm that could detect terrorists we would use it. >> let me follow up in this way. when you were originally fighting terrorism, we were talking about al qaeda. now, we're talking it appears, and we don't know this for sure. individuals acting, if not entirely on their own, you know, very much as free agents who were just dedicated to the evil cause. >> how do you deal with that when you just have random individuals? >> much harder. much, much harder. chris christie told me years ago when he was doing the investigation of the ft. hood terrorists who were going to attack ft. hood.

luckily they were stopped. he said i fear this more than al qaeda, more than the concerted plots, these people are much harder to find, you don't have a lot of international communication, international travel. you don't get the benefit of our intelligence. our spies that have infiltrated some of these organizations. now, having said that, the question that christina asked me, in this case, we did have the benefit of some of that, and we missed it, i think we better go take a look at how we missed it. this was a little better than we should usually expect from home grown terrorists. we got more warnings, more information, more international travel than we normally should expect to get. you know, it's interesting there's this new cnn poll. anthony, there's a new poll that says, even now in the post 9/11 era, people are significantly

less willing to give up civil liberties to curb terrorism than they were 20 years ago after oklahoma city. >> really, we're talking about thought crimes here, we're talking about using social media as a predictor of future criminal acts. let's face it, amazon knows more about you than the fbi is even allowed to ask without a court order. google knows. >> right, that's my point. >> you don't want the internet to be policed like that. >> to be honest -- no. >> no, no. >> in this case -- i'm really sorry, and i can see you all laughing. but we are all -- >> we're not laughing, we're appalled. >> we're all asked to go through amazing restrictive security searches in many, many instances in our life. what i'm saying is, not police willie nilly, but if the law enforcement knew about this guy, why would they not have gone on and looked at what he was doing online p.m. particularly -- >> let me ask you about what boston did, what do you make of

boston's reaction. from a law enforcement stands point. shutting the city down. they shut down the transportation service. going house to house, knocking on people's doors, knocking on people's homes. is that something you could have done in new york city? >> i'm not going to second guess. i think boston handled the situation brilliantly. maybe you can second guess one or two things here. much harder to do in new york, we're a much bigger city. you're talking about a city of 700,000 people as opposed to a city ten times larger than that. i understand why they did it, they had the terrible shootout the night before, they had no idea where these guys were. they didn't want to see a shootout in the streets in which some more children would be killed, more innocent people would be killed. they erred on the side of caution. i wouldn't second guess it, the result is, thank god no one got hurt. but that kinds of underscores

what these three defendants could have prevented. if instead of acting like criminals, they had acted like decent people, and gotten this information to the fbi or the boston police immediately, it's quite possible these two guys could have been arrested before that police officer was shot. and killed. >> we should also point out a couple headlines on benghazi and libya right now. i want to hear your thoughts. the fbi has put out -- they're seeking three men in the libyan connection. they're saying, they're not suspects, they're persons of interest. they don't know what role they have. they put out the photos, i think we can put those up. >> in the murder of our -- >> they're thought as witnesses potentially. >> their identities are not known. and it's not known what role if any they have. they have put out this alert for them. what -- how did you find libya. you were just -- >> i found a surprisingly hopeful and inspiring place.

>> hopeful? >> really taken aback by the young people i met who had on a thursday, thought we're going to be stuck with gadhafi forever, on friday, thought we saw the revolution started. build weapons out of hair dryers and cross bows, bought soviet tanks with molotov cocktails. they're frank about their aspirations, they know it's going to be a mess. they're building a country from scratch where all authority came from one man. they're realistic that will there are people out there that wish to do us harm. it will take them maybe five, ten years to get their act together. i think we were right to help them. the people who say we were better off with gadhafi in power

are devoid from reality. we can't force democracy down the throats of libyans or syrians, for that matter. i met a lot of people for whom freedom to speak enjoy things they see the rest of the world injoying. >> did they feel that they have paid a price in chaos? as many people feel? in egypt, for example, where you have an authoritarian overruled, things went down hill. how is that? >> i think it's a different situation than -- >> what about the black flag of benghazi and al qaeda? >> what i heard from a lot of the militia guys i spoke to, they were very young and not military people before they took up arms against gadhafi. look, we got rid of gadhafi. these guys we can take care of in time. there was a sense of real unhappiness when there were

