♪ host: good morning. today is tuesday, august 18. president barack obama will be meeting with the president of egypt at the white house. later he built be meeting with bill clinton, their first meeting since he went to north korea to secure the return of two american journalists. health care is on the front page, from the washington post -- "unemployment spiked powers foreclosure crisis." we want to hear this morning on your use of president barack

obama and whether he is compromising too much on health care and other issues. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org, or comment on twitter at our twitter address, twitter.com/c-spanwj. we are joined first by a reporter from "the los angeles time." -- "the los angeles times." what is a co-op and why are they coming up now in health care debate? >> it is a group of people that bands together and negotiate, essentially providing insurance to its members by negotiating rates with hospitals and other health-care providers. it has come up now because

apparently a public option, some sort of public land for health insurance is not politically salable. lawmakers are casting about for some form of competition for regular for-profit insurance companies. co-ops are non-profit, owned in theory by the members that band together. there is some thought they would be able to negotiate good prices if they were big enough and well enough run to inform some kind of private competition against insurance companies. host: who is supporting them amongst congress? guest: kent conrad has a tradition of agriculture

cooperatives in the dakotas, so that might be something that confirms his thinking. he is also a very pragmatic politician. he said, flatly, that there is not support for a private auction in congress. he is promoting co-ops as a pauper -- possible alternative. host: what is the history of co- ops in this country? guest: it is hard to say. they were passed in iowa in the 1990's, but only one started and it would away. in other places they are much more common. there are one or more in the washington state area that are in during and successful. it would be useful to note that blue cross plans, the traditional plans, were very

similar to the mutual insurance companies, which are in essence owned by the local policyholders. in recent years a lot of them have given up their nonprofit status because it is easier to borrow money in the marketplace if you are a for-profit organization. there will be questions on how effective the co-op will be if you have an existing model that has not worked out. host: are the people in the health-care debate opposed to co-ops? guest: in the last few days i have read where the head of the insurance lobby expressed some skepticism. all of this is going to depend

on whether or not the details, the rules in the case -- they are worried about prices being dictated, co-ops being required to offer insurance for a different price. she might regard this as unfair competition for insurance companies. they need to have a certain scale, 500,000 members or more if they are going to be able to negotiate effectively. are they going to be able to price premiums realistically and smartly? it is a budget detail that is a murky issue at this point. host: thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: on the front page of "the

new york times" the the right "what is certain is that the co- op disappoints many levels and that is little enthusiasm among some insurers or republican lawmakers. and as the white house signaled its flexibility, mr. obama tried to tamp down concern on the left by emphasizing that the president still supported the idea of a public plan and had not decided whether to drop it. lawmakers from the white house have sent mixed signals." let's go to the democratic line, maryland. caller: good morning. i do not think that he is compromising too much. he promised that he would be the front -- president for all americans. i am as liberal as they come, and there are republicans living in this country that the president is the president of as

well. how many republicans are going to say, ok, rush limbaugh, you have to get over this because he is reaching out. host: are you supporting the public option? caller: honestly, i do not understand the public option. if it makes sense, we should try a, a public option or cooperative. -- we should try it, public option or cooperative. host: thank you. next caller. caller: i worked for the post office, our insurance -- we had every time that we wanted to pick from. we chose ourselves from all over the country. i do not see why we cannot have that now for everybody. host: next call from michigan on the independent line.

good morning. what do you think about president barack obama? is he compromising too much? caller: i think that have a unique perspective on this situation. i am a health care provider that happens to own his own business. i have a daughter with a pre- existing condition. i also have first-time knowledge of the single payer run system in ireland. i think that the system out there does the most to decrease

the prices in health insurance, and i will leave that obama should definitely stick to his guns. if that means he goes down in a blaze of fire supporting the public option, that is what should be done. host: "where is mr. transformer? giving up the public option would send many of obama's progress of supporters into apoplexy, yet the administration has sent clear signals that this is the path of less resistance and it is prepared to take it. kathleen sebelius told cnn that a public option is not be essential element of comprehensive reform." "what is the essential element? where does obama draw a lot -- brought in line in the sand" a?

ted, drademocratic line, new yok city. caller: the problems have to do with an inability to pay medical bills. i wish that that was talked about more on c-span. i wish that what was talked about more on c-span was that matter given reagan. health-care subsidies were done away with, not quite clear on the meaning of that. what i wanted to say was that the system could be simplified, a matter of each policyholder had a fixed deductible, and i

have to my employer -- give me a minute to finish -- an average is deductible $10,000 per year. -- an outrageous deductible of $10,000 per year. i have no control over my insurance. my employer does. if i get sick, i am facing an enormous bill. to deal with the matter of annual deductibles and co-pilot -- copiague, it would allow each -- annual deductibles and co pay, it would allow us to eliminate these crazy exclusions that we are all susceptible to.

host: we have a comment on twitter, "compromise is good. obama is compromising too much, pundits will collet weakness." david, republican line. caller: good morning. as far as the co-op goes, i do not know that much about the plan. i cannot tell you whether or not obama is compromising too much. all that i know is that where i lived, i have dealt with co-ops through the electric company. my bills do not tend to be any less than people dealing with private companies. i do not have a co-op phone bill anymore. i would like to suggest that you guys with "washington journal" get some economists on your show

to talk about this issue. those are the people most qualified to talk about the give-and-take. we all want a perfect world where everyone gets everything that they want. we live in a world where there is limited resources. obama -- i got lost on a question, sorry. host: "as start-ups, co-ops could have a hard time competing with insurers that dominate local markets. it is possible that existing health-care organizations to try

to convert themselves. there is a danger that co-ops could try to turn themselves into something else sunday, many in the washington area have tried to turn themselves into a for-profit organizations. converting years of tax advantages. next call from new york, independent line. caller: i do not know about compromising on health care, but i know that it can be simplified by expanding medicaid to each and every once in town. -- each and every oone's income. this way here, everyone is contributing. you could even have medicare

recipients using medicaid as a supplement. you have millions of people that do not pay for medicaid. we have not had any town hall meetings in any part of new york that i know of. host: are you on medicare? caller: yes, i am. host: are you happy with the care that you get? caller: to a certain degree. with the medicine, it is not quite what it should be. there are still some medicines that you cannot afford. medicare, they have level 1,

level 2, level 3. whenever the levels far, most of the people do not know until they hit them. host: in "the new york times" op-ed page, the right "insurance companies are delighted. think of it, the government is requiring americans to purchase health coverage, many individuals will be herded into the industry. this additional bold line will more than offset the cost of important new regulations that will prevent insurers from denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions. more people will be funneled into medicaid, receiving a government subsidy. the oldest and sickest are on medicare, the young and healthy are required to purchase private insurance without a competing

government-run plan, insurance reform that the government can believe in. mary, and democratic line? caller: it would be very hard to underestimate the degree of anger that i feel about the betrayal of democrats over our access to health care in a public platform in with a single payer solution. it is difficult for me to rationalize rohm emmanuel and his brother wanting to corporatize medicare. if this is the example that we are compromising in, this false idea of a co-op that has never been tried, we are headed for a disaster. i am really upset and angry that we do not have a public option

now. open medicare. let anyone who wants to join, let anybody that does not want to deal with these greedy insurance companies jump right in. this is simple, rohm emmanuel. this is simple, max baucus. i am tired of these people steering us in the wrong direction. host: "health cooperatives or a popular idea during the depression, when wires were restrained across parts of the nation. a few survive in seattle, most notably, going to about 500,000 members. wellpoint has about 34 million. we have taken a lot of health cooperatives, providing informal rates, it is hard to understand

why people who are so skeptical over the government's ability to set this up would find a corporate notion more palatable. under that scenario they would create a temporary agency to croplands out. it seems more likely that they would establish more -- one workable plan rather than the creation of dozens or hundreds of individual cooperatives on regional levels. next call, randy. caller: this last lady that spoke, i would like to carry on. medicare and medicaid, let's put everybody on. the government is already in the insurance business. let's put everybody on, including the people of congress. everyone will be the same and you will have to remember one thing, the government as a government body, they should not

be in business. look, they are already in business with medicare and medicaid, they are broke. the post office is broke. amtrak, broke. where does this say that we, the people, have to support and put money into these insurance companies? even guaranteed in the constitution -- is it in there? it is not. that is not the way that this country runs. host: berkeley, california. caller: this is steve. i used to live in chicago. people in chicago, daily democrats, they are a bit different from the people in the

northeast. they are a little bit more practical. there is like an old saying, when somebody wants to introduce a bill in the chicago area about introducing reform -- i ask a bartender there, what did he think about this? he said that chicago was not ready for reform. in some ways i think that the senate in the house are not ready for reform. obama is pushing as hard as he can. i will be that he is friends on the east coast and west coast, some of those people have more

heart, but they need to be more practical. i will leave it at that. host: independent line, good morning. caller: i agree with obama being a pragmatic type. i think he might be a bit too pragmatic for his party, but this is my comment. often people in america complained about their government. their government is them. the compromise in washington is that there are too many interests represented that go against each other. you have republicans, the left, the right, all of these different interests. they have made it their governments and they cannot get anything done. obama has pushed as hard as he can with reform and consumer

protection. but he has got to back up off of this issue. we know for a fact that insurance will not be affordable. the efforts of the american people to be able to achieve it, you will not be able to ensure people. people will be losing their coverage during hard economic times. the main thing that it is, i believe that the public option is the peace that keeps insurance companies price gouging the american people. it is the balance on the scales. if you take away the option, believe me, the insurance companies can do what they want. i think that obama should let them get their just due. if they do not want the public option to be able to balance

what big business is doing it in not offering a real service, the president should really give up on that. they obviously love paying these high insurance prices. over the next 10 years it will cost 35 trillion dollars. there it is. host: washington, independent line. caller: i wanted to say that it is kind of interesting how all of these senators in washington, d.c. have the best health care in the world compliments of the taxpayer. they are turning around and telling taxpayers that they are not going to work for any kind of affordable health care. i tried to go to my congresswoman's office, she wanted to have a town hall meeting. she had a telethon instead, which was a farce. i asked her staff how much they were given by the medicare

industry. they were quite rude. i think that the entire situation is corrupt. host: in "the wall street journal," in the opinion page they write "the administration had to toss something over board, given the fact that many democrats are getting queasy in the current health-care squall. not to mention neutralizing the insurance industry's main objection. the issue now is whether mr. obama's fallback is merely to pass the public option on the installment plan. all i am saying is that it is not the entirety of health care reform," mr. obama said, "this is just one aspect of it." next caller.

