wrong. they cannot get anything else done, nothing, not even not even the secret virus, but more importantly they can't get something to prohibit people from being gunned down innocently, have nothing to do with congress or any of that, all they want to do is protect their jobs and get paid almost $200,000 per year and how many days do they work? actually is probably 17 days maybe a month. address the time thereof what a job. . . . . amendments

>> then again, they want to open all of the borders and do stuff cannot protect ourselves from. >> in term of gun legislation, is there anything you would change? >> well the problem with gun legislation is they say one thing, we say another thing. we won't give them much because what is the government ever actually done good, right? nothing really. they have messed up social security, anything they touch their hands. obamacare, this and that. we are going to give them a right? when they talk about no-fly? that is not right.

that is not a right to fly. if you want to fly, you fly. that is not in the constitution. >> host: thank you for your comments. here is how they broke out. a tweet from our capitol hill producer. here are the votes and tally. grassley's amendment calling 53-47 and murphy's falling. each needed 60 to advance and none of them got them. they are dealing with background checks and as rick talked about the no-fly list. the corman amendment, 53-47 that fell. and senator fienstein's amendment failed 47-53. but there is word there may be a compromised coming from senator colins. here is jeff flake is his tweet. we expect to get a vote this week on bipartisan no fly no buy

legislation have i have been writing with senator colins. here is democrats line, connecticut, kendrick, good even. >> caller: there is ninetime it exempt from buying a gun. how do you prove someone is a strug addict? i am curious how they get the exemptions passed but they can't pass a common sense -- okay. of course, if you are not going to be able to fly what do you need with a gun? if you cannot get on a plane, what do you need with a gun? why do you need to buy one? and they cannot pass that. i am curious as to how they come up with those exemptions? specifically how many drug addicts have they stopped from

buying a gun. >> host: here is charlie on the independent line from garland, texas. >> caller: i appreciate being able to call-in here. i feel real bad for mothers and fathers that have lost their children and things like that. you know, i just wish, and i pray, that we don't continue to battle each other. i mean, i have a family, others that i know have families and whatnot, number one, i don't know why we could not come up with a law, i think there is only one state that has a mandatory gun locks. let's save the four and five year olds that accidently kill each other. and then dealing with the big tragedies that occur, i mean, i was in the vietnam war and i was a medic. but i was still trained with the

rifles that shot multiple bullets. m-16s. and the issue there was, this was mainly trained to kill people. to not have those guns, i don't know why we have to have anybody buying guns like that. you shoot an animal, you have nothing left. they don't use it for hunting. it is only used to kill people. so i just wish we would not fight each other. we are all here together and we just need to take care of each other and not, you know, battle it out. we need have to common sense legislation. >> host: charlie is in garland and we will hear from houston and check our facebook page in a moment. we have been asking the question throughout the day about how you would change gun laws. let's hear from the democrats line in houston, it is russell. hello there. >> caller: hello. >> host: go ahead, you are on the air. >> caller: thank you for taking my time. i just want the republicans to

know there is an election coming up and i just want to know do republicans believe in god or is money their god? it seems like money is their god and maybe they don't really believe in a real god. you know, i don't understand. >> host: that is a headline we are seeing. gridlock on guns in orlando's wake. that is from the hill. a tweet from the wacs examiner, breaking all four gun amendments die in the senate. we will let you know the examiner senior washington correspondent is one of our guest tomorrow morning. summers new york, independent line, jeff, go ahead. >> caller: thank you, sir. the gun laws in this country really need to be changed and there is a simple solution. you know what? why don't you give everybody a gun. make it easy for everybody. then when you commit a crime,

you shoot somebody, using a weapon, you are gone for 30 years. no questions. no debate. you are gone. the fact of the matter is republicans, democrats, they could care less. it is all about them. how come we don't have term limits on these people? after a while, they expire. you put a can of vegetables on the shelf and they have a certain shelf life. these people have been on the shelf too long. as a result, the american people are suffering. and i am going to tell you, there is no british knocking at the front door. that is when the second amendment was written. it has nothing to do with what we are seeing now. i don't know if people were just stupid or don't care. >> host: we are asking you how you would change gun laws.

