in in strange ways. you know, it used to be said that books were written for the general reader. now they're written by the general reader. .. mr. cornell argues both sides of the gun-control debate at the second amendment to support

their views, but neither side fully understands the amendment. >> is just 27 words long. cannot she read that the amendment actually says? >> a well regulated militia for the free state, right of the people to bear arms shall not be in bridge. >> what do partisans say about how it supports their view of things? >> if you're a gun rights supporter you focus on the latter part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. or you look at the preamble, a well regulated militia. my backtrace to put pieces together and point out that others put those in the amendment and only together can we really understand it. >> if we were going to write this amendment today to reflect what the founding fathers wanted to say, what would it say? >> i'd keep it. you have the assertion of a well-regulated militia and

assertion that makes that possible. it's a right to keep and bear arms in a well regulated militia. >> said these price, does that reflect an effort at the time the constitution and amendments were written to reflect conflicting views about this amendment should say? >> one of the big mistake some people do an original analysis is a pic the intent that best fits their own contemporary politics and there were a range of views. but i think there was a broad consensus that they knew they needed to have a militia. if the militia was armed, they had to include some protection for the right to bear arms. >> what was the attitude at this time toward standing armies? >> nothing frightened founders more than the idea of a standing army. they just had a revolution. with that experience in our minds, they thought was that you

protect the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. >> is a modern-day equivalent to the militia? >> we really don't have anything like the minutemen a deal. basically if we re-created that, we drop our newspapers on sunday, jacob oregon and take up arms against who ever threaten america or local communities or states and most americans on either side don't relish that idea. >> it sounds like the national guard, though. >> a modern national guard has its own history, but the modern national guard would more resemble kind of an elite super well-trained militia. they have this idea that the second amendment was a tax. everyone had to support public defense commits you to transfer the cost of individual households by making them by their own gun, fire ammunition, show it.

so what we often forget is the second amendment gives government tremendous power over our lives. i'm not sure most americans want to see that power to government and a modern. >> so it almost outlines a civic obligation to participate, to have begun. >> that's right. that's exactly the point of the book come and show the second amendment is neither an individual right, no right of the states. it's part of the obligation to protect the state and community. >> a very different picture than either side tends to have towards this amendment. the >> as i point out in the book, if we look at the second amendment, it would be the worst nightmare for gun owners and gun rights people. it would be more intrusive regulation. government would inspect arms, cdg locked that up? is it clean? but also mainly with would live

in tel aviv because we don't have an m-16 in the basement. >> let's talk about the context in which this amendment was originally passed. talk about the shays rebellion of 1786, an illustration about why the founders thought this was an important amendment to include. >> i'm glad you pointed out shays rebellion because it's key to understanding where this comes from. the farmers organize themselves as militia units, but they were not under state control. for the founders, that was what was so frightening because the true a clear distinction between a mob and the militia appeared after the second memo is adopted, what you had was the well-regulated alicia called out to surprise the farmers, but it were not a militia. the >> this whole debate was part of the federalism.

the >> this is one of the great ironies in the book and it explains why gun control people can't make race of this argument. they really believed the militia can help take up arms and is part of the ultimate check and the federal system. the state to take up arms against it. of course the militia eventually did that and we had a civil war. so that holds high has been put on the dust heap of history. states can no longer have that function. the mac writer implications from the research that affect how the courts be the second amendment, trying to put it in the context in which it was enacted? >> is to man-size from the book. when they meant well regulated, they not well-regulated. they meant to bring firearms into a system of control and for

militias to be well regulated by government. it turns out as long as there's been government in america, that gun regulations is the venison pie and what was shocking to name was after the second amendment, gun regulation that more intense, not last much runs counter to the gun rights amendment. >> and while there are fierce advocates on both sides, gun control organizations, gun rights organizations play a big part in the political system. there's no advocacy group for this original interpretation of the amendment. >> that is the great tragedy is the one position that most closely corresponds to a founders believe is absent in the public sphere and that if a position most americans could support. there'd be pretty broad support for the idea that with rights come obligation, not just responsibilities in the moral ethical sense. >> and now craig whitney, author

of living with guns examines the history of firearms in american society. he talks at the former president of the brady campaign to prevent gun violence. >> certainly guns have played a role in our history. but with legal understanding? did folks consider that unconstitutional scores out of political battle we fought out or sitting on the frontier trying to get its act together. the >> the courts didn't have much to say about gun rights except in state court, where the most part the state and lower federal courts supported the right and side is not a right that belongs to criminals are to be used for criminal purposes, but morrissey

writes in connection with civic duty. but the supreme court didn't say anything about the second amendment for about a century. they mentioned it briefly in a ruling in 1876 and noticed u.s. versus cruickshank, which rose out of a horrible massacre in the reconstruction. , for a whole hundred or more blacks had tried to defend themselves in louisiana and were attacked by a white crowd in the federal government attempted to prosecute the attackers on the grounds that they deprived the blacks that were killed. and the supreme court didn't find that was the case.

