israel across the border. i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. israeli defense forces expanding their ground operation in gaza overnight. an idf spokesman says the forces are in the field and continue the fighting with infinity and armored vehicles backed by massive strikes from the air and the sea, including the bombing of hamas tunnels. the bombardment also knocking out communications in gaza, creating a near information blackout. and largely cutting off the territory's more than 2 million people from the outside world. until now, israel's military had been conducting targeted raids with forces withdrawing after a few hours. it comes as an israeli ground offensive aimed at seizing and holding significant amounts of territory has been widely expected but does not appear that such a significant operation is under way yet. joining me from israel is cnn

correspondent jeremy diamond. jeremy, still not the ground incursion that we had anticipated. >> reporter: well, at least not officially, michael. the idf is continuing to characterize this as expanded ground operations inside of gaza. and it appears -- are we getting a siren? yep. i think we're getting a siren, michael. we have to move. just going to get low. just get down. get down, guys. get down. sorry. we're just going to move down, michael, as we're getting sirens. we are near the border right now with gaza. but, as i was saying, the idf saying that overnight they struck over 150 targets inside of gaza. and i can tell you from being near the border over the last nearly three weeks of this military campaign, what we heard last night certainly was the most intense, the most sustained bombardment of the gaza strip since this war began. really earth shaking kinds of bombardments. part of that is because they're striking not only buildings but they are trying to strike deep

under ground that hamas' underground tunnel infrastructure, according to the idf, they struck over 150 underground targets last night and allegedly killed the commander of hamas' naval forces. today we drove along the border with the gaza strip. what we were able to witness is essentially the aftermath of that ground operation last night. areas that were previously teaming with tanks and armored vehicles north of the gaza border, today, michael, we found them mostly empty. they appear to have moved towards the gaza border and into gaza. we saw logistic support vehicles heading toward the gaza border. that's of course, notable. unlike the raids we have seen, they carried out over the previous two nights, what happened last night is different in that the tanks and the armored personnel carriers that went into gaza remain there today. the idf this morning saying that

fighting is still on going inside the gaza strip at this hour. michael? >> jeremy, stay safe. and thank you for that report. here now with some perspective is bruce hoffmann. he's the counsel on foreign relations senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security and professor of security studies at georgetown university. he recently wrote this piece for the atlantic, understanding hamas' genocidal ideology. whose side is time on? >> time is on the side of the israel defense forces. but at the same time, i would caution that time is very perishable commodity. for instance, in the immediate aftermath of the october 7th attacks, israel had the unqualified support of the united states and other countries to defend itself however it saw fit. we have seen over the past three weeks that that has been qualified quite a bit to talk about surgical operations, humanitarian assistance and son.

so, the pressure i think is on the idf to act now. >> is it necessary for israel to maintain a sustained ground incursion? >> yes. i think if you look at history, air power alone has never defeated terrorists anywhere. if you look at even the united states' own experience in the war on terror. united states air assets were deployed to try to obliterate al qaeda and kill osama bin laden in december 2001 and january of 2002. without the ground forces present to finish the job, we saw what happened. they escaped. clearly israel does have to put forces on the ground in gaza to achieve what its stated aims are, which is to destroy hamas's military capability. >> right. when folks around the globe look at the images that we're now showing on the screen of that

which has transpired just in the overnight, israel must worry, don't you think, that the perception will be that this is collective punishment and not something specifically targeted at hamas. so, how do they meet that burden of proof in the court of olympic opinion? >> exactly right. that's why i said that time is a perishable commodity because we have seen that reducing the entirety of gaza to rubble, killing thousands of civilians is now how you win any kind of a war but certainly a struggle against terrorism. of course as we have also seen the past three weeks the narrative and the perception is all important. so this is why israel needs to move on the ground to the more surgical precision operations to begin to actually counter the hamas fighters and weaken them directly as opposed to reducing the entirety of the gaza strip to a rubbish heap. >> dr. hoffmann, i want to read something to you aloud.