assassinations and kidnappings going on, when we were there. they -- the feeling is very much that there are people who want chaos, who do not want us to succeed. they are well aware of all of the dark forces -- they say, that stand in the way of a coherent society. and i think they're realistic about the prospect of how long it might take. we need to be realistic as well. >> what do you make of the investigation so far in benghazi? >> i think the investigation is taking a terribly long time. there are a lot of confusion at the beginning. the fbi getting in there, after three weeks. a lot of things missed that reporters found. a lot of questions unanswered. when you don't investigate a case from the beginning, when a crime scene is all chaos, it's very hard to reconstruct it later, and, of course, for a long time now, no one's being held to answer for it. >> there's not much of a government there to work with. it's a do it why areself situation. >> it's still appalling.

it's outrageous. >> cnn personnel could go into the burned out consulate and see the evidence laying around. it's stunning. >> groups of militia's controlling different territories, cooperating, and not cooperating depending on the situation. people in fatigues without any official status directing traffic. when you go to the airport, you leave your handgun before you -- take your clip, it's sort of like a coat check so you can pick your gunp when you leave. i was more charmed and hopeful than dismayed by this. i see people trying to make -- seriously trying to make a go of really post apock lip tick situation. >> we have to take a quick break. more with the mayor and the president's promise to close down guantanamo bay.

a hunger strike going on there right now. more than 100 people being force fed. [ male announcer ] when you take shortcuts, it shows. we don't run like that. we build john deere equipment the way we always have: the right way. times change. our principles don't. you don't just have our word on it. you've got our name on it. that's how we run. nothing runs like a deere.

discover the full line of riding lawn equipment at johndeere.com/howwerun or your local dealer. at johndeere.com/howwerun see lioutdoors, or in.ight. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. visit your eyecare professional today to ask about our newest lenses, transitions vantage and transitions xtractive lenses.

experience life well lit. ask which transitions adaptive lens is best for you. taiwan, thursday morning there. we'll be back in a moment. anthony bourdain is with us.

welcome back. about half of the 166 detainees at guantanamo bay are leading a hunger strike over how they are treated. >> i think it's critical for us to understand that guantanamo is not necessary to keep america

safe. it is expensive. it is inefficient. it hurts us in terms of our international standing. it lessens cooperation with our allies on counter terrorism efforts. it is a recruitment tool for extremists, it needs to be closed. >> he also said that, of course, during his re-election campaign. and it hasn't happened so far. >> i'd like to see him make a more forceful case here. a little more lurid language. >> it's really bad, yesterday he said i don't want these individuals to die. to that end there are some 25 and counting prisoners on hunger strike who have been designated to be force fed. >> it's actually like 100. >> it is more than that, but 25 or so are being force fed. the way it was described to me, they are strapped down to a chair, forcibly strapped down by

personnel in riot gear. with a tube up their nose down their stomach. it takes two hours to pump down the food supplement. i spoke to a doctor today. doctors should do no harm. he said we should respect the rights of these people. they don't have to take this. >> what do you think we should do about guantanamo? >> i don't think we should close it. i can't imagine where you would put these people? that wouldn't endanger the community in which they were put. i wouldn't want them in or around new york. i think there has to be an option. in this kind of war that we're in, we're not in a war with the state. we're in a war with an ideology. these people are vicious, horrible terrorists. look at the people we've released there, significant number of them have been released, and then engaged in killing americans -- >> mayor, listen -- they haven't

been charged. they haven't been tried. >> they're vicious killers. but certainly, some of them will be tried under military tribunals and they will be proven to be vicious killers. what about that significant group of people and it is a significant number who we describe as vicious killers but we don't have enough evidence to try them. do we keep them there forever with no charges? >> you have to accept that during a time of war. if we had a group of nazis during the second world war, ween wot be worried about, are we going to try them, how are we going to try them, what kind of evidence do we have? >> we did try some, we didn't try others. we held them in camps. >> by the logic of the war on terror, it's a never ending war. these people have not been charged. >> president obama -- some of them can't even be tried because they're tortured. >> if even president obama will not release these folks, we have 86 cleared for release, no country will take them.