we don't see any racial motivation to deprive blacks. the ruling said the right to keep and bear arms is not created or the constitution. and so if there is any application, the court later extended from not that it would apply to anybody, it was the federal government. simply a limitation would he to tell certain classes. >> it only applied to the federal government unless it was specifically incorporated to the states. >> we didn't get incorporation on the second amendment until 2010 and follow up --

>> how about in the 1900s? you got the prohibition era, john dillinger, the machine guns. >> prohibition produced organized crime and g-man and elliott madison all that. the first real federal gun control measure that came into effect was as a result of that. >> 1934 firearms. >> guest: and that was upheld by the supreme court in the miller case, where somebody had challenged the application of how you could be denied the right but unless you can demonstrate between having a machine gun in private hands and

preservation of a well regulated militia doesn't seem to have any implication. that ruling was long interpreted to mean that the supreme court thought there was no individual right to have firearms, that she had to be in some kind of a relationship to a militia or the national guard or whatever to exercise your right to have firearms. >> 1938 is a long time ago. that was the law of the land until 2008. what change during that time. >> i always find that out at shows how gun control can work. very serious restrictions on non. >> all of our gun massacres, none have been committed with a fully automatic weapon.

but what happened, you had the firearms act and importantly the 1960s have been. the racial turbulence of the 60s and the assassination of president kennedy, his brother, martin luther king eventually produced another gun control act. there was support for that and even in the leadership of the nra at the time. charlton heston subscribe to a statement that was read by another hollywood tough guy calling for some kind of regulation to prevent this repetition of the assassinations. they think like a lot of gun control measures comely support them in california. ronald reagan supported a

gun-control measure because black panthers are running around the state legislature. it made it impossible to do that impose a waiting period on the time you needed people to apply for a handgun and actually being able to buy. people say that law will certainly stop the black panthers, but that law doesn't apply just to that panthers. it applies to everybody. eventually get a backlash commenced the social and political backlash in general to a lot of things have happened. i think i'm control was one of them. >> host: the 68 at that with prohibited purchasers, right? so it wasn't seen if you're a felon or habitual drug user and dishonorably discharged,

mentally dangerous, they use different terminology, but they went through the state eight or nine sections of people that shouldn't be able to buy guns. >> at the time, it took a long time to do those checks and eventually that was replaced with what we have now but fully automated. >> the way wordpress for the 25 year period was in effect the honor system. he went in to buy a gun and they said craig, are you a felon? if he said now come you got to buy your gun. >> the 68 act would allow people to lie and get away with it and that wasn't changed until the brady act. destiny and ics later came. >> said the 68 act, you've got prominent republicans supporting

it. when did the nra change and how does that mindset become different here? >> guest: interestingly, it came as a surprise to learn that the nra was founded by two former "new york times" reporters. but what they were concerned about was being prepared for national defense like the first world war and making sure we had enough people in the country who knew how to use firearms that we would be defeated if it came to a war. >> host: when i was growing up the government entering marksmanship badges. i kept those badges, too. >> guest: the nra still does a lot of worthwhile training and certifying that the ability to use firearms safely. they became politically the

leadership that proved the 68 gun control act was overthrown, replaced by others and eventually charlton heston became a spokesman for that faction. now we have wayne lapierre firmly in the saddle and politically it's a very different organization from what it was in 1968 very clearly. it's also been able to raise huge amounts of money and become the most powerful lobby here in washington and it plays basically on the backlash, on people's fears that if crime is rising in the police can't do anything about it, then how are we going to keep ourselves from being robbed, murdered in someone's? we need firearms to defend ourselves. the nra has been playing on that line for many years. >> host: is crime is rising in the 80s and 90s, crack, more