i'll put it on the screens for my viewers. it caught my eye, john sawer, former chief of mi 6, former uk ambassador to the u.n. he said this, israel has ever right to respond. now the immediate rage has passed, prime minister benjamin netanyahu and his war cabinet are thinking through their options more carefully. we should expect search and destroy missions inside gaza city to take down as much of hamas' military as they can and to try to rescue hostages. here is now the part that i highlight to my myself. but israel's security chiefs know the goal of destroying hamas is probably beyond their reach. hamas has a political base and extensive external support from iran. do you believe that, that israel's security chief would know that the goal of destroying hamas is probably beyond their reach? >> well, i think -- yes. that's a very astute observation i think or analysis by sir john

sawers. but israel's, i think, highest priority is destroying hamas' military capability. we have heard the past few weeks about the difficulties of urban warfare and predicting that the idf is going to be stymied. let's face it, hamas never fought an urban war such as that which -- that prime minister netanyahu has promised. israel has vast experience in urban operations in the west bank, going back to the second anti-fa da in the early 2000s very intense fighting. and recent urban operations in janine. also hamas has no armor or aviation assets for quick reaction. the idf does. and then, look, 360,000 idf reservists have been mobilized. hamas has about a tenth of that number of fighters. so clearly defense is easier than offense.

and hamas is i think obviously confident that it can stymy the idf. but i think the idf has a lot of advantages in achieving the preeminent first goal of destroying hamas' military capability. and what i think is hoped is from that flows a weakening of hamas' political influence and clout if it's deprived of any kind of assets. >> dr. hoffmann, thank you for your expertise. >> you're welcome. so what about the hostages? joining me now is christopher o'leary, who was until recently the u.s. director of hostage rescue and recovery. he has extensive experience with the fbi and counterterrorism and hostage matters throughout the middle east. mr. o'leary, thank you for being here. it seemed like there was hope yesterday of a major hostage release. and then all of a sudden came this uptick in israel's ground activity. do you relate the two? >> i do, but i also would

caution that it was not going to ever be a major hostage release. it would have been a very deliberate, calculated and manipulative release of some additional hostages by hamas, but they're not going to open the flood gates and release any leverage that they have on israel and the international community. >> there have been no public signs of life. what, if anything, do you make of that? >> well, i make of it that they are likely being held in the gaza metro, probably see creted in the most secure areas and most difficult to get to by idf if and when they start going in more deliberately. so, listen, hamas is looking to safeguard these hostages for as long as they can, treat them like cattle. they're cattle ranchers. this is a commodity and they're looking to get the best price for them at a certain point. >> right. how can israel ensure the safety, the on going safety, of

the hostages given what we've just reported in the last ten minutes in terms of the uptick in ground activity accompanied by the aerial bombardment? >> they can't completely. but i will say this, shin bet, idf intelligence capabilities were certainly embarrassed by the catastrophic failure that they had to prevent october 7th. so they are now being very deliberate in their targeting, making sure that the targets they strike are not based on single-source intelligence but multiple sources, that corroborated, that has an established chain of acquisition. that they have the highest confidence that they're not going to create collateral damage with the hostages. having said that, it's no guarantee. they could harm some hostages, but the other part of that is hamas could also claim that israel is killing the hostages

and amplifying their psychological warfare and putting the blame on israel for their death. that will also create greater division between the hostage families and israel. and the israeli government but also the international community. it will widen the fish sure between the support that as dr. hoffmann mentioned was absolute in the beginning and started to depart a little bit as time went on. >> christopher o'leary, thank you so much for your expertise. >> good to be here. up ahead, the suspect in the maine mass shootings this week found dead last night from a self-inflicted gunshot. what do we know about such shooters? we'll get to that. and congressman dean phillips is here. we just announced he's challenging president biden for the democratic nomination. which by the way leads me to today's survey question. in 1980, ronald reagan defeated incumbent jimmy carter in part by asking americans to reflect on whether they are better off

than they had been four years earlier. i'm curious about all of you. what would you say if asked the same about today's incumbent. are you better off than you were four years ago?

congressman dean phillips announce on friday that he's challenging president biden for the democratic nomination. he'll join me in just a moment. would he be doing so if americans felt that they were better off now than they were four years ago? i ask that because in the final week of the 1980 presidential campaign, ronald reagan asked jimmy carter that crystallized and maybe sway the election. >> next tuesday all of you will go to the polls. you'll stand there in the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision it might be well if you ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? >> carter was then beleaguered by the misery index, acued economic measure invented by

economist arthur oaken in the 1970s. combination of unemployment and inflation rates. the number was more than 20% during the 1980 campaign when ronald reagan won re-election it was 11.4%. when george w. bush won a second term, the misery index was 9. for barack obama's second election day it was 9.5. today, as joe biden runs for re-election it's only 7.5 and the economic numbers only seem to be improving despite on going inflation pressures this week new gdp numbers released this week the u.s. economy grew faster in the third quarter. the gross domestic product, gdp, measures all goods and services rose at annual pace of 4.9% up from 2.1% in the second quarter. and yet, compared with other presidents dating back to eisenhower in this period of their terms, epresident biden has the lowest popularity of any