caller: i do not think that the president should let go of the public option. my biggest concern, we are going to the government saying that we want this insurance. they are paying for the 80%. so, if i go pick a plan and they say that they will give us this coverage, they will take 80% and ultimately the government pays for it anyways. it does not make sense to me why everyone is complaining about the public option. it is a no-brainer. oliver wendell holmes made a comment on wednesday in -- what is it? "taxes pay for civilization." we need to keep people healthy,

inoculated during the swine flu. it is important to push forward on the public option. i do not want the president to give up on it. it is important that people stay healthy. people who make $100,000 per hour, over at united healthcare, than they do not offer services to people? ridiculous. host: flint, michigan, republican line. caller: hello? we need term limits on the senate in this country -- 12 years. host: why is that? caller: into nothing has changed, they are in there for the same -- ain't nothing has

changed, same old b.s. host: all right. independent line. caller: in all of the president's efforts so far, he has been successful. he came up through the ranks as a community organizer. i am pretty sure that he knows what he is doing. the problem that i am seeing now with the president is all of the hatred out here. callers calling and racist, a terrorist, all of it is nonsense. it seems like the right is going against a president who is working for the american people. if there could be a vote on his plan for deficit and tax protection in the health care program, he would get an overwhelming vote.

maybe 75% in his favor. we did not elect him in there to follow the conrad plan. these are not the right people around him. he needs to get a different committee of people who are really concerned about the american people. he has got people around him instead of him working for his plan. what about the other plan? just another ponzi scheme. host: we will be back shortly with conversation with scott silliman, a professor at duke university law school, we will discuss the situation in guantanamo bay. >> this month, booktv weekend continues in prime time. tonight, julian kent, chris

anderson, and harry reid. >> as the health care conversation continues, our health care of it is a key resource. go on line and follow the latest ads in links. keep up-to-date with current events and town hall meetings, even update with your own citizen video. >> this fall, and for the home to america's highest court. from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices, the supreme court is coming first son i in october on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, duke university law school professor, scott silliman, talking about the military facility in

guantanamo bay. guest: pleasure to be with you. host: what is the status of closing the military facility there? guest: it will be closed by january of next year, according to the president. that means that you have to read it -- relocate the more than 200 detainee's that are still there. the vast majority will never face a criminal trial. the dilemma for the obama administration is where to put these folks. host: where do they put them? guest: that is the burning question. an option is being discussed by the administration to maybe move some of these folks into a high maximum security prison in michigan or kansas. i am not sure that there is the political will on capitol hill

to do that. more probable is the option that the obama administration is exploring, using diplomacy to try to persuade other countries, countries of citizenship, to take these people back and keep them under some kind of surveillance. if we have got the time to be able to move all of the folks that will never face a criminal trial back to their own countries or others that will take them, that is the better option. host: send them back to their home countries? guest: or a third country. chinese muslims, they will be tortured or killed if they are sent back to china, so we need to find a country that will take them. there is reluctance on the part of most members of congress to say that we will bring them into our own country. host: have many countries said

they will take detainee's? guest: france, italy, others, each taking a -- each saying that they will take a few here or there. for state farm and diplomacy and the obama administration have been successful in that regard, but it takes time. he said, very publicly, he wants to close guantanamo bay by january 2010. he may not be able to relocate them all by that date. the question is, do they try to extend that deadline? that would be politically unpopular. or do they take a more dangerous option, in my view, bringing these folks into the united states? host: why is it more politically palatable to put the detainees

into other countries as opposed to american soil? guest: we have never had a domestic prevention terror program in this country. it would require specific legislation to do that. there is no law that would allow us to keep someone indefinitely or long term without ever charging them with a crime. we would have to have congress pass a specific statute. there would have to be judicial guarantees and reviews. the question is, once you release them, what do you do with them? it seems that the better option is to move them out of u.s. responsibility, back to their home countries or some other country that will house them. that is the better option. host: are they still being processed through the military commission? or have they gone into the court system?

guest: if you have gone into the court system. notably, one of them was indicted in the 1990's for being complicity with the embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania. there has been talk of sifting through the files to see if others should be prosecuted in federal courts. military commissions are still an option being explored. congress is considering legislation to revise the rules to make them even more protective of detainee rights. that is an option that should be explored. host: let's take our first call from allen, democratic line. caller: if michigan wants them, those are jobs for people there. or send them back to their own country. guest: i favor the second

option. if you bring them into this country and you are never going to have them face any kind of a criminal trial, you will detain them for 10 or 15 years. i believe that they will accrue rights under the constitution that they do not now have. i am more concerned about the security. concerned that there will be some radical group in this country that will try to stage an attack or some kind of protest at that particular facility. i see no benefit to bringing them into this country other than we could not find somewhere else. host: republican line, virginia. do you have a question? caller: i do. i do not understand why we are moving everyone from guantanamo

to someplace else. they were already there under military observation. why cannot stay there? guest: an excellent question, more political than anything else. guantanamo bay has excellent security, but it has become a lightning rod for criticism in the international community. the administration wants to try to remedy that by moving those detainees out of their to somewhere else. the name has become a stigma to the united states. it is hindering the new administration and its international relations. even george bush said that he wanted to close guantanamo bay, but the question is how do you do it and will you be able to make the deadline? that is a real problem for the administration. host: why was it selected originally as a detainee

facility? caller: -- guest: our supreme court, way back in the 1950's, had a case that said that if you are dealing with someone that has never been in the united states and is incarcerated outside of the united states and is considered an enemy combatant, they have no constitutional rights. no rights to come into our courts, statutory or otherwise. guantanamo bay is perhaps one of two unique places in the world where we have 100% operational control over the facility but it is sovereign territory. the argument was that the court would have no jurisdiction over anything we had to do in guantanamo bay. the supreme court modify the rule slightly, saying that they could come into our courts. the next year, congress amended the statute.

the supreme court, 2006, saying that what congress did applies only to future cases. those folks still have access to our courts. just last summer, in a very significant case, they have a constitutional right to come into the court to complain of detention. so, the utility, from a legal point of view, is no longer there. host: peter, new york city. caller: it is not tenable to kill them, but it seems to me that if we have hunter drones killing people that we think are suspects, these people who have been much information and are dangerous to be released, why not kill them as well? guest: we cannot do that.

internet -- international laws, domestic laws, international justice, it prevents all of that. we need to treat them humanely under the geneva convention, requiring the they not be abused. the congress sets the standards. you cannot go the other way. we would be achieving absolutely nothing, perhaps inviting international court's to bring charges against us for war crimes. the only time that you can kill an enemy combatant is when you are in war, on the battlefield. that is a lawful killing. other than that, you cannot just kill someone. there is a famous scene, many of your viewers might have seen the movie open " saving private ryan." there is a scene where the german pows are being brought

back and it becomes inconvenient for them to continue to bring them along, so they shoot them. an illegal act under issue -- international law. host: wichita, kansas. caller: obviously i do not want to have these people in my home state. i am wondering, since we have so much capital invested in the united nations, why not have interval build something to detain these people? guest: an interesting option. the problem is that the international community has said that the united states, as the creators of guantanamo bay, made the decision to have those

folks down there as enemy combatants. the rest of the world generally believe that terrorism is a crime. we are not at war. other than working individually with countries like france or germany, or others, to take some of these detainee's back -- saudi arabia is another country. globally the united nations has not indicated in any way that they want to accept responsibility for guantanamo bay in its entirety. i would not expect them to do so. one of the major issues is that almost 100 of the detainees are from yemen. sending them back to yemen is a problem , as there is a tradition in the country that they would be let out of jails or maybe break out of jails,

returning to the battlefield very quickly. we would need to find a country that would take them back under security but we did not feel they would return to the battlefield to attack us again. host: the associated press reported that a coalition of senators, including john mccain, had been visiting yemen. and president barack obama had hesitated to send those inmates held because of the history of yemen releasing extremists. the country has been a site of numerous high-profile al qaeda at the tax. next call is from brooklyn, new york. are you there? caller: good morning.