202-748-8920 for democrats and 202-748-8921 for republicans and 202-748-8922 for others. and this one here on twitter. just like they don't have a right to own machine guns, drones, tanks and submarines and nuclear war heads. kathy norris said had second amendment to the constitution is the only legitimate gun law in the country. we hear from mario in compton, california. >> caller: hello. >> host: hi, mario, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i live in compton, california and i am a law-abiding citizen and under the second amendment right i take the initiative to take classes and learn about weapons

to protect myself. but when it comes to police officers, it is not they are pro-active they are reactive. i live in compton and it is sometimes a bad area. what do you do? >> host: you said you took the classes. are you licensed to carry in california? >> caller: no, in other states but not my home state. >> host: and that is because the laws in los angeles don't allow that? >> caller: that is correct. it is not a shall issue it is a may issue. they may issue it if you have the right connections in the system. but as for the average citizen, you have no right to carry a gun and when you take the classes they reject you because they want that precluded from the typical citizen. >> host: what are the classes for? >> caller: in order to have a

gun you have to take a basic training class. >> host: a safety class. >> caller: if you want a concealed weapon permit you have it take further classes that enhance your knowledge on how to handle the weapon and most people don't take classes so they have them all of the time. >> host: thank you for sharing your story and what is going on in california. let's here from minnesota, judy is on our independent line. >> reporter: yes, i have been watching both sides of the issue. i saw -- >> caller: -- democrats saying there are terrorist in our country and they do want to make war on us. to me it doesn't make sense to want to limit guns or take guns away from people. you know, by sending your army against someone who wants to kill you, let's take their arms away and their ways of defending themselves away. that doesn't make any sense. there are enough laws on the book, if you want to buy a

handgun in minnesota, there is a lot of things you have to go through. training and you have a big waiting period, possibly up to 30 days. i say let's enforce the laws on the book and this last terrorist should have been put on the red flag list. he should not have been able to purchase a gun legally and i blame the fbi for not doing their job. let's have the government start enforcing the laws on the book. we have too many laws already. we don't need anymore. >> host: judy, how long would it take if you wanted to buy a simple handgun in minnesota? >> caller: you have to wait at least three days and possibly longer. >> host: appreciate you calling in this evening. in a moment we will go through the four votes that happened this evening but let's go to the republican line and tj is in

linden, new jersey. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i am hearing the democrats having something to say about the republicans not voting the way they want to and how the nra owns them. and you know, i am sure the nra owns some but they voted because of lack of due process. the doj can't just pick out people and put them on a no-fly list and say you cannot buy a gun. that is not what america is. the republicans would have voted the way they wanted if in the bill it was to have a court order, with a judge and evidence, say this guy is a bad guy. we are not following the constitution and that is why the republicans couldn't vote for this. of course we don't want terrorist to have guns.

but that is not the problem. >> host: the one waiting period was on the corin amendment. grassley's was the first up and it would have reauthorized the national instant criminal background check and that fell 53-47. all of them needed 60 none of them got it. chris murphy, who really may have accelerated a lot of the gun debate last week by his 15-hour floor speech and his mend to expand background checks including gun hoes fell 43-56. and the john cornin movement that would delay suspected terrorist on the no-fly list to be delays.

and the fienstein amendment fell 47-53 and it would authorize the attorney general to deny request to transfer a firearm to a known or suspects terrorist on the no-fly list or those who have been on the list in the past five years. we will take a few more minutes of your phone calls. we go to catherage, texas, democrats line. >> caller: yes, hello. i enjoy watching your show and i am very much into this. i was hoping and praying that some of these would pass. i am a die hard democrat and my husband, when i married him, i just lost him not long ago, he had every kind of gun you can name. he was an avid hunter and belonged to the nra but we were married for 20 years and i showed them where they were wrong. he saw it, got out of the nra

and knew they lobbyist and everything was wrong. when the sandy hook shooting happened i said what would you do if that would have been some of your children. the nra should think about that. we don't need assault rifles and they don't need to be in the hands of anyone but police man and military people. i am so proud of murphy and them trying to stand-up to them today but i knew it would fail because the republicans are owned by the nra. i don't care what these people call and tell you. they are totally, totally brainwashed by the nra. and i pray some day, i hope nothing happens to their children, but if they have been blown away like some of these people believe me they would pass these rules. they would be the first one. and god bless them and i hope this keeps on going. thank you for having this kind of show. it is so good to be on it. >> host: glad to have you with us. here is al in toledo, washington