a recidivism rate of 15 to 20%. particularly after the boston bombing, i don't think anybody wants to roll the dice. >> maybe they don't. but even this week, the head of the senate intelligence committee has written a letter to the chief, and has said, it's time to use executive branch authority to close down part of it and to have a review and transfer the 86 detakenees who have been cleared for transfer. >> it is not up to president obama to close guantanamo at this point. as a result of the failed effort to prosecute in new york city. congress passed the law forbidding the closure of guantanamo. even if obama wanted to, he doesn't have the legal authority to close it. >> he was acquitted on more than 280 charges, only charged in one. i think the administration looks at that, do you really want to try do --

>> there are so many that have come and been convicted and were serving life sentences. much more have paid the price. life in prison. >> the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, they pled guilty. >> all the others who have been tried have gone to life sentence. >> what about a super max facility. >> why no confidence in super max? >> why should we have that burden in the united states? it makes no sense. and i'm not sure the state in which those facilities are located would want them. foreign countries don't want them. why would we want them? i mean, the reality is, these are -- >> the president of yemen wants them back. >> the answer to that. regardless -- >> these are exceedingly dangerous people, the war is still going on, christianne says it will never end. it will end when they stop attacking us. we're not in control on this. this is not our war on them, boston showed us, it's their war on us. this facility has worked to keep

them safe. there are no other alternatives. bush and obama have tried other alternatives, tried to get states to take them, countries to take them. no one wants them. >> do you ever see an end to the war on terror? >> of course i see it. no one saw an end to communism until it ended. >> when al qaeda surrenders. >> when they stop mounting these attacks on us in various parts of the world, there will come a time when this ends. i don't know when that is. it may be sooner than people think, may be longer than people think. until then, the safety of the american people, not the convenience of these people. they have three choices, rights? they can starve, they can eat food or they can be fed the way they're being fed, it's their choice. >> can i ask a question about the hunger strike? i'm sorry if is a ghoulish question, i don't know the answer. it seems like the president didn't know the answer either. what is the humane thing to do with the hunger strike? is it to let them die?

or do you force feed them? >> the american medical association and the world medical association said that force feeding people who are conscious, who are able to make a decision, who understand the consequences of it should not be force fed in prison. american courts have ruled in the past that yes prison authorities can do this because they need to be able to keep law and order. it violates a physicians code of conduct. and furthermore, if we go back -- >> so let them die? >> this is not about dying necessarily. >> that is their rationally -- >> you may hate this, but this is about their conditions and you may hate who they are, mr. mayor, i fully understand that, this is about their conditions and it goes right back to -- >> their conditions are better than the conditions in 95% of american prisons. >> that -- >> their conditions are better than the conditions from wence

they came. they haven't had it better. >> i've been there twice. >> some of them have exercise equipments better than the attorney general has. >> that's fine. >> the conditions are not the problem. the conditions are perfectly. >> is imprisonment indefinitely. >> that's where we have to draw the distinction. >> i think -- it's not really conditions. the conditions itself are perfectly adequate for a prison and are probably better than most prisons in the united states. the problem is the hopelessness of their situation with no trial, no deadline, no sentence, just indefinition detention. >> i think it goes to your point of constant terrorism and acts against the united states. you know that way back in northern ireland during the hunger strikes when bobby sands died, and another nine died. the british were thrilled. >> the british were thrilled

about the way margaret thatcher dealt with it. but this was the second biggest recruiting tool for the i.r.a. the first biggest thing bloody sunday when british forces massacred people. this was the second biggest. even people who hated the i.r.a. never forgave the government for allowing people to die. >> i handled some of those extradition cases when i was united states attorney. one famous one where the man had to be returned to northern ireland. that was in 1986. at the time i argued that, people were saying, this will never end it's been going on for 200 years. well, we had the good friday accords and it hasn't ended completely, but it's pretty much ended. don't be so pessimistic about the fact that this war on terror, terrorist war against us, isn't at some point going to come to an end. they do, we can't see that when we're in the middle of it, like we couldn't see that in 1986,

