languages. being involved in technology has changed my life. i want to double major in math and physics. - computer science and ph ysics. >> julia is an inspiration to the whole family. >> what i learned from the program i'm using it to teach my family and my dad. >> i consider her to be a ground breaker because there's not a lot of women in this field. >> there's a whole mess of jobs in technology and computer science. i'm going make it better and no one is going to stop me. [applause] >> we have julia in the audience today. before we start julia will you stand up? [applause]

thank you. i think julia needs to be accustomed to applause and recognition. this is the perfect segway from my mother's speech earlier. she talked about the unfinished business for women and girls here in the united states. perhaps, nowhere is that more clear than in the field of science, technology, engineering and math. sadly, there is an arena that girls and women have lost ground in the united states. in the mid 1980's, about the same time i got my first computer for christmas. girls were at least 35% of the computer science graduates.

in 2006, that dropped down to 20% and last year it was 12%. clearly, not only what we're doing is not working but we're failing. but there are many bright spots that illuminate a different way forward. that's what we're going to talk about this morning. joining me is the founder for girls who code. we have the founder of task rabbit, which i'm sure many of us in the audience use. esther, the senior vice president of brand marketing at at&t. and the founding partner of partner venture that invests in start-ups. i want to start with you. [applause] thank you.

the u.s. department of commerce said we need a million more graduates in stms that is on track to fill the jobs that will exist in 2020. you hope to touch a million girls and women probably not a coins denal number to ensure more girls and women are in science. how are you going to do that? >> we need to find a million for -- more julias and they are out there. it starts with acknowledging that girls and boys are good at math and science about the same. we live in a culture that tells girls that math and science and computers are not for them. i can walk into a for ever 21 -- forever 21 and buy a t-shirt that says math

sucks. >> can you buy a shirt that says math is awesome? >> yes, we should make those soon. for everyone to tell the young girls in their life to go into computer science. secondly, julia wants to change the world. when she is thinking about what she wants to do next, that's what she's thinking about. we asked her, what are you thinking about computer science? she said i think about a guy typing at a computer. that is not exciting. we're teaching girls how to code and we're exposing them to entrepreneurs and we're taking you to facebook and twitter on how you can change the world. one of my young girls, cora, her father was diagnosed with cancer. she wanted to save her dad's life. she learned how technology to do that. she created an algorithm that detects if cancer is benign or

malignant. she's 16 years old. [applause] that is powerful. >> you went into college wanting to be a dance major and you came out as a double computer science math major. >> i kept my minor in dance but yes. >> what happened and how do we ensure more women understand when they get to college with one vision maybe something else could be more dynamic, particularly in the field? >> it is interesting. for me it started back in elementary and high school, which is why i'm so passionate. i had early teachers that really empowered me to love math and love sciences.

they were female teachers. i don't know if that made a dirns or not. for me, at the time, i looked to those mentors as leaders an wanted to be like them. when i went to college i went to a small college sweet briar college. maybe you have heard of it. i went into college thinking i was going to be a dance major and i was a baller reyna and i wanted to dance in a -- ball -- ballet and i wanted to dance for a company. when i got to sweetbriar i took my basic math and computer courses. again, the professors were so engaging and so interesting and not only teaching us this is how you code but this is what you can do with it. i remember taking projects back to my dorm room and showing my roommate about this robot i'm building and being so excited about what i could build with my own hands and my own thoughts.

that was really exciting to me so i followed that passion. >> great. sheryl sandberg said being so forward with lean-in has been a great recruiting tool for facebook. you've been so out in front with at&t. has that helped to recruit more women? >> first of all, i think the great thing about what sheryl has done for us is raise the conversations across the board rooms in the country and across the world. the beginning of solutions is to raise the consciousness. that is reelly important. i would never take away anything there's so many amazing women at at&t. we can shine a light, if we think about where technology has come. in the 1980's, it was about the micro processer.

then in the 1990's, it was about the internet, which obviously opened the door. today, it is about mobile technology. with mobile technology it is about managing our lives. it is about educating our kids and entertaining our kids and managing our homes and things like that. i think today there is a line of sight to a participation of women in this field that is really important. we need to open up that door and make sure women know how great and creative this field is. >> we were talking earlier that kids born today are not just digital natives they are mobile natives. >> absolutely. >> i would be curious, how did the changes in mobile influbses -- mobile change the way of how

you invest? >> we've invested in 46 companies. we've had 16 exits and a lot of companies we invest in have a mobile layer. i think it is important to have that mobile presence on the internet. absolutely, just to share extra numbers. we have 10%-15% of our companies founded by women. we want to improve that. i would like to pledge today to encourage our recognition in that and the ability to invest in the companies as well. >> so more julias. >> exactly. >> what is it like to be a woman founder in what is pretty male dominated society in the silicon valley. >> i never really thought about it.