sophisticated guns, congress acted again. really only the third time to do a gun-control tape measures. how does that fit into the chronology? >> guest: well, you had the attempted assassination of president reagan. took them 10 years to come around to supporting a stronger entry. he eventually did of course, the brady bill. he would not fit in "the new york times," which i assure everyone in the nra has read about, singing we need some kind of measure the one i signed when as governor of california that makes people go through waiting period before they can acquire a handgun. the assault weapons ban, which came out a little later was more

emotional than real. if you look at violent crime committed with guidance today or then, these assault weapons look like m-16s for ak-47s, did not figure in this importantly. those are mostly handguns or pistols. >> host: saturday night specials from the 60s. >> guest: exactly. assault weapons look scary and are easy to scare people about. they have figured in these massacres like aurora and others, but even those are committed with semiautomatic pistols and large capacity magazines as part of an assault weapons ban.

>> host: the semi on a modicum of fully automatic semi shout pistol. it fires a bullet in your ready to fire again. same with this amount of money pistol. semiautomatic assault weapon means you have to squeeze the trigger. you can't go away. but if you have a magazine with 100 rounds, the movie theater, batman episode, you can get a lot of. although his magazine jay and come you couldn't get off all 100 rounds. >> host: the tucson shooter was gabby gifford.

he got off and 15 seconds probably. and then he was prevented from reload. celebrity though, assault weapon ban -- >> guest: when the momentum behind keeping the ban ran out and president bush was in office. instead of bill clinton. maybe some move to rethink it. i found in doing research on the book that pilot gun crime did not go down significantly during the period when the automatic weapons ban was in effect. that doesn't prove that it had no effect. >> host: there are arguments about that. part of it is their warranty sales, but you're allowed to

keep weapons so you look at it. it bears. >> guest: if he reinstated the ban would have the same previously purchased. how effective would it be? a lot of time liberals, and i called the book is a post case for the second amendment, make the case that strict gun control is the way you control gun violence, the best way to control gun violence. if you could eliminate 300 million guns legal and illegal, surely gun violence would go down. but were not going to be able to do that. instead what happens in places like new york where i live, overwhelmingly to support to make it as difficult as possible for everybody to buy guns legally and that is seen as the best way to keep gun violence

down. it doesn't work because criminals don't bother with getting a license and registering guns. from the way they try to control that will never be possible to eliminate it is to aim gun-control measures at preventing people that shouldn't have guns, not people who want to have the right according to the second amendment. >> up next on the cg chivers in the ak-47 assault rifle and its impact on the world. >> host: so chris, how did this project is started with the ak-47? >> guest: well, sometimes you come across your subject by accident. in 2001, whether wickedness reporters there to afghanistan after the attacks in new york and washington, is traveling and seeing the weapon everywhere. that's obviously intriguing, but

not a new observation. as the taliban was falling back in as the northern alliance allied with the united states was moving towards the territory they occupied, we came in number of times to various houses and bunkers are they that he had documents. i started to gather documents and felt my backpack with them. they were from many different years and they had one thing in common, sort of looking at the curriculum that the new students at the jihads, what were they receiving for their instruction and mail it to classes? do it to a training camp and it didn't matter where the camp was what language the training within. it didn't matter what year. the notebooks are often dated. the first class as i started to observe as i said that seems to

me a long ways from where this weapon originated and officially got the system in a planned economy in the eastern bloc. how did it break so far away from its roots? with that question in my nine years ago, i sat forward and what i found was what is familiar with death has been very reliable and easy to use and simple and long-lasting was not part of the reason it's out there. that's not the reason there's so many and you see it every day. the reason you see it is a whistling death to a planned economy. it was made by tens of millions, whether anyone paid for the rifles are not, there is no tax bill, no electric bill. this is made by a system that could do things differently than

any other product out there. there's nothing you that is is made that way. no factory will turn on a product without orders. so as i established that understanding, i asked myself where did the weapon, from classics it is connected to a different political system, but how did they choose equates so i started medical back of the civil war put the first place where they were used in battle are reasonably effective firearms that i followed them forward. those waged more or less a time. they were big. they were heavy, gave a lot of ammunition him often times considered to be artillery. the evolution of this weapon was that it arrived in the final stage of hiding away from a 2000-pound item that would concentrate rifle fire to