president except jimmy carter. this week gallop revealed that the president's approval rating is now at 37%. that matches his personal low. driving those numbers, biden's job approval among democrats tumbled by 11 points in the last month. brand new survey data of 5,000 americans spread across 15 communities casts doubt on whether biden's numbers bear any relationship to the economy and whether people feel that they're better off. consider this, when asked a very reagan-esque question, do you think your life is generally headed in the right direction or is it off on the wrong track, 87% said, yes, it's on the right track. similarly, when asked about their communities, 63% say they're going in the right direction. it's only when asked about the country at large that 79% of americans say, america as a whole is on the wrong track.

only 18% say america is going in the right direction. the perception is individuals are doing well, their communities are doing fine but the country is going to hell in a hand basket. why the disconnect? maybe because perception of the nation at large is being by a 24/7 news cycle of snatch and grafs, violent protests, worries about migrants surge at the border, defense spending spiraling while people's pocketbooks are hurting. when congressman dean phillips threw his hat in the ring this week, he mentioned not only chaos at the borders and in our cities but the torch needs to be passed to a new generation of leaders. the biggest factor in biden's polling is something he can't do anything about between now and the election and that's his age. jos congressman dean phillips of minnesota. it seems that the president that has data but he can't sell it.

why? >> well, michael, good to be with you. you just made the case why i entered the democratic primary. the country is feeling really fearful, uneasy, divided. i call it anger tanment. we are more divided than we really are. and i believe it's time for an american president to focus on literal repair. look at the word. repairing the country. we need it now more than ever. to the economic numbers the macro economic numbers are good. i admire joe biden. i voted as his policies as a member of the house democratic leadership team. i helped market those policy. but i've been talking to people here in new hampshire over the last 24 hours since i declared my candidacy. people cannot afford health care. families are struggling, 60% of america still lives paycheck to paycheck. 40% can't afford a $400 car repair. the president has done a fine job of being the very bridge that he promised he would be, the transitional president that our country needed a the time. i admire joe biden.

but 80% of the country wants change. it's time for it. it's time to walk to the future. and i tell you, as i listen to people, i hear it everywhere i am right now, michael, it's time for a new generation to take the rain. we have a lot of challenging. the ones we're facing will be ones that only newer generations can tackle. as long as we fight each other, we're not going to fight for america and that's my message, to do this differently, thoughtfully and bipartisan fashion that this country deserves and frankly has earned. >> okay. so, give us the elevator pitch on how you can actually win the nomination. w. the good news is thank goodness we live in a country voters make the decision. if they want, this is a choice. i have the democratic national committee competing against me, an extraordinarily large machine. of course it's rigged against any challenger candidate under any circumstance. but what a beautiful example of american democracy, where anybody 35 years old, u.s.

citizen, born here, can enter this ring in new hampshire just like i did yesterday. first in the nation primary since 103 years ago. talking with people, making your case. we're going to win new hampshire. that will put us on the radar screen and i'm going to introduce myself to the country and only give people a choice. i'm not running against president biden. i admire him. i'm running for the future. i'm running to provide people a choice because if democrats with a big d defeat democracy with a small d by pushing people aside, telling them to stand down and get out, that is antithetical to meeting the moment and it's our generation's turn to take those reins. >> congressman, when you say you admire him and admire his record and be supportive in the congress, you have to complete the sentence which says, but i don't think he can beat donald trump. are you ready to make that case in order to win the nomination? >> absolutely. that is my case. i don't need to make it. look at the polls. last week's abc news poll has president biden down 9 points

nationally. the bloomberg poll has him losing in five of the six key battleground states. you just referenced some of the lowest presidential approval rating. over 50% of democratic voters simply want an alternative. i'm raising my hand. i'm entering this ring because i think americans deserve that very alternative. i'm going to run a spirited, joyful, optimistic campaign based on strength and fortitude and give people a choigs. if i don't succeed, i will do everything i can, i will work just as hard for president biden or whoever the nominee might be to ensure that donald trump does not return to the white house. and if that wasn't enough, michael, matt gaetz of all people, matt gaetz yesterday tweeted that it would be harder for donald trump to beat dean phillips than to beat joe biden. that is the very case i'm going to be making -- >> congressman, i have no doubt that there's a craving, there's a hunger. i'm very familiar with all the data. i track this of americans who