as far as guantanamo bay, when the bush administration went to war, there was no reason to go to iraq. there was no reason to go to afghanistan. but they robbed this country blind, giving trillions of dollars to halliburton, letting them do what they wanted over there. if they had blinded their business, we would not have been in guantanamo bay furious -- if they would have minded their business, we would not be in guantanamo bay. t[unintelligible] guest: let me respond. it is still a debate on whether it was the right move to go

into iraq, but many of those in guantanamo bay were picked up in afghanistan after military operations began in 2001, as the country was housing osama bin laden, an act that was supported by the united nations. these military action in afghanistan, they are legitimate. many in guantanamo bay were captured there. the problem is that we claim that they were all lawful enemy combatants. there is nothing in the geneva conventions that provides that type of definition, where you can say that you are not prisoners of war but neither are you entitled to the other protections of the geneva convention. the bush administration crafted a legal regime where we were at

war globally, the battlefield extending to any place in the world, and that those captured anywhere can be detained for as long as the war goes on. the problem is that the war could go on forever as long as there is a terror cells somewhere in the world. that is what the courts are expected to address. the court has said that it is not a sufficient legal basis for detention. host: dave, republican line. pennsylvania. caller: i would like your response. first, guantanamo bay is a state of the art prison. there is no real evidence that prisoners there have been systematically abused or tortured, as they are out of the mainstream media. the only abuse i have read about

is the abuse that the prisoners keep on the guards, filthy things. the fact that some in the international community criticized us for that, heck with them. they are not our friends. friends in the international community understand why guantanamo bay exists. sending prisoners to other countries for preventative detention, since we do not do that here, contrary to our values and constitution, that is not a form of rendition that the bush administration was accused of doing, sending our detainee's

to the people that we captured over in the battlefield, countries where the interrogation methods would amount to torture in some cases. thank you very much. host: good questions. guantanamo bay is a secure facility. no doubt about it. regardless of what the ultimate determination is on that. the international community, almost every country, has criticized the united states for holding people down there without any kind of review or ability to talk to their own country or relatives, even a lawyer. president bush even said that guantanamo bay needed to be closed. now the decision has been made.

the president, rightly or wrongly, has decided to move those detainee's out of that facility because of the stigma that it carries, moving detainee is somewhere else. it is not an awful rendition to take the person we are holding and move them to their place of citizenship of that country agrees. that is perfectly legal and is done all the time. the secretary of state, hillary clinton, i am convinced is going through very intensive diplomacy with many countries to try to persuade them to take these people back. we will never be able to prosecute them. they will never see a court of law with regard to charges that might be brought against them. we cannot hold them in guantanamo bay, and i personally believe that they should not be brought into this country for long-term detention for the

reasons that you mentioned, it is against our value system. how do you successfully move these folks to other countries and remove them from the responsibility of the united states? yemen is a real problem. almost half of the detainees come from there. but there is no confidence that that country will be able to monitor the security of its citizens. host: is it a presumption that all detainees back guantanamo bay will be continued to held -- will be continue to be held in some way? are any assumed to be going to be released? guest: the chinese muslims that would definitely be tortured by their home country, the u.s. has acknowledged that they should be released. congress has already passed a

law that the president has signed it saying that you cannot release them in to the united states without an official ruling from congress. courts have said that the administration determines where they should be released. that is a classic case of someone we have held that was never a danger to the united states, but where do we go with and that is safe for them? host: nathan, nashville, tennessee. independent line. caller: hey. the clarification between an enemy combatant and they pow, i never -- and a pow, i never understood the difference.

with regards to the man from yemen, why not charge them with a crime and told them where we are going to hold them? guest: two good points. as regards prisoners of war, early on many folks said that does that we captured in afghanistan and bring to one, they should be given prisoner of war status -- in afghanistan and bring to guantanamo, they should be given prisoner of war status. they targeted civilians, they did not wear uniforms, they did not carry arms openly -- those are all requirements for someone to be declared a prisoner of war. the bush administration took the position that the president of the united states could determine everyone in one time. when i was wearing the uniform back in the 1990's we had

individual hearings for everyone on the battlefield to decide whether or not they were prisoners of war. president bush decided that every member of al qaeda and those in the taliban could not be afforded prisoner of war status, therefore they were determined to be unlawful combatants without rights. the courts have modified that, challenging the detention under habeas corpus. how many other rights they might have is, to a larger extent, going to determine where we put them. only about 3500 to 50 of the detainee's in guantanamo bay, for them there is an element of criminality. bacon prosecuted.

the others call we know is that they were picked up on the battlefield. they will never be criminally prosecuted. that is the dilemma for the administration. how you justify holding someone long term without charging them with a crime. the united states has never had that kind of a domestic detention program in the united states. if they are sent to another country, assuring that they will be treated to humanely, that is perfectly legitimate and a line that i think we should follow. host: democratic line. good morning. caller: i have a question and comment. my question is this -- host: are you there? but i think we lost her. -- i think that we lost her. indiana, independent line. caller: it is a sad day in this

country when what kind of message are we sending when we say come? save it you want to destroy america, but we will let you live your life free instead of doing your job in protecting americans personally? if our military people say that these people are a danger to the united states and the need to be detained somewhere, not going to another country, you people are nuts. they are insane. if the government wants to keep them detained on an island somewhere where the military has full control of these people to make sure that they do no harm to us again, that is what i think we should do. i do not think that we should let these people go free, that is what we did with saddam hussein. it is insane.

guest: it is no question, many of these people are dangerous folks. if you are going to detain them, where? there are three options. if the president decided to keep it open, and the matter how politically palatable, that would be one option. the second option that i favor is moving them to another country as long as there is an assurance that that country will keep that individual under some type of surveillance or restraint. the third option is, of course, to bring them into the united states. i do not believe that is a good option, simply because of the

concern and security issues it brings to whenever that facility is. -- to what ever that facility is. that would require specific legislation to achieve. host: how transparent as the guantanamo bay military commission process? guest: the rules are right in the law. there have been many reports about the trials, but there have only been three completed convictions at guantanamo bay. those are the only three that were completed. president obama suspended the commissions in order to give his administration time to decide whether those that could be prosecuted, if they should be

brought to trial in the united states or brought under a system down? i think that many of those detainee's should be prosecuted in commission because those files can be held outside of the united states. they can be detained and long- term confined outside of the united states, you could not do that if they were prosecuted outside of the independent courts. host: texas, good morning. caller: why in the world were they brought here to guantanamo in the first place? why cannot be returned to live there afghanistan or iraq, the battlefield where they were captured, and let those countries deal with those people? guest: interesting question. why were they taken in the first place? that decision was made by the bush administration very early

on. the bush administration believed that it would be a lot free zone, an area where the united states could detain these folks without the jurisdiction of the federal courts. subsequently, that was changed by the united states supreme court. returning them to afghanistan, we could certainly do that. some people have been released back to afghanistan. the problem is that 100 of those people are from yemen. we cannot just returned them to yemen, as it is believed -- probably rightly so -- that if you send them back they will simply be put out on the street and return to the battlefield because of the instability of that government. one of the detainees is from canada, many people in canada

want him sent back there. the ongoing issue is if you will be sent back or he will be held for a military commission trial, as he threw a grenade into a jeep and killed in military soldier. -- killed a soldier. the obama administration has established a commission to see if there is evidence to prosecute or if they should be sent or released to their own country. those decisions have not been made. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you for joining us this morning. .

health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius talks about medicare fraud prevention efforts. later, the pentagon is an update on the afghanistan presidential elections and security. we build here from australian and canadian officials. as hurricane bill had west in the atlantic, we will show you a recent house hearing looking at the government's disaster response. fema director craig pupate testifies. -- fugate testifies. we will hear from the president

of the national emergency management association. this month, c-span2's book tv weekend continues. tonight, chris anderson, and senate majority peter harry reid -- leader harry reid. and go on line and follow the latest video eds and links. also keep up-to-date with the town hall meetings, senate debate, and even applaud your opinion. the c-span health care hub. host: joining us now is thomas schatz with citizens against government waste. explain what the organization does.

guest: of citizens against crime and waste helps to uncover programs that waste money. there was the alternate engine for the joint strike fighter. the president says he does not want it. so does the pentagon. it was a typical earmark by a member of congress without any competition. this is one of many issues we look at. we look at how stimulus money is working. the health-care debate is certainly something we look at. really any area of wasteful

spending in the government, including taxation. host: what is the state of earmarks in washington? from your position, is it better or worse? guest: between 2008 and 2009, the number of earmarks dropped, but the dollar amount went up. about a 15% increase. in that sense, it is not lower, but it is below the $29 billion that we had in 2006. currently, we are sending out pork alert for each of the bills that go through full committee. generally, the amounts are lower than fy09, in some cases, 30% on the lower. so there is some effort being made to move this in the right

direction, which the leadership promised they would do. host: do you oppose it earmarks in totality, in any form? guest: yes, people say that there are good earmarks. congress has a competitive program with the parks service that they set up to distribute the money. in the past several years, congress has looked at the budget -- about $15 million -- and they competitively awarded and earmark the rest. if you have a program that awards projects, and you want more money for it, how is congress substituting its judgment for this agency? members of congress will say that bureaucrats do not know what we are doing, and our response would be to get rid of

the bureaucracy. what happens is they are repeating the process the nine agencies. you have a small group of appropriations committee staff making the decision. there is a report by james savage in our current edition of news watch and he looked at the office of naval research and then on monetary impact on the administration of the earmarks at the agency. he said it is basically creating havoc. members of congress saying to these senior officials, we put this earmark in, what are you not sending money? there is a larger impact than

just the dollar amount. host: i wanted your reaction to a story from the "new york times." michael cooper writes about earmarks and federal spending, and he says -- guest: there is no question about that. tip o'neill said that all politics is local. many believe that this thing

will get them elected. if you look at the process of applying for a grant, we would not have a problem for that. if turtle fencing is something that the government should fund and congress said that we need a program and every state should ask for the money, then that is the way it is. we would argue that it is a wasteful program, but at least there is a process for requesting the funds. the argument about it being local can apply to anything. earmarks, the extra spending, non-competitive spending -- congressional members have long complained about this type of thing. they are using the ultimate non- competitive bid by in turning these projects into these spending bills without competition.