i wake up every morning and i think about what i can do to push my company in the next 24 hours. i don't think i'm a woman ceo i just think i'm a founder, i'm a ceo, what do i need to do today? i think that started with me going to a women college, sweetbriar college. it empowered me to have that mindset because when i graduated with a mat and science degree i -- math and science degree i entered i.b.m. as a programmer. i worked there working on lotus products and surrounded by mostly men. i knew i wanted to be there and that i deserved to be there and that i'm passionate about building things and products.

that is what is at the forefront of my mind and keeps me going. >> my mother spoke publicly about how important it is to go to a women's college and her development and helped with confidence. how do you ensure that the girls and the girls who code, program know about not only stories about leahs but other story that were not so self-evident. she had this confidence that just came through and didn't think about it. but a lot of girls being a girl is a prominent thing because other people make it prominent to them, their school environment, home environment, their friend. how do you help girls get through that? >> i think confidence is the number one thing to give to girls. when we first started they were scared to raise their hand. they did not want to describe themselves.

when they first did coding they wanted to give up. but for us it was teaching about the importance of failure. teaching them about the try and try again. the key part of code and launching code clubs in high school. we're making sure that we are female entrepreneurs and having them talk about and learn how they build a business. they can see people who look like them. that is important for the girls of color. i couldn't find one black female engineer in the entire city. can you imagine that? for these girls -- it is so funny we just had the application process at google and we saw all these african american women and latin american women come in saying i want to learn how to code, teach me. [applause]

one of my girls came here from another country and they don't give them culture in technology. psosure toive them ex technology. so we had to teach her how to use a mouse. eight weeks later she built a website on how to teach other girls on how to code in 32 different languages. >> wow. [applause] >> we focus on that. if we commit to them, if we treat -- girls for code is not a nonprofit organization, it is a movement. you wrote about this, it is the most domestic issue of our time. the train is leaving. it is leaving and we need to make sure our girls are not left behind. >> if we leave our girls behind the train is leaving without all of us. >> exactly.

>> you spoke about that girl and how she was not exposed to technology. there are sadly countries in the world where girls are not allowed to major in this field because it is deemed unfeminine anymore. i'm curious, because you brought mobile into the conversation. how do you think mobile devices can change that structural barrier around the world so girls can understand what computer science or technology engineering can do and they can educate themselves in 32 languages or more on how to code and ultimately franchise themselves? >> i think mobility -- smartphones is just the beginning. one of the things we're working on is home automation. think about the life that goes on in your home and car. turning on the lights for your kids, things like that. we're getting into a place where it is about life spaces, it is

not just about productive. this is where we need -- productivity. this is where we need women. >> we had a hackathon in las vegas in january, and interestingly enough, there were hardly any women. as an example of the types of technology that was created, the ears toteam used cat measure your movements and used a call management platform to create new technology that senses your mood and decides whether to put a call to voicemail or not. [laughter] he actually demonstrated it right there. the point is, when we are dealing with -- technology is

becoming empathetic. moreing our lives, we need women at the table. we know that innovation gets maximized when we have a diverse team. women help to make those teams not only more experimental but more efficient. there are lots of mods of reasons why do we need women at the table. >> when you spoke earlier about 15% of your portfolio are women- founded companies and you do have an appreciation for women- you seecompanies -- do a difference between the 15% of your portfolio that are women- founded companies and the 85% that are not? >> in what respect? >> anything. >> i feel like women try harder. i think part of the venture business is you have to get used to hearing out. also have to get used to saying

no as a venture capitalist. the more knows you get -- no's you get means you are closer to getting a yes. supporting women of color and the international perspective, mobile -- i have one example of how we are reaching beyond. we invested in the company recently that i am proud to say, their number one -- they are the number one photo sharing application in taiwan and japan, and number three in the united states. that isn't example of a woman- led organization. it is photo sharing on mobile devices. i think it is amazing. coming from silicon valley, it has taught me so much outside of silicon valley for opportunities, to support international women as well. they are just as smart as folks in silicon valley. they are coming up with very innovative solutions. that is something we look for. >> when girls graduate from the girls who code row graham, what