something down about under 10 pounds, maybe even close to a fully loaded and you could hide it under the jacket i'm wearing. then you are staying up to a planned economy so there's tens of millions of them. then the governments that plan that economy turn out to be largely brittle and they fall apart and lose custody of the guns and that's how you're the situation i saw when i got to have the understanding to those one and that's how i got started. >> host: the number you're estimating something that 100 million ak-47s in circulation today. compare that to the number in terms of establishing the market economy comparison to the m-16. >> guest: i bend i saw the factories were they will give you the numbers. i don't think they know the

numbers. but i also went to the united states factory, principal manufacturer of the weapon that has been used to counter the ak-47 and they make the m-16. they made about half a century in today's line and they've made by their estimate worldwide about 10 million. kalashnikov was made with numbers by the estimates about 10 times that. that again is the reason that they are so commonly seen. it's a matter of abundance. >> now let's talk a little bit about your personal experience. i know you did an interview in which he talked about being ambushed by people carrying ak-47s and not lead you to discuss some aspects of the effect that mess, which are not directly related to specific functionality of the weapon,

which again talks about strategy and some of those questions. >> host: there's a lot of measures for how i rifle works on it nothing to do with how it works on the rifle range for a test range. and afghanistan are not too many days have come under fire from kalashnikovs. a big part of my job is covering the ground level experience of the war in afghanistan. so i'm not in kabul and i'm not spending much time at the generals. i find it and not with the troops and often some of the worst parts of the country. so if you wander around these parts of the country, you tend to get ambushed on none. kalashnikov is not an idea what could. it's last along time come easy to use if you're not well trained, but it's not very accurate. so a lot of times the experience of being ambushed us to have the run-scoring cracking by and no one in your struck.

does that mean it's not effect his? one measure is whether or not you got struck. it certainly influences your behavior is people of local grievances. these fights of the country in many respects are off the grid because of the abundance of the rifles. you can bring and services come u.k. bringing government you can't do much patrolling beyond getting ambushed. there's other ways to measure it. one thing they say is the insurgents firing over time they get better at what they're doing and if the training is such that perhaps they can choose you, at least not with any consistency, they can still use the rifle to influence actions, walking upon patrol and they have a variety of drills they do when they take fire from the right and the left, front, near fire.

things as the first moscow five to patrol a break to the right, break to the left and went to the ambush site and set up a firing position. so it shall often the is someone who will take a few shots about it and watch the trail underground ridiculous happening. a few marines may rent to that and get behind not take and the fire stops. a few minutes later they get up and move on. to retrieve et cetera petrova a lot to the same ground in the trail is repeated to crack automatic rifles and marines will jump into this drill only this time one of those spots will be trapped in they are. so kalashnikov is pretty

influential. it might not make the list in that incident in which someone was wounded or killed, that certainly was a factor. >> host: now when you talk about that history, it's interesting to note that some of the early gabbling as an inventor actually thought he was inventing some pain that would limit warfare, limit the number of soldiers. i believe he observed the majority were dying of infection are not all wounds. if you could generate a weapon, the other phrase was let one soldier do the work of 150 would actually limit. so theoretically it is sort of his intentions were to limit

warfare. that obviously didn't play out at that time or the time sense. >> it's a fascinating character. we don't know what he thought. but nobody said. and what he said was a low save lives is, you know, we have the weapon that one man can do 100 hours thereby the country. didn't play out that way, did it? maxxum took the gatling they needed to crank it. it was not an automatic weapon as you understand it. it manually firecracker fire weapon and use the excess energy from one expended round to reload the next round and fire it and so the gun could fire

without a crank until it ran out of ammunition. maxim didn't frame it this way at all. maxims that killing in the service of the crown was in effect way for the crown to execute its power over its subjects. maximum was pretty clear i'm not at one point they asked to design a weapon that could be used against ammunition cards. or you want to make a weapon? i think when they look back, it would be interesting if we could get to find out what he thought is supposed to but a sales message was. >> paul byrd is next to the history of the clock pistol and

unsuccessful attempts to ban it. >> does have a darker heritage, one related to disorder, crime and murder his silence. depression era gangsters and urban bloodshed each lead to legislation aimed at research gun ownership. saturday night specials and in 1870 and became emblems of steadily rising primaries. in response, dirty harry brandished his famous smith & wesson with her before nine to. the clock introduced in the 1980s inherited a last x of the american firearm heritage. it was seen as an instrument of line security, but also many stager beard. it became a hand of choice for cops and a favorite of some demented mass killers. it's black plastic and metal construction set it apart from everything else on the market, suggesting modernist administration fee.