the alternate engine is a great example. there was a competition for this engine at the pentagon in 2001. the ge lost. now everybody that wants the alternate engine, they are saying there should be competition. there was already. president obama and president bush said no. however, congressional members who believe that they would create jobs in their districts want to spend the money. host: let's begin the phone calls. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. first phone call. mike, democratic line.. caller

caller: speaking of earmarks, since 9/11 i have been doing nothing but pay attention to c- span. everything has run amok down there. i do not see any accountability. halliburton, the iraq war, -- there with me, i'm nervous. i want everything exposed so the public can see what is going on. guest: interestingly, the white house promised to provide information on stimulus spending on the website called recovery.gov. the website is not running and they want to spend an additional $18 million to get it running.

and other staff members have put together their own web site that has a lot of these numbers and is providing the number that the leadership promised they would. you can get this information at our website, cagh.org. just another point on earmarks, congress has made it more transparent by providing the names of members of congress who ask for the earmarks -- most of them -- and they have a listing of those earmarks, but it is not searchable. you have to work it to make it searchable. that is with the congresswoman has done. she has taken all the information and made it

accessible to the public so they can see what is happening with their money. host: barbara from missouri. republican line. caller: who you work for directly? who pays your salary? give us an example of where your organization has had a real impact because it seems to me the pork spending keeps going and going. somebody should be watching this, but i am not sure you are the organization to be doing this. this is the first time i have heard of you. guest: we have been around since 1984. we were the first to publish a pig book demonstrating how the pentagon was wasting money. one of the reasons i am glad to

be here is so that people like you can learn more about the organization and so the public gets a better idea of how the government is spending their money. we have helped push forward policy to close unneeded military the celanese. overall, we have saved $1.20 trillion, and all of that information is on our website. the effectiveness is determined how much taxpayers get involved and how members of congress respond to demands for transparency. host: sale, north carolina. -- say it felfayetteville, nort.

caller: 01 to know why these congressional board members cannot do their own programs to see how they are running and if it is based on operational funds. guest: federal programs are supposed to be accountable but there needs to be independent analysis as well. the government accountability office is congress' watchdog. i think any group needs an independent analysis. it never hurts to have that extra waffle eye out there. host: ruth from nevada, the republican line. caller: you have just talked

about earmarks and how people could not get the records? guest: the information is available through congress's appropriations committee. you can look at it, but it is very hard to sort it helpeout. it has to be restored and reworked said that the information is available. one idea is to take all of these earmarks and make them available to everyone on the searchable basis. it would be pretty easy. everything else you can find by clicking a few buttons on your computer. host: aside from earmarks, you are also a voice for the health care plan being supported by the

obama administration and democrats. guest: medicare is going broke. the first thing we are saying is to fix medicare. there is a simpler way to do with the uninsured. we can argue about the number, but what ever it is, there is no reason to cover every one more force employers to choose a government-sponsored plan. they do not tell us how to choose a lot of insurance, life insurance. his starkly the reason my care -- historically, the reason health insurance is provided by the workplace is because individuals cannot afford their own insurance plan.

i am sure you have seen this chart of what this whole thing looks like, 50 new bureaucracies and agencies. everything the government has done in health care has ended up costing far more than the original estimates. those are my real concerns. the way things are done now are not particularly efficient. the people who pay for health care are subsidizing those who do not have care, or are going to the emergency room. i just do not think this massive plan is the best way to do it. host: politically, where do you think the american people are on this issue? guest: the fact that we have a $1.30 trillion deficit, that is getting people's attention.

you look at the stimulus, t.a.r.p., a lot of bailout, and suddenly people say, even in washington, that is a lot of money. host: mel from new york. independent line. caller: good morning. my husband and i both paid a lot into medicare, not just a little bit. i put in 24 years with one government establishment. my husband put in 20-some years with government. and my mother and father also up. we've always wondered why there was so much ill-use of funds. at the end of the year everyone

is told to spend the money. we are supposed to be one country under god, but who are we serving, the god of greed? reading the bible, i am understanding of america is a mixed up underhanded place. guest: i am not going to address the larger philosophical issues, but in terms of the budget, the reason agencies spend money at the end of the year is because their budget is measured for that year. if your budget is measured on what you are allowed to end next year's budget is established from that baseline in the current year, you are going to spend the money. if you are proficient, you will

be rewarded. it is all based on how they have set this up. host: iowa with ken on the democratic line. caller: you were the prime mover in closing the military basees n this country. what would be your process for moving the military bases in 100 foreign countries that would add significantly to the budget of the military and but in reality does nothing but support for an countries? guest: certainly, you can argue and we have troops around the world, but we would not be

opposed to a foreign military- based commission to decide which one we really need for the future. host: pasadena, on the independent line. lee? we may have lost him. maryland, democratic line. caller: can you hear me? my question is about health insurance. i do not understand why americans do not realize the insurance companies are no more than pimps. we do not need insurance companies between the public and hospitals and doctors. it is a waste of money. guest: certainly, someone is

deciding how to insure someone else. you could not have auto insurance or life insurance with these companies. everyone has some experience with insurance companies, but they cover risk if they do not cover it, the taxpayer will. if everyone is insured equally, whether you have been sick or non -- if someone has an auto accident and you have not had any, you do not want to pay those same rights. we seem to be moving in the direction that everyone is equal, and i am not sure that that is the right thing. host: from pittsburg, patrick on the independent line. caller: the president need to get rid of rahm emanuel who is

probably in the week as a representation of any president. by the way, i do not see you questioning is real turning america into its own proverbial atm machine. talk about waste. you never talk about what the american people are really concerned about. that is our country being turned into a defacto atm machine of israel. guest: they are our most reliable democratic ally in the middle east. i do not think the american people would support changing that relationship. there has been bipartisan support of israel. foreign aid in general, which makes people upset, his only 1% of federal spending. we can argue whether or not it is successful, but it is not a huge amount of money.

host: denver, colorado. caller: good morning. i have several questions. what about the $12 billion that was missing in iraq? have you looked into that? had he looked at the largest embassy building in the world in iraq? it was never completed. how about guantanamo. halliburton had that contract. it concluded execution chambers. the international red cross said that we abused prisoners. is halliburton still benefiting from guantanamo being opened? exactly what are you against president obama's plan for health care for americans? if we do not have a healthy

nation, and indicated nation, it does not matter how many bombs we can draw upon another country, we are not going to be a strong nation. guest: we are not opposed to providing health care, we are just opposed to the method. we believe people need affordable coverage but we have seen when the government gets involved in health care, it always costs far more than originally intended. one of the original estimates for medicare was that it would cost $10 billion. almost everything the government does end of the more expensive and that is one of the reasons we have concerns. host: does your organization do any oversight of spending, with all spending? guest: yes, if money is being wasted, we are interested.

that goes back to this no bid contract issue. there are some companies that are so well prepared and in some cases are the only companies that could take care of these various activities. generally, there are very few that could do these types of jobs. we would like to be competitive, but in some cases congress and the pentagon believes it needs to be done immediately. competition works very well in just about everything we have done. monopolies do not last. we have seen that, over time, it is not good for anyone to have a no-bid situation. host: republican line. sullivan, illinois. caller: on these health

insurance companies -- and i have had my share of problems over the years, but doesn't the problem actually start with the federal government unfindinnfun these programs like medicare? then they have to pass on the cost. it gets passed on to the insurance companies. they cannot afford it, so they forward it on to the policyholders. why are we not bringing up the subject that part of this is not the in -- greedy insurance companies that the federal government who will not fund their own mandated programs? guest: thank you for making my point. that is part of my problem and the government telling people what to do and not providing the money for it. it is true that people who pay for insurance are such as in

those who are not. so we have to rebalance that. doctors and hospitals have had their reimbursement cut. that is why when the public and he came along, and the government would reimburse hospitals at a lower rate, the american medical association and dr. members said that they with the support that. they would take some money from medicare and put it towards this universal spending plan. that is why this has raised a lot of concerns for seniors who will not be a part of this public plan. they do not like the idea of the government telling them what to do. host: last phone call. caller: i voted for ralph nader.

public citizen's is a great watchdog group. i wish you could talk about the tobacco industry and jack abramoff. could you have wendell potter, the former head of cigna, so that he can talk about these problems? thank you. guest: one of the things they're doing in health care is looking at medicare advantage which is a plan that individuals can buy that is not run by the government. 12 million seniors have it and they want to take it away. it is one of the issues being raised and why we see so much passion at these town halls. host: we are out of time. thank you, thomas shot. we will be back with open

phones. -- thomas schatz. >> a look ahead at our program schedule. kathleen sebelius talk about medicare fraud prevention efforts at 10:00. later, the pentagon gives an update on the afghan presidential elections and security support. we will hear from australian and canadian officials. as hurricane bill had to west in the atlantic, we will show you a recent house hearing looking at the federal government's disaster response after hurricane katrina.

that is at 11:30 a.m. and a look at the role of state government in a disaster response. we will hear from the president of the national lumber into management association. c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. also, keep up-to-date with town hall meetings, house and senate debates, and even up load your opinion of health care. >> enter the home to america's highest court, from the most grand public places to the room's only accessible to the justices. host: welcome back.

we are discussing more headlines with open phones. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send as a comment on twitter at cspanwj. here is a story about president obama's and visit with president mubarak.

turning to politics, in a column in the "wall street journal" in the capital journal column --

host: evansville, indiana. frank on the democratic line. caller: 01 to give you a strategy with this health care. -- i want to give you a strategy with this health care. basically, i will go in chronological order. i see this as a lee atwater, newt gingrich, and karl rove tactic. we all know what lee atwater was famous for. he was famous for the willie horton ads that demolished the caucus'-- dukakis'chances. i am glad you read that article about how president seed.