want a choice. and don't like the status quo. the fundamental question is whether your route is the best way to get it done, meaning within a democratic nomination fight where you're a unique guy willing to talk about border security and crime as opposed to running as an independent, maybe a no labels candidate. surely you evaluated that path and ruled it out. what's the short answer as to why. >> i say shame on anybody who might run as an independent candidate as this most important eflexion our country's history, whether it's cornell west, robert kennedy, any other initiative that would have an alternative candidate that would peel votes from whomever would be taking on donald trump. shame on you. i would never do that. i'm doing this in the way that we have constructed our democracy and we as democrats do it, through a thoughtful, spirited primary. and i do not intend to undercut the president. i do not intend to demean him, diminish him. i'll make my case for the

future. it's more bold for the future. i think that's exactly what americans need. i'm troubled by those who somehow are fearful of choice, fearful of freedom and fearful of doing exactly what our founders intended when they created our country almost 250 years ago. i think once people see how i'm doing this, it might surprise, it might delight and might actually inspire our country to make the choice to move to the future. it's not that difficult if you're really paying attention to what people are listening to. that's what i've been doing. >> congressman, thank you for being here. we appreciate it. >> any time, michael. social media reaction, katherine, what do we have in from the world of youtube, i think. i give phillips a shoutout for having the ka hoeny. i think we need more competition. competition is good. you know, i've said this before about president biden, it's like holding back that starting quarterback and giving him no

touches until the first season of the nfl. you got to put him in, at least in the third or fourth game for a couple of touches. otherwise you don't know what you have on your hands until you get to the debate stage. >> we love the social media reaction on all the platforms. i'm not making a prediction, only stating i think it would be interesting if joe biden loses the new hampshire primary because he's not on the ballot, given dean phillips momentum leading into the south carolina primary and the end result is the incumbent president loses the nomination says candice. right. very astute candice. the point is that dean phillips is going to be on that ballot in new hampshire. the president is not going to. the whole tit for tat as to what state should go first. the president cast his lot with south carolina. so, dean phillips is going to win, it would seem, the new hampshire primary. i should reference mary ann williamson as well. i don't think dean phillips can get on the --ballot.

i always welcome the news that others are getting in the race. go to my website at smerconish.com. i love today's poll question. katherine, my producer, gets the credit for it. i wrote the commentary and it wasn't obvious to me but it was obvious to her. yeah. are you better off now than you were four years ago? cannot wait to see that result. up ahead, after finding a suicide note, authorities found the body of the suspect in this week's tragic mass shootings. i'll talk with the former fbi agent who founded its active shooter program. and is there a quiet mutiny brewing with the state department with america's policy to supply arms to israel. i'll talk to one official who made his unhappiness public and resigned.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? have we piqued your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible. the suspect in the maine double mass shooting is dead, according to law enforcement. the gunman was found last night with an apparent self-inflicted

gunshot wound to the ned an area near the recycling center from which he had recently been fired. he was accused of shooting into a bowling alley and restaurant in lewiston wednesday night killing 18 people. investigators believe he legally purchased the gun that he used for both mass shootings just days before he was hospitalized and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. police are expected to hold a press conference in the next hour. we'll bring that to you live. but first, joining me now is a retired fbi special agent who created the agency's active shooter program. and she's the author of "stop the killing:how to end the mass shooting crisis". so katherine, once again, it seems that law enforcement was last in the loop of a known danger. that's a pattern we have seen before. >> and it's a pattern we'll see again. let me just give you one -- two pieces of data that i think are fascinating about that very

question. or that very statement. first of all, when the fbi looked at shooters, from actual shooters who did this over a 14-year period, 54% of the time people who heard specific leakage and had specific information never reported it to anybody. more than that, 83% of the time they only went back to the person who said it to them. so they went back to the shooter and said, hey, you said you were going to do something violent. and the person would say, oh no, i was just kidding. people aren't sharing information. that's what's happening. >> okay. so what is leakage, as you used that term? and what are behaviors of concern? >> generic terms for us. but leakage is when somebody says something that indicates an intent to commit a violent act or intent to commit suicide. maybe 40%, up to 40% of these

types of shooters want to commit suicide either by cop or on their own. it's just what we saw this week. so that's the leakage. behaviors of concern are the things that observable things you see and hear everyday from people more than expressed i'm just frustrated, but behavior that they have obviously financial problems they can't marriage, marital problems they can't handle, interpersonal relationship issues, mental health struggles that are just getting to be too much. they're observable behaviors when we tie them all together, every shooter has four to five of these concerning behaviors. when they have a stress like a job failure, like we saw here, then we have this outcome. >> i follow you on twitter. and you have said people have got to be an up stander. maybe it's obvious, what's an up stander? >> oh, people have to be an up stander. up stander is saying something when you see something.