now that darker side of the american gun tradition in modern times has resulted in the gun control movement. we have a significant section of american society skeptical of gun ownership. efforts to restrict the sale and ownership of handguns were directed at the clock in particular from the moment they arrived in this country. the fact it had such a large capacity, was made of material not traditionally used in making guns may be the target for gun control advocates. but time and again, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to the president come out first to restrict clock have backfired. gun control initiatives applied to the clock resulted not in fear of dogs being sold, but let me explain a couple of these

samples. when the gun show to appear, it is great at almost immediately newspaper columns, congressional hearings and gun control act of his son, claiming that because it was plastic, presented a new threat that it would become a favorite of hijackers because they would be the ticket at the airport screening machines. in fact, at the time they became common to refer to headlines to that effect rollover menus. in new york city, then you at least part of a controlled regulation of guns in the city. and the five boroughs of new york was by name. that company could not so its guns here. the problem with this attack on the clock was that it was factually incorrect. most airport screening machines

for x-ray machines, not magnetometers. split large dense piece of plastic shaped like a gun, looks like a gun on the screening machine if anyone bothers to look at it. moreover, the slide if you imagine a pistol with a large rectangular piece on top with solid steel in any case. and by weight, the clock was mostly metal. so the whole attack which is completely missing the. i interviewed gun control advocates who were involved in ms. and they conceded to me, we just screwed up. but it is a terrible mistake from their point of view because by making the clock victorious, improved its image in the eyes of people who liked guns and made it a favorite overnight at the nra, which otherwise might have been skeptical of an import

challenging smith & wesson. in new york, this issue came to head in 1988 after a couple of years of having been banned, there is a sensational price peace. "the new york post" picked it up. it turns out while no one in the city was allowed to own clock, the police commissioner at the time was sense of caring a clock under his suit coat. so the top cop in the city wanted a clock, but no one else should have went. the new year post with unique scale had the headline top cop words off then i'm super guns. i interviewed a guy named carl walters who is the head -- basically the first salesman in the country. he said, could you imagine the big-city newspaper calling my goodness supergun? if you had given me a

$50 million advertising budget, i couldn't abide attention like that, which was then spread all across the country. so the clock is continuing to be seen as the supergun and got this kind of free attention. from that point out. there are subsequent instances, where other laws and initiatives are targeted at the clock and had similar counterintuitive results. >> we are showing portions about gun control is the current policy debate in washington d.c. next, larry schweiker describes george washington made for a powerful regulated militia. >> but what the founders say about such things as guns? guns is one of these cases where you absolutely have to have a context of what is meant by the phrase is in the constitution.

the necessity of a well regulated militia appeared with a well regulated militia? doesn't just mean these people know how to drill? the key word is militia. what's militia? if you look at english.law, english heritage, you learn a militia serves several functions. in england there was an elite militia that was training all the time. then there was a more general militia they would call up if they are invaded. a militia was intended to do two things. one, protect you against invaders. by the way, you militia is never used it to our people so you can pick themselves against home invasions are criminals or burglars. it's never used in that context. it's helping to protect the nation against invaders have called up by the government and if the government in england gets to be oppressive or tyrannical, the militia is to serve as a counterbalance to the

standing army in the colonial people and early americans had a tremendous fear of a standing army because standing armies for the way governments, monarchs would impose their will on people. it was always assumed the militia would act as a counterweight to the standing army and all the militias of all men are and what equaled away at the king's army or in this case the national army. washington did a very interesting case study in this because he is thought with alicia and he doesn't like them. they're not well trained. they run at the drop of a hat. the only time they say about this on sun homeground defending homes and they fight like tigers. it's difficult to get militia safe from new jersey. washington spends a great deal of his career trying to turn

militia into regular soldiers. there's a line in the movie, the patriot without gibson, where mel gibson and heath ledger were lucky not a battle going on out there and shakes his head and says that dfo gave spent too much time in the british army. that's exactly what washington needed an army to do. that's exactly what he developed the continental army to do. go toe to toe and the biggest take as they have are exactly that, saratoga, yorktown, bluecoat redcoats going to detail in the bluecoat swing. so washington had a love-hate affair with the militia. he didn't like them as an armed body. he does counsel for assault

banning army. jefferson reduces the size of the army. but jefferson does do strange things out of character for him. bursting as he recommends creating a military academy at west point to train professional officers. the other thing giberson does we have carried their for him as he sensed the u.s. navy and marines on their first overseas foreign war. you could call it the first or fear president bush, war on top and since the u.s. navy and marines over to fight the barbary pirates without a declaration of war. he sends them on a joint resolution of congress ended its giberson who declares war on all barbary states, even though only one, that would be tripoli had actually declared war on us by cutting down or flat poll.