from the democrats line also. >> caller: retired petty officer who spent 30 years in the navy, always under arm, two years in vietnam. and i grew up hunting and fishing. spent five years as a scout master teaching kids how to use rifles at scout camps and the like. my kid brother was killed in a bar. he was trying to protect a woman. some guy left the bar, went home got a gun, and came back and killed him. two years later my dad was afraid of burglars and bought a handgun and turned out he was hard of hearing and slept through the burglary. there are rules and we have to live by them. the constitution is a rule that governs us. you know, as necessary and proper clause. so often people don't remember that any law that is made by the

congress is in itself constitutional according to the constitution. so we have to do something to bring responsibility and reason to this debate. >> host: al, you said your brother was killed guy a handgun at a bar. how long ago was that? >> that was in 1966. i had just come back from two years in vietnam. before i went to vietnam, i went through sears training. >> host: was the assailiant carrying a legal and registered firearm? >> caller: it turned out he wasn't and the guy was low level mafia it turned out. the thing is that wherever the gun comes from it has one purpose and that is to kill someone. >> host: appreciate you coming in.

sharing this tweet from the "washington post." patrick murphy's statement in response to rubio's vote about closing the loophole for terrorist to buy guns murphy released the statement quote after the devastating attack florida residents are crying out for common sense reform to keep guns out of the hands of terrorist and marco rubio put his political ambition ahead of keeping florida safe. that statement retweeted from the "washington post" reporter. independent line, clear field utah, rob. >> caller: sitting here watching this and listening to the callers and some i agree with quite a bit i am hearing a lot of misinformation. you know, we have people that assume because on m-4 style or

m-16 rifle is used in war that somehow your average citizen can go to a gun store or a gun shop and purchase the same type of weapon as one would use in a war scenario. it is simply not true. you know, there is so many things you have to go through and hoops you have to jump through to get dlees a semi-automaticmatic rifle. they are great for hunting. younger kids, 13-14. your standard ar caliber is lightly coiled. they are great for hawk hunting. you are not going to slaughter a deer. anybody who does that shouldn't be having a gun in the first place.

i had a use a weapon in self defense and saved my life and a coworkers. >> host: how recently was this? >> caller: this was back in 2012 at work. i carry concealed on property. my co-worker was shot seven times by somebody that lived at the property i worked at. i returned fire on him 17-feet away. unfortunately, the suspect ended up loosing his life and my co-worker by some miracle survived. it is things like this these weapons and the second amendment partially take care of. my co-worker is alive because of a firearm. tragedy happens. it is sad. it is horrible. i have a 10-year-old and i would hate to see anything happen for him but i am here for my kids and my coworker is around for

his kids because of a firearm. where do we find middle ground? >> host: appreciate that. let's hear from our republican line next to elkhart, indiana. patrick, hello. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. one thing for sure with gun bans and restrictions the public is not going to stand for being shot up without severe increased penalties for gun crimes. that will be the natural reaction with a public that is disarmed. and a great deal of effort is being made to release a lot of prisoners and a lot of those guys would be coming right back with longer and stiffer mandatory sentences because the public will not tolerate not being able to buy guns. >> host: brenda on the democrats line in car bureau, north carolina. >> caller: hi, i have been listening to the show and i have been listening to the comments.

the thing that i don't understand is the law-abiding citizens who want to buy guns and get them legally to protect their family and their homes they have no problem with doing the right thing as background checks. if the people out there, not only the terrorist, but the people that are here that want to do harm to other people that break into their homes, other people's homes and want to carry a gun just to shoot somebody, they the ones that need to have the background checks. law-abiding citizens don't have no problem with having a background check. and my other comment is shame on mccain for blaming president obama for the shooting in orlando. where i was so disappointed.