and the difference -- i think sometimes people say two things. he'll never do that. he's never done that before. yes. that's a fact. these shooters do not have long criminal records. but in addition to that, we want somebody to tell. people interpret tell as snitching. but telling is getting somebody help. snitching is getting somebody in trouble. we want you to get them help. >> that's a good message. we'll see what gets said at this press conference. katherine, thank you so much for being here as always. >> thank you, sir. still to come, my next guest unhappy with the administration supplying of weaponry to israel resigned from his position at the state department. while josh paul condemns hamas, he says america is not acting in its best interest. i'll ask him why and if others feel the way he does. >> make sure you're answering today's poll question at smerconish.com. are you better off -- this is the reagan question. are you better off now than you

were fouour years agago?

it's not often that a linkedin post makes national news. that's what happened with my next guest josh paul after he resigned after what he called the biden administration's, quote, continued lethal assistance to israel in the conflict with hamas, calling impulsive reaction built on confirmation bias, intellectual bankruptcy and political inertia. reports say paul is not alone. per the los angeles times other rumbles of discontent have been reported especially among younger officers inside foggy bottom, more sympathetic to the palestinian cause and a huffington post piece entitled "mutiny brewing" multiple officials say they've heard colleagues talk about quitting as paul did. josh paul joins me now. he worked in the bureau of political military affairs for more than 11 years.

he was its director. he wrote this piece in the "washington post" about his decision titled "this is not the state department i know that's why i left my job." josh, thank you for being here. convince me that you're the tip of the iceberg and not just a one off. >> well, i've actually heard since i left from so many scores of people not only from within the state department but from across the u.s. government, including d.o.d., including other agencies, including the white house, all saying they are finding what is being done incredibly difficult to support, incredibly difficult to comprehend and yet are met with silence. all being told that they should stop questioning the policy and just move ahead. i think a lot of people who have deep experience and are concerned not just on a moral basis but on a policy basis about what is being done pursued right now are finding this very problematic. >> you referenced confirmation bias. you reference bureaucratic inertia in the explanation as to why you had to get out.

and i was thinking as i read your piece, okay, but aren't you a facilitator? in other words, your job was to fulfill the mission as defined by others. you weren't there to set policy. or am i wrong? >> so, the mission has never been to provide u.s. funded arms into a context in which we know they are going to be used to cause massive civilian casualties. we know in this context that they are. so, i mean, you are correct. there are many levels to the policy process. actually normally there's a healthy policy debate within the department, which i've been a part of on many former issues. that was not the case here. >> did you try to work within the system? >> i did. i raised concerns -- i have raised concerns for many years about some of our arms transfers including those to israel. i raised concerns very shortly after hamas' horrific atrocity of october 7th, saying, look, we know where this leads. we have seen this movie before. we must find a way to do better before we start pouring arms and fuel on to the fire. those concerns were not taken

seriously and the direction continued to provide the arms that are now being dropped on palestinian civilians in gaza. >> do you expect that others are going to follow you out the door? >> i think everyone has their own personal circumstances. in your opener, you noted junior officials. i heard from a number of senior officials as well saying that they agree with my perspective and are finding this difficult. but i'm not going to speak for others. i'll leaf them to make their own decisions based on the good they believe they can do. >> i read the comments that were appended to your "washington post" piece. and one that i highlighted i'll put on the screen. i don't know if you can see it. but i'll read it aloud. it was somebody who said this, the west just got played by hamas. they are achieving the results they wanted. hop up a bunch of militants on drugs, go in and slaughter innocence, batten down the hatches and wait for the israeli onslaught, sit back and let the world witness how disproportionate the response is, in the process create more hamas fighters, rinse and repeat. to no good end. just to keep the hate alive, if