we all know newt gingrich was part of the republican revolution. he played a minor role. now to karl rove. of course, he was george bush's brain. he is the one that sen that the republicans would have a minority. here is my strategy on my health care could fail. i will tell you what they wanted to fail. let me be quick. the republicans are going to play hardball. as you have already heard, even with kent conrad, who i believe is kowtowing to the insurance companies, he said he had a plan for universal coverage. his plan changed. max baucus had a plan for public option. that changed.

this will all came in. i hope it does not, but this is a reality. the democrats are not going to sign on for a co-op, unless it does what it is supposed to do. to me, a co-op just provides more money for insurance companies and not doing what obama is presenting to regulate the insurance companies, not takeover. republicans do not want this. truck grassley and the rest of the republicans do not want health care reform. host: we are going to leave it there, moving on to the "wall street journal" --

modesto, california. caller: i would just like to say, i feel like the media, fox news and what not, they have hurt us republicans. the world is looking at us like we are staring the people out

there, obama is a bad person, you have to watch out for him, the people that he runs with. we have never had that happen with any other president shame on us republicans -- any other president. shame on us republicans. people are turning away from republicans and turning more to the democrats. i wish republicans could sit back and look at what they are doing to the rest of us. they do not even want to be a part of everything and just make fun of everything. host: next phone call. carl on the independent line.

caller: with respect to your previous guest, he was wrong in almost everything he said. one thing i would suggest listeners do is log onto wh itehouse.gov and print out the historical financial statements of the u.s. government. it is around 360 pages, in some cases, going back to the 1940's. then one can really see these receipts and disbursements web the previous guest said about medicare is totally baloney. with the financial statements, you can see medicare received and palps -- payouts.

people who pay into medicare -- which is pretty good and cheap -- i think mine cost me $100 a month. they say that everything the government does cost more than private industry, and that is baloney. i am returned from a multinational insurance company -- and i will not name the company -- but at a senior executive well. there is nothing about insurance that i do not understand. the basic concept of insurance, when it began in the 1800's is a pooling of money by many to protect the losses of the few. the company that i retired from, and being an insurance company,

and they wrote their own policy for retired employees. it is a really well managed plan. the company employs doctors, case management, etc. in order to monitor the health of, particularly, retired employees. by retiree medical coverage which includes prescription drugs -- medicare is primary. my company's retirement covered became supplement. that includes prescription drug coverage. i pay slightly less than $100 a month. host: we have to leave it there.

joining us now is a reporter to catch up on the texas governor's race. thank you for joining us. catch us up to speed on what is happening. kay bailey hutchison announced that she was joining the race and had embarked on her campaign. what is happening in texas? >> she is formally announcing her campaign. she has been saying for most of the year that she would be running and there were some who were slow to believe that because she has started with this before. she is certainly in it this time and now is formally kicking off her campaign. she is going around in 19 cities in five days to get a lot of local coverage and reach out to those people who perhaps were not aware that she was getting

in the race. she started that yesterday with a pretty strong and direct attack against governor perry. host: of course, the former governor. how competitive will this race between two former governors? >> governor perry was governor since president bush was in office. kay bailey hutchison has been in the congress for quite a while as well. they are giants of the state. these are the two big dogs in the party. there will be a lot of money. they can both raise quite a lot of money. you have unlimited contributions in texas. all lot of money will be spent. many people will say it is a fight for the soul of the republican party.

host: what are the major issues in texas right now? what will this race be about? >> it depends on who can drive the message best. perry webb like it to be about the texas economy. primarily that in the past few years texas has fare better than the rest of the country in terms of job growth. he talks about that allow, and is not shy about taking credit for that. there is also a flip side in that, in the texas economy has not done as well this year, and something that hutchinson mentioned several times yesterday was job loss. only california lost more jobs in june.

there are also some differences on the so-called social issues that perry will try to exploit. he has a more clear pro-life record than she does, although she gets high marks from anti- abortion groups. she has some positions that are more supportive of abortion rights, others that are more supportive of embryonic research. she will try to make in an issue of personality and style, if not directly bring up, remind people that he flirted with texas seceding from the u.s.. he never advocated that, but they had been talking about that. she will question his leadership. host: what about the general

election? any chance that they can compete? host: right now it looks like in texas this is where the battle is. one of the stronger candidate on the democratic side, a state senator from austin announced that he would not run. the best known democrat right now is tom schieffer who is getting some headaches from his own party because he was appointed an ambassador from president bush. there are old business partners. he probably has the best position to get the democratic nomination and there are a lot of folks who do not believe that he could beat. or hutchinson. host: any sense that president bush could get involved in terms of any kind of endorsement?

>> i would be surprised if he did. there is not much expectation that he will be involved. however, there were several people close to him who are lined up with senator hutchison. karen hughes, his education secretary, and others. karl rove is thought to be advising the campaign in some informal way. host: we are going to leave it there. thank you. we are going to keep going with our phone calls. in georgia. caller: i was calling about insurance. your last guest said that insurance is affordable. i disagree with that. i have checked on insurance and family coverage for my family,

we are looking at $200 a month. just for me and my husband. that is very unaffordable, especially in these economic times. my husband has been without a job for 17 months and has just found a part-time job which has no benefits. i disagree with him. if we are required to pay insurance and a bill passes that every american needs insurance, then they ought to regulate the insurance companies what they can charge. auto insurance bases it on your credit score. it does not matter if you pay your insurance premium for 20 years regularly. in my lifetime, i never thought i would see the time when i needed to usthe file for

bankruptcy to save my home. the other day i was trying to combine my house insurance and automobile insurance in order to save money, but they cannot do that without giving me a higher premium. to me, that is wrong. host: in the front page of "the state" the story -- and the newspaper from south carolina. they were right -- -- they write --

next phone call, missouri. caroline on the democratic line. caller: my husband has huntington's. i do not know if you have heard of this but they do not advertise it much. it is worse than parkinsons' and all of them. we are fortunate because we are seniors. we still get insurance. anybody that has this, they will not give insurance to them without a higher premium. he did not ask to have this and i do not think other people asked to have cancer, they did not ask to have anything. i i am for the president

sticking to his guns and going back to the way he was in getting something passed. i think every american is entitled to be able to have insurance. host: next phone call. cal on the republican line. caller: all of these town hall meetings, i am a registered republican, but i am not happy with either party. for decades now, all the representatives in washington have been doing their own thing and have been -- have not been listening to the people. a lot of the anchor you see across the country right now is just frustration at our representatives not representing us, but their own interests, or the special interests of other folks. as far as health care is concerned, why in the world as

americans would we want to turn our health care over to the government -- the u.s. tax code, for example is a thousand pages long. 80,000 pages of documentation to see how to collect taxes from us. you start turning health care overturn the bureaucracy of the u.s. government and you have a nightmare on your hands. as soon as they run into a fiscal crisis -- listen, we still have fiscal crises coming. i work in the financial industry, predict. inflation has got to take off. that is one of the economic laws of the universe. host: marianne from houston, texas. caller: i have a comment about

illegal immigration. we have governments set up to serve us, but it seems that it has gotten turned around. it is like we serve them. you look at these laws -- i knew someone who worked his entire life, applied for social security and he was turned down. we have these agencies in place by trying to get the service, you are denied. we are here to serve them. any level of government, even in the county, they are there for us, but trying to get at them is near impossible. i live in harris county, texas in the houston area. in order to get a job with the county government, you need to speak spanish.

as the last caller said, we let these people represent us and they go off on their own agenda. they are citizens, too. they have a right to opinion, but they are still here to represent us. host: in "usa today" they talk about the afghan elections and president karzai --

from northwest said, on the republican line. -- north augusta, on the republican line. caller: i want to talk about health care. people need to learn the difference about burned and unearned entitlements. -- earned and unearned entitlements. medicare is entitled. medicaid is unearned.

i think even some representatives to not -- do not know the difference. it seems so many people that call and have a lot of hate in their voices for people who are successful. i would consider myself successful. i pay a lot of taxes and i do not think i am willing to do it anymore. whether i have to eliminate some of the income i have, what ever i have to do. one suggestion that i do not think c-span will do, maybe instead of setting up your phone lines the way they are, he should set them up for earned entitlements and unearned and

see if that makes a difference. perhaps that could change some minds. host: iowa, democratic line. caller: i do not think the american people understand how important this issue is. first of all, as a working american, we are working for about half the price of every generation of us doing the same job because of benefit costs. if we do not get this under control, we are going to continue to go down the same path. our children will be working for even less. the cost of living will not go down, it will continue to rise and we are going to be in a heck of a boat. people need to take to the streets in protest.

we need to make sure that we need to get this done. host: huntington, alabama. caller: i have a major question for everyone who is so angry. where it was the anger when they were tortured people in the name of the americans? i think this is orchestrated. people are getting post cards in the mail. i did not get one to go to a town hall meeting. i think a lot of it is phony. these people protesting out there is selfish. it is a matter of everyone getting coverage. i feel bad for people who do not get in and cannot afford operations or have to pay for 20 years. that is all i want to say.

people should think about it. if they were not up in arms about worth less wiretapping, and everything that went on in the bush administration -- that is when the country was taken away from us. host: we will be right back with richard feldman, author of independents, 202-628-0205 -- author of "ricochet, confessions of a gun lobbyist." >> a look at our program schedule. live at 10:00 eastern, health

and human services secretary kathleen sebelius talks about medicare fraud prevention efforts. later, the pentagon gives an update on the afghanistan presidential elections and security support. we will hear from australian and canadian officials. .