'87, '88 in northern ireland. >> it is a general consensus among those who study the northern ireland issue that the good friday agreement might have happened earlier, but for the recruiting tools that these hunger strikes and the way it was dealt with provided. >> we have a laundry list of resentments against the west. >> certainly. if you look at what osama bin laden said about his resentments. u.s. troops in saudi arabia. if we're looking at recruiting tools, we'd have to go through a list of 100. >> for me, let's put aside the moral -- it's a powerful image in the mind if nothing else. let's put aside the moral question. is it good for our country to do this? it is not, it is a recruiting tool where it is going to last for some time, tactically we need a plan b. >> mary, your final word on

this. >> i do not believe it's a recruiting tool at all. the reality is, this comes out of a perverted interpretation of the islamic religion that is very commanding of the minds of these people. this is why they're doing, that's what jihad is all about. i bet you can search all this material for these dagastan terrorists, but you're not going to find a darn thing about guantanamo. i think that is an overstated position, i don't think it's a recruiting tool at all. it's very effective in keeping us safe from people who have been let out of guantanamo and gone ahead and killed americans after we foolishly let them out of guantanamo. just ahead, the fallout on the senate gun control bill and where the battle may be headed next. ♪ [ female announcer ] it's no secret. recently, jcpenney changed. some changes you liked. and some you didn't. but what matters with mistakes is what we learn. we learned a very simple thing.

to listen to you. to hear what you need to make your life more beautiful. come back to jcpenney. we heard you. now we'd love to see you. ♪ trust your instincts noto make the call.e you. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18

or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron.

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] this is a reason to look twice. this is a stunning work of technology. the 2013 lexus es and the first-ever es hybrid. this is the pursuit of perfection.

welcome back, it's quarter to 5:00 in the morning in hungary. the fallout is piling up, senators who voted against expanding background checks say they are feeling growing heat. let's talk about that with our panel. we had pat toomey blaming political polarization. he said in the impasse. there were some on my side. they didn't want to help the president do something he wanted to get done.

>> i'm sure there are some senators who are i'd yo logically -- republicans do have their extinguishes still. >> you don't think support for gun control is as deep? >> gun control is not an intense issue for gun control advocates. >> this support is a mile wide. in april, right before they vote. they found out the most important issue for america, only 4% said gun control. >> the people who oppose further background checks. >> they will vote in republican primaries. these senators risk losing their parties nomination if they even

think about voting for any kind of gun control. even something that is seemingly as controversial as background checks. >> in countries around the world. we're not preaching to america, but they have taken serious measures. i interviewed the former conservative prime minister who entered office as this was this huge massacre in tasmania. he knew he had to do something, and he's conservative, and there's a gun culture there. he did this huge buy back program. he decided he would go to a referendum if they didn't agree to have certain gun control measures. he thought he could end that referendum. the fact of the matter is, there has not been a mass shooting since then. in england as well this they instituted more robust gun control measures. in japan, you can't buy a handgun.

you can buy a shotgun, but in order to do that, it's so stringent, you have to take a mental test, a written test. you have to go to a shooting range. >> i'm a blue state guy, but i spent a lot of time in in a red state. spent a lot of time sitting down at the end of a meal. they all go back to shoot cans. it's a gun culture, a culture where the presence of a weapon in a bar is not a threatening thing. a lot of good law abiding people for whom guns run deep as a birth right. i think in order to have the discussion we need to have, and to make the changes that we need to have in a law we would like to see, we need to have a discussion and reach an agreement, and in order to do that i think we're going to have to be sensitive to that large group of people that are

responsible gun owners, who don't agree with wayne lapierre as theirspokesman. but will move toward him if they feel threatened by murmurs of even the thought of people taking away their guns or intruding on their traditional lifestyle. there's got to be a middle ground. >> personally for harry reid, what i find interesting about this politically, we're seeing democrats doing the texas two step. they're advocating for more stronger gun control on a national level. but on the state level, it's been reported the democratic party is looking to recruit pro gun candidates like brian schweizer. he famously said he had more guns than he needs. but not as many as he wants. >> i want to bring california's attorney general. she just signed legislation that will release funding for people

prohibited by law from earning them. >> do you see momentum for change? >> i have to -- i absolutely do. i think southern california has done should be carried out around the country. it would institute common sense gun safety laws. we have put $24 million into an initiative of programs that is about taking guns out of the hands of people who are legally prohibited from owning them. convicted felons, people who have been found by a court to be mentally ill. it's just about common sense approach. i think part of the thing that concerns me about this debate is, it really is offering a false choice that suggests you're either in favor of the second amendment or in favor of reasonable gun safety laws. we can have both and be both. i think what we've done today in california is a model of that approach. and is something that is leading the nation in terms of what can be done to avoid the kind of gun violence we are seeing across the country.