we can't have our land, you can't live there in peace. that is basically what we are dealing with from now until eternity. and the author of this column fell for it. did you just fall for something? >> no. look, we have for many years provided over $200 billion in u.s.-funded -- u.s. tax-payer funded arms to israel. what has that led to? thousands of dead palestinians, thousands of dead israelis, and american foreign policy disaster that is unfolding the middle east and across the world. so, i think it is a fundamental time to reestablish and re-examine what we have been doing because it has not worked. >> i'm going to give you the chance. you've done it already in writing. but i don't want people to misunderstand what you're saying, to condemn what transpired on 10/7 so there's no misunderstanding. >> i have been working for the u.s. government for many, many years, including in iraq, including in the west bank, including in the pentagon an the state department and no one has ever asked me before to condemn hamas or to condemn an atrocity

so patently an atrocity, any attack against civilians is an atrocity. >> thank you, josh paul. >> thank you. i want to remind you all to answer today's poll question at smerconish.com. by the way, when you're there, register for the free daily newsletter. you'll love it. are you better off now than you were four years ago? it's the reagan question. still to come, the shooter in maine has been found dead, ending the latest mass shooting story. sad to say, but i'm sure it's not the last. i have something i want to say about that. ♪

the shooter in maine was found dead last night with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in an area of a recycling center from which he had recently been fired. the most recent such crisis now over, my reaction to this week's tragedy is a fatalistic one. it happened again. in fact, here's how accustomed, how sensitized i've become to mass shootings. i actually have an outline that i use for my radio programs the day after. it's a reflection of how routine mass shootings have become, and how fatigued i am with the idea that anything is ever going to change. here, here is my outline. i begin by quoting the second amendment. and then i say, well, it happened again. today, we're monitoring the events in blank, and extending our prayers to those residents. it appears this event will expand the list of mass killers in america for calendar year

2020-blank. this is the nation's blank mass killing this year. at least blank have died in those mass killings this year. and so today, blank joins columbine and sandy hook, and the vegas strip, nightclub, marjory stoneman douglas, virginia tech and many others. i've given up thinking that anything will change. sandy hook did that for me. if not then, when? instead, i'm resigned to the fact that this is the price we pay for living in america. the cost of having the right to a firearm enshrined in our constitution, at least as it's been interpreted by the supreme court. we are a nation with too many weapons, in too many hands. 120 guns for every 100 people. and we lack the resolve to make significant change. we more tightly regulate drivers and automobiles than citizens

with guns. it is what sets us apart from the world. we're not the only ones with a mental health crisis. nor an outlier with violent tv, film and music. the world is flat, pop culture crosses national boundary lines. what we have that they don't have is language that has been interpreted as insuring each a right to keep and bear arms, and that was reaffirmed in 2008 in the v c versus heller case a 5-4 decision in which justice shalla wrote for the majority and looked at the language of the second amendment and differentiated between the preparatory and operative clause. me, i read them together a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. if the right of people to keep and bear arms is uninfringed, then why even mention a militia? surely the sentence fragment was to be read as a whole.

but shacalia and the majority sd the framers didn't mean to make it on a militia, with some latitude to tinker at the margins but not upset the fundamental right of access. and maine is an unfortunate example of the void that resulted. maine does not require permits to carry concealed weapons. maine does not mandate background checks for private gun sales. maine does not have red flag laws. maine does not require a waiting period for gun purchases. maybe at some point in the future heller gets another look. after all, i never though that roe v. wade would be overturned, but it was with dobbs. that's not going to happen with the current court. a 6-3 conservative majority. maybe when gen-z and millennials elect presidents who nominate proves to the bench, heller will get another look. the only other hope is a constitutional amendment and there is a hurk lean task and there seems to be no prospect of

change coming where it requires two-thirds of vote in both houses of congress or if two-thirds of the states request it by a convention call ford that purpose. in the meantime, this is who we are. today, it is blank, and in the future, it will be another town and state. we will grieve, there will be a presidential visit, and then we will go back to our day to day. until it happens again. still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments, and we'll give you the final result of the poll question today, at smerconish.com. are you better off than you were four years ago?

. there it is the, the result of the poll question. are you better off than four years ago. 36,000 and change say by 70% yes, which kind of tracking with that american communities survey that i shared earlier in the program. and yet, when you then say, how about the country? it's like i'm doing great, my community is fine, but the country is going to hell in a hand basket. one social media reaction, i'm limited on time. what does it say? >> hell no and most of people who voted yes are lying partisan hacks. a brand new survey of 5,000 people just came out that has science behind it and said no, that's the sentiment of the country at large. right now, police are in lewiston, maine, and expected to share the latest developments on the maine mass shooting. the gunman found dead last night with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. we're going to bring you the presser live, our coverage continues now, with victor blackwell, and amara walker.