guest: i represented in number of the firearm companies. i left them and then i wrote a book a few years ago about my experiences and how i feel both the issue and the groups and some of the people involved in issue. host: why did you decide to

write this book? guest: it is a story that never has been told before about how power is wielded behind the scenes and how the players really operate and think, and what some of the motivations behind the policy is and what is really going on with the players and the groups and the controversies. host: you write about the national rifle association. you refer to it has "a senecal mercenary political cult." explain why you wrote that. guest: a lot of what the national rifle association does these days is not about the policy of protecting gun owners or their members. it is much simpler than that. it is about fund raising and membership recruitment and development. perhaps a good example would be for the past year, we have heard how president obama is the

most anti-gun president in american history. going back to the 1980's, the national rifle association endorsed and supported george carper walker bush and within a few months of his taking office, by executive order, he signed a bill that outlaw the importation of tens of thousands of semiautomatic rifles into this country. president obama so far has only signed a bill allowing people to carry guns in federal park lands if they are legal to carry and the state. so, it makes one wonder, what does the term really mean? so much of this debate is about the polemics and the words that we use. when some people say they are for gun-control, what we hear in the pro-gun side is quite

different than what individuals really mean. there is former agreement in this country than there is disagreement. we are all against convicted predatory felons from obtaining guns. we're all against unsupervised juvenile is having or obtaining guns. we're against mental incompetence or having guns. everybody on capitol hill says they are all in favor of legitimate citizens having in using guns for any and all legitimate purposes. one has to ask themselves, what are we arguing about? host: you write that the nra would rather fight than win. guest: fighting is very good for fund-raising and membership development. when you win, what are you going to say in the fund raising letter? our opponents have closed their shops around the country.

they have gone away. 25 cents dollars by friday afternoon? it does not work that way. there is nothing unique about the gun issue in this town. every group does that. environmental groups tend to do much better when republicans are in control. business groups do better when democrats are in control. perhaps that is part of our problem in america today. this is a very centrist nation that we have an. enthusiasm for so many of the issues really comes from the extremes. i like to think of myself as an enthusiastic moderate, but that is almost a contradiction in terms. host: what has the nra's reaction been to you? guest: their first reaction was that they would not comment on works of fiction, to which i quipped, i wonder if the internal revenue service or the federal election commission would be interested in learning that their returns are works of

fiction. i do not think they are, but the leadership of nra cannot have it both ways. host: c-span did contact the nra. they did not return a request for comment. let's go to our first call. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention -- i'm 64 years old. in idaho, where i grew up, we went to the nra for safety training and all of that. i remember in those days that people who were involved in guns were not the same as they are now. the people who are interested in these things now are covered in fatigues and i have to say that they are scary.

the way that they talk about guns is not the way that they used to talk about guns. it is somewhat frightening. when you take a look at a fellow who had his gun slapped to -- strapped to his leg during a presidential meeting, the gun itself does not scare me. it was the look on his face. it is not the gun and it is not the human. it is the combination. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. guest: i think he is correct. in many ways in this country, if we focus on the gun, we have missed the whole opportunity to focus on the problem. the problem is never the gun. the issue is, in whose hands are the guns? if we focus on that issue, we avoid so much of the senseless debate that has gone on over the last 25 years prevented us as a nation from resolving this issue and moving forward. host: the president was in

phoenix, arizona. it was the third time in a week when there was an incident involving a firearm where he has been appearing. there was a man walking outside the event carrying a rifle on his shoulder. from your position, how would the gun lobby react to those kinds of offense? guest: it is a couple of things that we're saying. many times, people have gone. no one is misusing the guns. it probably is not a very wise moment to be showing your second amendment right to have that done in the presence of the president of the united states. we are all focused on someone who is not a problem, but they cannot know that exactly in advance. while it certainly was his right, as i understand it and arizona and new hampshire, it

probably was not the most sensible thing to be doing under the circumstances. host: the next call is from new haven. caller: good morning to you. the caller was talking about how these people are scary and they are dressed up in malaysia fatigues or whenever they are called. i think those people that you see at these meetings are plants. barack obama and all of them are against guns. that is what they want to do, take the guns away from the american people. in our bill of rights, -- it is in there that the american people should have and be able to have their guns to protect themselves and their families and protect them against the government. with the agenda of the obama administration, they want to take the guns away from the people. the people you see going to

these meetings, i think they are plants that you store up a big ordeal. guest: i have not been to any of the meetings myself. i have had some meetings with this administration, senior officials of the white house. it has become increasingly clear to me that the obama administration means what it set last year during the campaign. it has no interest in taking on the gun issue. it is not against legitimate ownership of guns for any and all legitimate purposes. i think the thing that we have to focus on in this country are those many areas of agreement. i've never met anyone who is against firearm safety. we have spent the last 25 years in this country promoting sex education, drug education --

why don't we do anything about firearm safety education from a non political perspective? it is something that everyone can get behind. what i have found increasingly as i met and talked with people since leaving the gun movement, if you will, it is that what people say they are for gun- control -- most gun controls think that is code language that means, i am against guns, i want to ban them, i want to highly regulate them. some people certainly do mean that. most people mean by that statement that they want to keep guns away from the wrong individuals. i do not know anyone in the gun movement who wants violent predatory criminals to lawfully be able to obtain guns. i do not know anyone who wants mental incompetence to be able to access guns. if we spent some time focusing on the things we agree on, maybe we could come to some resolution

on some of the more difficult issues within this whole cluster. host: he said the administration had no interest in gun legislation. is there anything in the congress? guest: there are members of congress who have put in bills, but i do not see them going anywhere at the moment. perhaps the most current issue that might potentially come before the congress and then only if a certain fact pattern what occurred is the issue involving gun shows in this country. i do not see it on the media juror -- the immediate agenda. if there were guns that were purchased from a gun show from a civilian seller and a tragedy could have been prevented if they had gone through the background check system that a dealer is obligated to put people through, that issue could be back on the table. it is not so complicated if you really figure it out and get

down to it. a lot of it is the polemics. the anti-gun community says that we have to close the loophole. there is no loophole. as a civilian, i can take any of the guns that i own and sell them lawfully at a gun show in my state. the issue is, how do i prevent those very individuals, the convicted violent felons, mental incompetent people from getting a gun from me? if i sell them to someone, i do not know who i am selling them to. i did we are smart enough people to devise a system -- what i would recommend is if there were a bill, it would be the gun show preservation and protection act of 2009. behind the scenes would be to protect this american tradition of gun shows. even the national rifle association said they thought it

was reasonable and responsible for background checks at gun shows. the problem was the waiting time and the implications of, would you lose a sale? that was 10 years ago the smart people in this country can resolve this issue. host: good morning. caller: i am a democrat. i happened to get on your program today. i have a comment and a request. my comment is this. america is a great nation. we hold our destiny in our own hands. i remember when charlton heston used to get on tv and defend the nra. [unintelligible]

you have to stand up and take responsibility for it and make sure that we put safeguards -- we have the internet, so why not [unintelligible] you could get the information on anybody that you want to. it is worth $10 to find out if this guy is legitimate. guest: there is really a fairly simple methodology by which we could resolve this issue and move on. if the gun show promoter was in the position to run the background checks for individuals attempting to buy guns from civilians, it would be a minimal impact on my ability to sell guns and have no impact whatsoever on a potential legitimate buyer of

those guns. the transaction could go on as it has in a gun shop today. we could avoid any problems. host: we have peaked on the republican line. caller: when you talk about these town halls, i guess if you are a plant, you are still somebody with a grievance. as far as guns and gun shows go, i was at one over here in virginia recently. i have own guns. i believe any honest citizen has a right to buy the second amendment. i think a gun show has got to be eliminated. that we're in -- even conversing that it is an idea is ridiculous. one of the things they can do is when you get a gun, what we do with our automobiles? you could kill somebody with

your automobile. you should have. re-license your gun. there is no control over it. automatically, you have this group of guns floating around the country and nobody knows where they are. that is one of the important problems with weapons. the second amendment talks about forming a militia. if people are disgruntled about what is going on and, people can bear arms. the biggest issue of guns is, they need to be licensed more effectively. you want to get a new gun, you need to sign this thing and let us know about your gun situation. thank you.