but algeria had not, morocco had not, the jefferson since the military and is very much the bush doctrine. he says you're either with us or against us and if you're with tripoli, you're us. just take a moment and take a while, but eventually they do. >> the final presentation comes with adam winkler as he discusses gunfight, battle of the right to bear arms in america. he explains that the nra is important to the gun control debate. >> is hard to have a discussion of guns, gun rights and control without talking about the nra. in the past week on the nra has been in the news because herman cain is to be president and in texas when you say a nra, only the national rifle association. can you get historical background on the nra and guns

and gun control? i read that it was once a supporter of gun control. can you explain not? >> yeah, he nra is known for being a rarely compromising opponent of gun control. but it wasn't always this way. the organization was founded after the civil war by soldiers who were convinced that union marksmanship is why the war had lasted so long and wanted to improve marksmanship training. the 1920s and 30s, the nra went undrafted in inverse gun control laws, restrictive laws requiring anyone's who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to have a license and only allowing licenses to go to people who are suitable people with a reason for carrying firearms. i did some research and found in 1934 when congress passed its first major federal gun-control

law, which outlawed king stirred an outside access to gangster weapons like machine guns and shotguns, the president at the time was asked to testify about it and specifically the second amendment have any relevance to the national firearms act? his answer from the perspective of today is quite remarkable. he said i've not given it any study from that point of view. city had in the nra had never thought about the most far-reaching gun law today was impacted by the second amendment. all that changed in the late 1960s, early 1970s when they went a radical transformation became much more politically act to and hardline. >> let me ask why. my first concept was 1968 the assassination of robert f. kennedy and congress passing a

the most sweeping gun legislation of that area. did that play any part of what were the factors that led the nra to pivot on the issue of gun control spirit >> your right to talk about the act of 1968, the next major federal gun law after the 1930s and a lot required licensing for gun dealers, and the importation of cheap firearms associated with urban youth crime and whatnot. but that law sparked a movement of people who are really opposed to growing gun control. in the head of the nra who endorse the gun control act, not all of its provisions, but endorsed overall the nra signature publication. he said i want to retreat on

political or two d., with headquarters at a washington to colorado springs to focus on nonperson activities and hunting and recreational shooting. they are the nra organization who got guns are primarily about hunting, the personal protection in an era of rising crime rate in this group of dissidents led by harlan carter but a germanic middle of the night two of the organization. the two-day meeting in 1977 and orchestrated a well thought out carefully devised plan to oust the entire leadership of the nra and replace them with the hardliners. when i took office, they recommitted look-alike davidian meet the second amendment the heart and soul of the nra. >> so when did moses himself, charlton heston become involved quite >> charlton heston became one of the great spokesman for the nra.

venus pictures from my cold dead hands. one of the things i found them will directly answer your question, but charlton heston wasn't the first essay for my cold dead hands. one of the things i found was among blacks after the civil war, the same attitude was very prevalent. you will only take my gun for my cold dead hands. before the civil war, they were never allowed to own guns. but for the very first time, southern blacks get their hands on guns. some 70 union army and the army can't afford to pay soldiers, so it allows vultures to take on some of them indeed act the cost from the back wages the union army owes them. other african-americans in the south by guns on the market place is literally flooded with firearms produced with the water, but once the war and it had not the same necessity. racist organizations like the

formed after the civil war specifically with the goal of gun control comic and the guns away from african-americans. they would be able to fight back, so they took to gathering in big groups, going out at night in costume in large numbers. they wanted to outnumber african-americans. african-americans at that time refused to give up guns and fight valiantly to keep firearms, also sharing charlton heston's view from my cold dead hands. unfortunately for sun, they found their guns were taken from the cold dead hands. >> your flashes forward 100 years to the turmoil of the 1960s and makes to me as surprising connection between the black panthers and rise of the modern gun rights movement. can you explain that a little bit? >> i tell the story of one of