i used to like him. but i think that was very uncalled for for him to blame obama for that shooting. i think congress should wake up, open their eyes and know that america has had enough of them sitting around on their behinds, not doing anything while little kids and other people is getting killed. >> host: we will let you go there. appreciate your input and calls and comments and conversation of course continues online at facebook.com/cspan and twitter.com twitter.com twitter.com/cspan. for our "the communicators" watchers thank you for being patient. the conversation about the federal appeals court decision last week up holding the fcc's right to regulate the internet

like a utility. thanks again. >> host: brian fung of the "washington post," what did the d.c. court of appeals decide this week on net neutrality? >> it was a pretty surprising decision for many people involved. the court ruled 2-1 to uphold the fcc's net neutrality regulations almost completely. you had what was ultimately a pretty big victory for the regulatory agency here. >> host: what does that mean here? >> i think it means the fcc can move forward in implementing tools much more aggressively without the fear that its rules will be instruct down by the court or there will be further -- struck -- legal uncertainty. until the petitioners in the case decide to appeal or ask for a rehearing but i think that is probably, you know, some of the folks joining us. >> host: brian fung is our guest reporter on the "the

communicators" this week. we have two advocates on the side of net neutrality. fred campbell is with tech knowledge, formally wireless telecommunication bureau chief at the fcc. and matt wood is policy director at free press. mr. campbell, was it a good decision by the court? >> i cannot say i am in favor of the result. i have long been either opposed to net neutrality or thought a lighter touch version of it it would be the right way to go and written in support of that idea in the past. what the court did here was apply a statutory scheme known as title two in the industry that gives it a lot more power than just, you know, net neutrality. for a long time net neutrality was about whether your broadband provider can block a website or

discriminate against different websites. now that the fcc has for the first time gone further and said the scheme that once governed the monopoly of the phone companies is open to the isps now. they are considering privacy on the private providers. the public safety bureau is thinking about requiring battery backups for cable and dsl modems. there is a lot of additional opportunity for regulation of internet providers than i think was yus a few years ago with this decision. -- just. >> host: mr. wood? >> not too surprisingly we disagree with a lot of fred's take. i wasn't surprised.

i was pleased by the comprehensive nature of the win. yes, they won on all grounds basically. we think that is a great thing. we think the other consumer protections fred is talking about are good things and flow from that law. title two is in the weeds, but what we think of this is the fcc returning to that law and the right law for broadband. treating it like a communication service and an infrastructure and transmission system and making a difference between the carriage and content on the internet so speech flows freely but it isn't the speech of the isp we are concerned about but you, me, c-span, commercial sites and people that rely on the networks. we are pleased and gratified that this decade discussion led us to the right place on a legal int

interpretation and the rules. >> i would be curious what you think of the judge's decent and the strongest arguments? >> how did justice scalia -- i don't think we need to focus on the decent that much. he quibbled with the rational of the fcc. the court of appeals was following earlier supreme court precedent on that question. he questioned the fcc's reasons for doing so in the majority opinion i think answers that well. it is a factual conversation and that is not the court's place to make factual decisions. they have to defer to the companies and we think they got it right. >> fred? >> i think the strongest point you made overall was this was a

para dime shift in the way the communication laws have been viewed. if you go back to the original communication act it was designed to regulate the monopoly telephone network. the provisions in it were designed to protect consumers from a monopoly. fast forward to the early '80s, the fcc says we can foresee competition developing here and if we have competition, the protections in the act will be taken care of by market forces. you know, in other words, they have orders that say if there is enough competition, the provider can't discriminate or customers can go to someone else. what shifted here that judge williams raised in his decent is that the fcc didn't really rely on a competition rational for the rules. the reason he would say this decision, and legal standard terms, was arbitrary and

capricious is he would say you want to regulate broadband proirds like the monopoly telephone network you need to make a finding there is a lack of competition because the fcc precedent says if there is competition the consumers will be protected by the option of switching. what the fcc did that the court proves is we don't need to make a finding of competition but we note switching costs are high according to the fcc. you can switch broadband providers but that entails cost and because of that we don't think it will protect consumers. that is the shift. that is not really a traditional competition analysis. it is something new. the question is there are switching costs in lots of industries. in what other instances are switching cost a reason to

regulate? i think it is an open and interesting question but that is one of the things judge williams focused on. >> we don't agree this is the first time this court has done this or the fcc has done this. title ii and common carrier rules have applied in competitive markets. in 1996, congress overhauled the telecommunication act and left in place the common carry protections that protect people from things like blocking or undue discrimination by their provider. there is a lack of competition and most people understand they don't have that many chances for broadband as compared to the number of websites they can visit. we have had these protections for wireless voice for two decades, and dsl for all of them at first and broadband offerings made by phone companies, and for