guest: first of all, you do not have a right as an american to own an automobile or drive that automobile. after last year's decision in the supreme court, that argument is over. you have a right to own a handgun for self protection in this country. it is not an absolute right. we can deny those convicted felons from owning a gun, but the average american citizen has a right as recognized not just in the second amendment, but by the supreme court, and of story. right then and there, it is very different from an automobile. if we talk about concealed carrying licenses, that is a different situation. it is not unlike having an automobile. as the caller just said, you have to be licensed, you have to register the car. that is not exactly true. if you have a farm, you could put your six year-old lawfully behind the wheel of a vehicle

that has no license plate on it. when you take a gun out of your home and you carry it on the streets, in most states, you need a concealed carry license. in virginia, you need that license to do so lawfully. in order to obtain a license, you need to go through some training. you need to go through additional background checks. that license is issued. owning a gun and being able to carry a concealed of the streets is a bit of a different fact pattern and situation. host: we have a pat on the democratic line from illinois. caller: this is my first time calling. i'm kind of excited, but i want to thank you for bringing up the issue about president bush's data. a lot of people forget the fact that he eliminated a lot of guns

that were being imported. i get calls from the nra all the time. i got a call yesterday, as a matter of fact. i think it was about the united nations wanted to take our guns. i live in illinois. we have a restrictive system here. you cannot be caught without your card if you have a gun in your truck. i live in a rural setting. it is kind of nerve wracking, especially when you think you have lost your card or misplaced it. i tend to agree with ted nugent that the bill of rights gives you the right to protect yourself. in illinois, we have never had a concealed carry permit and we

probably never will because of chicago. thank you for taking my call. guest: greetings to illinois. before a the supreme court decision and when people would ask about your right of self- defense, whenever the second amendment met prior to heller, i could always respond that you have a right to life and liberty. whatever the second amendment may have met before heller, it seems to me that you had an absolute right of self-defense regardless of the second amendment. now the supreme court has stated as a matter of constitutional law, you have that right to own a handgun for self protection. i think in many ways, the debate in this country has moved far forward and it was back in the 1970's and the 1980's when we

were debating whether handguns should be outlawed. that is an ancient debate now. we have moved on from that. there are over 100 million gun owners in this country. when you look at the demographics of that group, there are over 10 million self identified liberals to own guns in this country. it is not exactly a left and right issue. i think it is becoming even less of a roles in urban issue. -- rural/urban issue. they say, like you do, if my government basically trust me, with the guns that i have own and never misused, in general terms, perhaps they're move -- perhaps they are worthy of my trust. if they want to take away those

guns that i never miss use, perhaps this government is no longer worthy of my trust. therein lies the tremendous power and emotional influence that the firearm issue has an american politics today. host: we have linda on the republican line. caller: i understand about the different sides. it is all a moot point. the reason i say this is in reference to with the previous caller said, there is a treaty that is in the united nations. it is to control guns all over. it is under the guise of illegal trafficking. the only way to combat it is if you are an individual state with specific laws.

obama was in mexico. he was going to urge the senators to ratify a treaty. of course he can say, i am not against guns. once the united nations takes over and decide all of this, the only people in this country were going to have guns are going to be the crazies, the crooks, and the government. however rocket that collusion is beyond me -- everything else is a move point. do not sign onto this treaty. guest: she does have a very good point. when it comes to treat these countries have the force of law when enacted. we have to be very careful what we're enacting treaties -- with those treaty say about our firearms and civil liberties in this country. host: next call is from troy, wisconsin. caller: i am a politicians worst

nightmare. i not only healthwatch "the washington journal," but i watched the house and the senate. there was recently a bill that was about the concealed carry laws that they should apply across state borders. in wisconsin, we have what is called an open carry law. believe me, if you are walking around downtown with a pistol on your hip, you will be arrested for disorderly conduct. i saw on the discovery channel special, the had packs of wild dogs running around and all they did was put a radio collar on them to see where they were going. there have been cases of people being attacked and killed by these packs of wild dogs. you have california releasing so many people from prison for

budget cuts. wisconsin is doing the same thing. i am not really up on other states budgetary priorities, but they are releasing people from prison early in order to save space and everything like that. then you have congress who tells you, i have no rights. there is no concealed carry law in wisconsin. if i wanted to protect my family on a camping trip or something like that, there is no protection for may. as far as you going to the white house and discussing these issues in being assured by president obama, let me just tick off a few of his campaign promises that have gone by the wayside. the note tax on the $250,000 -- smokers all know that was the

first big promise broken. his bipartisanship and transparency has all gone by the wayside. he is going to close guantanamo bay, we will say. we are still in iraq. i expect everything to be done in months. he will not have any lobbyists and is it ministration. that is another one. for you to go there, i hope that you listen to what his administration says with a mind to his track record. guest: well, i was in the reagan and ministration. there was a line that ronald reagan always said about the soviets. trust, but verify. it is important to hear what people say, but it is more important to see what they do.

we have already seen the first thing that president obama did when it came to his desk on guns. compare and contrast that to what george herbert walker bush did what he told everyone that he was pro-gun and he signed that executive order under his signature so far, you could keep score as well as i can. we have seen the results every time. i'm far from an expert on all the other issues. this is the one issue that i watched very carefully very closely all the time. host: if you were asked, could you comment on maryland's gun law and why we lost the state chapter of the nra? guest: i'm not familiar with the state chapter. i never covered maryland when i was at the nra. i'm not terribly familiar. i know that you have some pretty onerous gun laws in the state of

maryland. i think there needs to be a lot of work to be done. one of the problems that i know the nra has always faced and does not like to work in 50 different states. it much prefers to have one national issue to work on. as you go from new york to new jersey or california and idaho, wisconsin, we have 50 different states out there with 50 different sets of laws. what would be a step in the right direction in a state like new york would be a step backwards in a state like texas or idaho. you have to have 50 different programs with moving the agenda forward. host: from washington, d.c., we have chris on the republican line. caller: you were doing an excellent job. thank you for being here as well. to go on top of what we have

heard from the republicans and independents, we are quite worried about what we see -- president obama does not have the best track record. remember back in 1996 where he answered yes to a question about whether he would ban the possession of handguns. i believe that in 2003, he voted to support legislation that would ban targeting reich calls -- targeting rifles. i am sure many people across the country find this troubling. like ronald reagan said, we have to wait to see what will come of this. with that, i thank you both for your time. guest: there was a very interesting vote. it was on the vitter amendment which was a authorizing disaster

relief funds post-katrina. i was looking at that vote. what did involve was saying, if you come from a county or jurisdiction and your law enforcement has disarmed legitimate citizens during that time of unrest or disaster, you get no federal funds in that disaster relief. i looked and i saw that senator clinton voted against it. it passed. i was pretty certain that president obama would vote against it as well. to my surprise, he supported the amendment. to me, that was a very important moment because it really went to the heart of basically, do you trust the citizens or would you error on the side of the government? what he was saying in that vote to me was, i basically trust the citizens over the government. i thought it was a very interesting and unusual vote. it made me take a second look at

then senator obama. host: nancy on the democratic line. caller: is this for me? thank you for c-span. i am a 69-year-old woman who does own a 1908 police were called for. my father gave me it 40 years ago. he was a member of the nra. these overgrown juvenile delinquents who carry a gun to the town hall meetings are absolute idiots. it never occurred to them that they could have that gun taken away like somebody else -- by somebody else who is there and shoot up the whole place even if they will not do it? that is about it for me. by the way, i am for the public option.

guest: i do not know what to say. i suppose anything anyone takes with them could be used against them. when you are playing the odds, if you wear a seatbelt and you were actually in an impact with another vehicle and you were hit on the driver's side, you are often better off not having your seat belt on. that is hardly an argument not to wear seat belts. you are playing the odds. if you are hit from the rear or the front, you are far better off with the seat belt on. yes, it could happen. yes, a gun could be taken away from somebody, but the odds are much higher than if you have a gun and god forbid the need arises for you to use that gun, you then have the means to protect yourself. i always wondered, when we were having this debate in the 1970's and the 1980's, why was it that the government could -- that

could not protect its citizens deny them the means to protect themselves? i never did get an answer from any politician on that. the same politicians that are -- that walk around with our security guards. they just do not want you to have that same ability to protect yourself. host: kevin on the republican line. first, to the lady that was just on the phone talking about the juvenile delinquent. for all she knows, these guys could be veterans who are trained in firearms. it says that we have a right to do it. nobody is sending them there but the government. they're not doing what the people of hired them to do.

i just think that if they take our guns, it will be the day that they start not listening to the american people ever again. with these imports -- these proposed tax increases on gunpowder and stuff will make it harder for people to do their own reload. i like to hunt. the gun shops are already anticipating tax increases. guest: there is a lot of talk on the internet about these proposed taxes on ammunition. actually, that goes back to some loss from several congresses ago. to my knowledge, there is certainly nothing viable on capitol hill talking about taxing ammunition. frankly, that kind of a bill

would be so dead on arrival in this congress, it would not be funny. i certainly support your right to hunt. most of my hunting has been of elected officials in the electoral process. host: next call is from indiana. are you there? caller: i want to think the cable companies for c-span. i want to talk about -- it has been explained to me that there are restrictions on home protection if you have a gun in your home. i had a police officer tell me that someone has to break into your house before you have the price to shoot -- before you have the right to shoot them. if you shoot someone in your doorway, you make sure that they fall in the house and not out of the house. i would like you to explain more on mentally disabled people and

how they can be restricted. again, there is no bigger organized crime unit than our own government. thank you. guest: c-span would probably have to have me back to explain the whole issue involving the mental issue. the current law is, if you have been adjudicated and put in a mental institution by the force of law, you lose your right, pretty much, to have a gun. the most difficult issue is, one can be perfectly sane today, go out and purchase a firearm and five or 10 years from now, things happen and you lose it. that is a very difficult issue. i do not know if i have many answers. i think it requires a lot more thought. i do not have any good answers to give you about that one. we can only deal with what has existed up until the moment in time someone is purchasing a

firearm. we have done a very good job so far in that field. does their need to be more that can be done? i suppose so. it is a tough question. i do not know the answer. host: we have an e-mail from one of our viewers. guest: i do not know that is exactly true. i think they have the same right to carry a gun if it is lawful to carry a gun in a town meeting. it goes from state to state whether that is legal. it depends on where the meeting is being held. is it on town property? it really depends from place to place. i do not think the law has changed dramatically, certainly not in the last 12 months.