the most remarkable incidents of guns and gun control, which was in may 1967 when a group of 30 black panthers go to the california state capitol in sacramento with rifles, shotguns and pistols and they walk right at the main steps of the capitol building, right into the capital and into the legislative change chamber in session. the black panthers are there for violence. they were at various california is considering the adoption of new gun control laws that were designed to disarm the black panthers roaming around oakland with their guns openly displayed. the law to disarm the panthers was supported not just by democrats, the conservatives in california as well and in fact the governor at the time strongly supported why someone should carry guns on the streets in america today. that governor would go on to

become president of the united states, ronald reagan. reagan was a big endorser at the gun-control a that many people at the time thought was not designed to control guns, but urban blacks writing in 1967 especially in urban areas they were to restrict access to black radicals in urban areas and ended up sparking a backlash among white rural conservatives who are convinced the government were coming to get their guns next. >> i want to take you forward from there to the debates over gun control and gun rights we've seen in the last five or 10 years. they have become so dominant.

there's zero chance of passing in any state legislature or in congress anything that would >> of gun control today. what has changed politically over the past decade or two to put us in that situation? >> a major push especially in the early 1970s was a reflection in part of a great society philosophy that there are social problems. the government can solve problems that new legislation and i think over the course of the 1970s and the 1980s, more and more people lost faith with that idea. some people think the nra and gun lobby is powerful because they have a lot of money. the reason they have money is because they have a lot of members and people who believe strongly in their political agenda and support that agenda. the reason the nra so strong

today is because millions of voters were to vote on election day with this issue in mind and this being the only issue they want to base their vote on. if you can leverage that constituency, he'll be incredibly successful, so much so the current administration in washington wishes to enact more gun-control laws, that they received an f. rating from brady center, the leading gun-control group after two years because they only lose in gun-control laws in the first two years. so i think it's become one of those issues but especially for democrats to when i touch that issue because they see as a political loser. >> looking at the debate today coming up taken after the american revolution to 20 by then. what do you think is wrong with the debate we're having today over gun rights and how would you recast or improve the public discourse on guns?

>> one of the problems the gun debate suffers from if it's really been dominated by extremists on both sides of the aisle. we often think of my supporters being very extreme in gun-control, unwilling to support guidelines because they think even if it's a good outcome is going to lead to ultimately down the slippery slope toward civilian disarmament. the other side has been unreasonable over the years as well. gun control supporters have often thought it to take on the guns away to do what washington d.c. did in 1976 and ban handguns and make other kinds not useful for self-defense and after that became obvious as an unrealistic agenda would support often in effect gave and frankly silly laws that really couldn't hope to reduce gun crime. what i am hopeful that are doing a book at the heller case that we mentioned earlier bonds in our discussion might be an

opening towards a new future in the gun debate, one where people's right to have firearms are self-defense is protect did is secured by the supreme court in a way of their civil rights are good, but at the same time, creating room for lawmakers to pass effective gun control laws that don't go too far and i'm hopeful maybe this case can be the opening celebrate a stalemate over guns. >> that concludes guns in america. all programs can be viewed online at the tv.work. >> more i looked into his message i decided to write bullies. they are not going to debate policy. they're not going to debate the best way to solve the nation's problems provide evidence. they're going to label a sorely

deficient human beings unworthy of debate. we see virtually every arena of american life. we saw from colin powell, brian williamson president obama himself. the so-called dark and intolerance running throughout the party. we don't believe in climate change or we don't need there should be a redistribution of wealth or obamacare and food move to the left comest admit that would make a sound basis. colin powell above all should know how not racist or party is considering so many were supporting him to spreading liberalism in 1996 for presidential guns and he was secretary of state under president bush obviously, but that didn't stop them anyway because colin powell is on the left and that means we are the bad guys. president obama did is an ideal address last week also.

there's a peculiar line in his speech, where absolutism is the principle and name calling is not discussion. he then proceeded to spend the rest of his speech in being an absolutist. she suggested if you disagree, you want people in twilight years to live in poverty and parents of disabled kid to have no recourse. you want black people to stand in line to vote, to be treated unequally. he said all of those things in a speech and that was clearly the undertone of his speech. yesterday dianne feinstein gets up and leads off whatever it was, her press conference with a pastor saying if you're a good christian you have to be for gun control. if you're a good person you have to be for gun control because otherwise you don't care kids are killed to run schools and churches like sandy hook.