>> you're a successful politician. what about anthony's point, which i think is so important. why have democratic politicians had so much trouble talking to the law abiding gun owners. there are lots of law abiding gun owners there. why are they so alienated from the idea of gun control? >> again, i -- i think it's as simple as pointing out the false choices being presented. it's -- you can be, i am in favor of the second amendment, i am in favor of people who are law abiding citizens, having an ability to purchase a firearm. when we're talking about california's approach that was passed today, the second amendment does not guarantee a convicted felon to own and possess a gun. background laws, background checks would do just what we've done in california. it would allow us to prohibit people who have been proven to be a danger to our society from owning a gun. i think democrats and

republicans have to really be unburdened by the ideology that's been pervasive in this debate and approach it from a practical perspective, which appreciates that none of us want violent people, dangerous people, people who have been found to be mentally ill. we don't want them to be in possession of a gun. >> you're backing up with the -- one of the arguments the nra is making, is that there are plenty of people who have lied on their background checks and have been able to walk out the door and not be prosecuted? >> i suggest that some of them have been prosecuted. a larger point is not created around the abuses, we will deal with the abuses when they occur. we should have smart public policy as it relates to regulating. who can own a gun. and who can possess a gun? and in particular, we should all agree, and it should not be controversial, it should not be up to the states individually to do it. our folks in washington, d.c., need to take action and take control of this issue. and institute some common practical approaches to making

sure that these people don't have guns. the background laws and checks will allow us to do that. it will allow each individual state around this country to make sure that dangerous people are not walking the streets in possession of a gun. >> so anthony, would you say perhaps an answer to jeffrey's question about this alienation between law abiding gun owners and the democratic party is so often we hear politicians talking about gun control who clearly no nothing about guns. i don't know in addition about guns. >> it's a cultural divide. it's really a -- the appearance of a gun or hunting clothes in a new york bar is an alarming sight. it's business as usual, in arkansas or missouri. and it's that basic huge difference in -- between these cultures that's causing a lot of completely unnecessary polarization. these are good people on both sides. who need to reach some common

sense. a lot of gun lobbyists talk about, any time something goes wrong with the gun, for me, before you get a 16 wheeler, we'd like to know more about you. you can kill a lot more people with a 16 wheeler. >> driving is not a fundamental right. we have to leave it. camala harris, good to have you on the program. we'll be back.

i'm also a survivor of ovarian a writand uterine cancers. i even wrote a play about that. my symptoms were a pain in my abdomen and periods that were heavier and longer than usual for me. if you have symptoms that last two weeks or longer, be brave, go to the doctor. ovarian and uterine cancers are gynecologic cancers. symptoms are not the same for everyone. i got sick...and then i got better.

humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? the physical damage was pretty bad. the emotional toll was even worse. our daughter had nightmares. what that robber really took from us was our peace of mind. with adt, we got it back. [ male announcer ] every 14.6 seconds,

a burglary takes place in the united states. so rely on the fast alarm response of adt. a single adt system can help protect you from burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide. when an alarm is received, adt calls the local authorities for help. and you can get this monitored protection, plus great local service, starting at just over $1 a day. and only adt offers a theft protection guarantee. take it from me. the time to think about a security system isn't after something bad happens -- it's before. [ male announcer ] call now and get one of our best values -- adt's essentials plus system installed for $99. hurry, and take advantage of these savings. adt. always there.

we want to thank anthony bourdain. where are you going this sunday? >> quebec. >> and i remember -- >> the most dangerous chefs in nor north america. >> all the sorts of rich food? >> it's not light cooking. and they -- more equals better. >> what did you eat in libya? >> lamb bbq, seafood. excellent seafood and leftover -- sort of remnants of italian cuisine. >> we have to leave it there. 9:00, parts unknown sunday? >> yes. >> great to have you on. and all of my guests. join us every night this week 10:00 eastern for our little roundtable. that's it for us.