host: next call is from new york. we have jim on the democratic line. caller: you made a couple of interesting points. let me touch on three of them, please. they all relate to mental health. the first thing is, you are talking about mental health, being able to check on someone, whether or not they're mentally competent. is it just as logical that you would want to make sure that with regard to every sale that there was a background check for some amount of time before you went ahead and sold them the gun? the other question is, just the mental health of individuals -- i have clients who own guns. i have plans to shoot guns. i have no problem with guns. the question is whether or not that is something that is a

casual thing. if you wake up in the morning worried about whether or not you were allowed to walk around with an assault rifle and you are willing to contribute to the nra to make sure that you and your neighbor and everyone else can walk around with an automatic machine gun, -- it is not as a surly the rank-and-file, but the leadership of the nra would fight for. guest: you certainly through a whole slew of questions out there. to my fellow towner, let me say that in this country, we have to follow what tell us says and not what prospectively someone may do. if we followed that approach, we would say that anyone can own a gun that lived a good, perfect life and issue them a license posthumously.

that is patently ridiculous. if you have not been incarcerated, if you have not been in a mental institution against your will by court order, you are a legal person to own guns that changes as your situation changes. just because you enjoy firearms -- i certainly do. i think about guns quite a bit. i do not know that that makes me on balance because i think about it. when you pick up a gun and you have that gun in your hand, it is almost impossible not to recognize that you have an extremely dangerous instrument. what we all get behind the wheel of a car every single day -- i dare say that very few of us ever say, i have a potential weapon of death in my hands. we do not think of an automobile that way. every day in this country, more people died behind the wheel of a car.

caller: thank you very much for c-span. i would really like to implore every listener to go onto google and look at the brady group. find out how many people who have carry concealed licenses have committed violent acts with a gun. more importantly, i think how many times i hear the term law- abiding citizens should not be denied the right to own and carry a gun. i implore people to see "pulling for columbine -- bowling for columbine." more people own guns in canada than they do in the united states, but they have fewer

deaths as a result of them. maybe we should do more education. i do not own a gun. i was going to buy one some years ago. my wife and i were traveling the country doing seminars and we had money in the news -- in the motor home. my best friend said, could you fire without warning? if someone did not announce your presence, could you fire your gun without warning? i thought about it and said, i could not. he said, you have removed the option of the person who comes into your motorhome to assail you, if they have begun. they would immediately start firing. i thought, that is a really good point. over my lifetime, i think, the times i have -- i'm a pacifist.

there are times when i lost control of myself and i thought, had a gun in hand, i might have actually considered a violent act with that gun. i think that lab -- law-abiding citizens thing is so prevalent. many people are law abiding citizens and look at how many have actually committed a violent act with a gun. guest: you're exactly the kind of individual that has made a rational decision not to own a gun. i think that is great in your situation. do not deny the rest of us who have made a decision that we not only want to own one, but we are all it -- we're going to own them for so protection and god forbid we have to use them, we are prepared to do so. host: another viewer says, your premise is biased and flawed.

as if that is the only reason to own one. guest: i am not suggesting that we should not always be vigilant to actions against legitimate rights of a firearm community. as your viewers suggests, there are a number of legislative proposals involving these different issues. whether a firearm fires because it is a semi-automatic or a bold action or a lover action is completely irrelevant to whether it is being used for hunting or self protection.

the question is not, what is its reloading action. the really important issue is, how is it being used, which goes to the basic question of, in whose hands are the guns? if i were to give out to 10,000 firearms, to honest citizens here in the district of columbia tonight, the crime rate in the district of columbia would not go up. if i passed out 100 handguns to the criminal element in this town, i think there would be a spike this evening in violent crime. it was not the gun. the question is, in whose hands are the guns. if we focus on that as the problem, we stand some sand -- some chance of doing something. if we focus on the guns that there are good guns in bad guns because of the mechanism by which you can reload the gun, we have missed any opportunity to

resolve the problem, which is the misuse of the individuals. host: what is the status of debate over the assault weapons? guest: speaker pelosi said that she was not going to take this issue up. senator reid has said it was not on the senate's agenda. that is quite a misnomer. the whole debate that we have had for 20 years about assault weapons -- to start with, they are not assault weapons. there is nothing about a semi- automatic firearm that any military in the world would be interested in. they want true assault weapons, which by definition must be capable of fully automatic fire. these guns are not those. we're not talking about the same thing. we go back to the polemics. one side meeting one thing, the other side thinking there's something else, but if we are not on the same table and

talking about the same thing, we really miss any opportunity to communicate effectively with one another host. host: are you there? caller: i am calling to find out, how is it that we can educate the public? it seems every time there is an issue, people point the finger at our president. the senate and the representatives write the bill. how can we educate the public about who is really writing the bills in congress? guest: well, you could pay attention in school. the fact that you are viewing c- span, you're educating yourself about who is doing what. you can go on the congressional website and take a look.

you could find out who is doing what. you could do it on google. if you look at some of the issues on the internet, you will find the bill by congressman bobby rush that has gotten a lot of attention in the gun community. it is a single member bill. any member of congress can put a bill in. if it does not have any support from anyone else, it is not even getting a hearing, let alone go to a vote in committee or to any house. there are thousands of bills that are put in for every session of congress that never received any action at all. that is one of them host: what powers does the patriot act grant the federal government over firearms? guest: that is a pretty interesting question i am not really up on the ins and outs of what the patriot act does.

i recall very much and your viewers may remember former congressmen bob barr who was a leader on the firearms issue. i think his finest moment as a united states congressmen was a month after 9/11, when he stood up as a republican and opposed the patriot act on the floor of the house of representatives. i think that was his finest moment in congress. caller: i want to commend you on your book. i'm going to buy it. my question is this. during the election, i came up with a theory after hearing a democrat for obama. he was an nra member.

i got to thinking about it. john mccain was the war president. obama was the anti-war president. maybe the major shareholders in the nra were for john mccain because they could make more money through war. maybe it was all about the money that they could generate off of more war. guest: i am not too sure about the war issue there, but i am certain that the worst thing that happened to the nra's fund- raising and membership recruitment occurred back in 2000 when george w. bush ended up in the white house. their membership dropped from close to 5 million to much closer to 2 million. of course, the best thing that has happened in the past eight years was president obama being elected.

senator john mccain was the new great enemy of the national rifle association. they supported him in the 2008 election cycle. these things in politics change, certainly from year to year, if not from month-to-month. host: is that typical for the nra to fluctuate depending on what party is in the white house? guest: it is not as much related to the party as it is to the perceived threat levels -- threat level to gun ownership in the country. after last summer's leadership to the election, there was a great deal of fear amongst the gun community about what would be coming down from the congress and who would sign that kind of a bill i go back to 1994, which was the year the republicans took control of the house of representatives.

people remember that as dead here of the angry white man. i was doing a lot of work that year for democratic congressmen and chairman of the house judiciary committee, jack brooks down in texas. i recall very distinctly that the day the republicans took control that election day, that is the day that the buying frenzy ended at gun shops around america because the perceived fear of what would be next was over. that did not release start up again -- it started a bit after 9/11. the buying frenzy of the gun shops is pretty well over now. prices have come back down to suggested manufacturing prices. there is quite a backlog on ammunition in the pipeline. host: next call from columbia, missouri on the republican mind. are you there?

caller: i was wondering if your guest to talk about how law- enforcement will seek out people that have guns and how the violence with youth -- we have a lot of that violence. we have blacks against blacks with guns a lot. and our law enforcement here is -- i do not know what you would call them. they are kind of naive. i had a situation where i had someone call law enforcement and tell them that i was going to commit suicide. the police came out and they took me in and everything.

guest: i do not know what the fact patterns might have been in your situation. you certainly no better than i if it was a righteous or ridiculous event. when it comes to law enforcement, particularly the bureau of all tobacco and firearms, the agency tasked with going after gone running in this country, when somebody buys two handguns at one time from a dealer, that dealer has to fill out a multiple sales form on that purchase. when a state like new jersey where you are only allowed to buy one handgun, they think they are doing something about crime. what they have done is destroyed atf's single most important investigative lead. even if it was well-intentioned, that is questionable in its own right. even if it was not, what they're

doing and what they think they are doing are sometimes very different things. they do not know what they're doing in the first place. it might be nice if some of these politicians in some of these states actually asked those law enforcement officers who have been involved in this issue for a long time if what they want to do makes any sense. often, it does not. host: tulsa, okla., we have kirk on the republican line. caller: [unintelligible] you talked about the amendment going on in the united nations. they're talking about illegal trafficking of guns. i am from jamaica where a lot of illegal guns come into the united states. a lot of people can see how many

people got killed in jamaica from gun violence. that is what the u.n. really wants to work on. it is not really about gun ownership in america. it is about illegal trafficking of firearms. guest: that may be true. if it is true and it is all about the illegal trafficking in guns, then every american should be supportive. i think as many of the prior callers who have talked about, we have to be very careful when we are looking at a treaty or a lot. it is not just what is intended by that law or treaty. it is what the treaty actually says and what it does that is just as important as what the proponents meant it to do because it has the effect of law after it is enacted. we have to be very careful what we're doing before we do it.

it is a little late after the fact. host: dale on the republican line. caller: i would like to make a comment on guns. one of the things -- if it is your job, you should be able to carry a gun without judgment. it seems like if a situation came up and the person who had that gun could forces will on the other people around him and you would have to be under their will. as far as hunting, if you do not have any food in your refrigerator and no money in your pocket -- if you just got a gun and you want to go out and

kill little animals just for fun, i kind of lose respect for that. i do not think that is morally correct. as far as people carrying guns, i was raised to believe that if you live by the gun, you die by the gun. have more faith in the good lord is what i say. host: let's go to our next call from louisiana. caller: i am wondering about b wondering aboutlackwater -- like blackwater. they had orders to shoot to kill. they were sent there by a lot of wealthy people who lived in the st. charles area. i am more afraid of them. we should be armed as well as they are. the guy who is in