are the top three aspirations -- program, what are the top three aspirations they have? >> maria wants to be the top female president coder. when we started only one of our when we started, only one of our girls wanted to graduate. whether they wanted to be a doctor or lawyer, they wanted to have the skill set to apply to whatever they do. they appreciate that it is a skill set they absolutely need to compete in the world. secondly, one of the powerful things about what they are doing him a they aspire to share their knowledge with others. have startedrls teaching other girls how to code. rinseave petition their appalls and teachers to launch girls to code clubs in their high schools. one of our girls will go to bangladesh the summer. she will be teaching girls and

bangladesh how to computer program. they are understanding that they have the knowledge of something powerful. there is a sisterhood they are committed to. they are committed to changing the gender parity in this country and abroad. they are soldiers in this movement. [applause] >> we were talking about how important it is to have women at around anyt at&t, or decision, particularly as technology expands into more and more parts of our lives. how do you think about ensuring that you have the right diversity ' -- diversity? >> great question. a couple of things, for some reason, we have been lucky enough to attract and recruit more women than men.

i think it is the culture we have built. particularly among the products and engineering what realm -- we have a team of about 16 engineers. we have two female engineers, unheard-of, that ratio in the valley. female form -- four product designers. our software management team is all women. when i went out and did searches, we brought on recently a cro and clo. these out and did searches and interviewed hundreds of candidates and ended up hiring two very strong female leaders. you know, i think it is important to be able to recruit and retain that female perspective on these teams. the other component,

particularly with a business like task rabbit were our membership and our users are predominantly women, are predominantly female -- women make up more than 50% of the consumer decision-making power in this country -- having that female perspective in our company so that we can reach and females what- they want and need is incredibly important. >> do you think you have enough women at at&t? >> we have 90,000 women working at at&t. 30% of our management is women. we have 4000 patents that have gone to women. one of my fellow officers and the audience just picked up her 125th patent two days ago. >> very impressed. [applause] like workinggs

with the girls to code, girl scouts, girls inc. that stillareas requires more participation is in the entrepreneurial area. companies like ours, we will be more reliant on external innovators to accelerate our innovation process. five years ago, john donovan, who now runs our network, he changed the way we do innovation. bringing so many innovators into these three new innovation centers we created -- a lot of pitches, hackathons. we found three times the speed in terms of getting to innovation. what we do not have is enough women going through the door. anything about the about the kinds of solutions we are trying to create, there are not enough women coming through the door --

that is a problem. how do we fill that pipeline? >> how do you think we fill that pipeline beyond the girls who code? policyould we do in our debates, our education system to ensure that we are close to filling that gap in stem- qualified jobs on the market> - market? >> it is one of the reasons why i am running for public advocate here in new york city -- [applause] , 76% ofnew york city kids in new york public high schools do not have access to computers in school. we have to start closing the technology gap that exists in so many communities. we cannot even start to tackle this problem if we do not close the gap to -- gap. two, we've got to make computer

science mandatory. [applause] we have to be cognizant of the fact we are living in the 20% three. >> women are 56% of the labor force. we cannot out-innovate the rest of the world if we are not producing more entrepreneurs and innovators and programmers. we have to get girls in the pool. that in the educators i have talked to -- the other part of that is that we only have 1500 computer science teachers in the entire country -- in our 30,000 high school, we have fixed the -- 6000 computer science classes that are also not offered for a whole year. >> microsoft thinks only 2000 of them qualify students to then have a leg up when they get to college. >> we've got to make sure that we are preparing -- providing

support to our teachers so they can teach our children. there were a lot of structural -- are a lot of structural changes we need to make in the education system. >> i'm certainly more optimistic than i was a half hour ago. we still have lots of work to do, but part of what we need to do in the audience is in sure that more stories are known so that more girls everywhere are .nspired to be like them these join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> >> this documentary comes from eunice baek, lauren fiet, and tali graham from farragut middle school in knoxville, tennessee. their message for the president looks at foreign-policy in the middle east. they are third prize winners in this year's student cam competition. >> the problem with war is that

you know when it starts but you don't know when it finishes up. it's completely unpredictable. we don't know what the other side is going to do. >> dear mr. president, iran is capable of developing nuclear weapons and threatening israel. my family is from israel. >> what unites everyone in the political system in israel is a deep concern about iran's nuclear program and a strong assumption by international bodies in the united states that iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. but the preference among the israeli elite is that international communities led by the united states and others will view with this problem as an international problem.

>> this will not only affect the student and her family but also have worldwide repercussions. >> it would be simple for the saudi's to get a nuclear weapon if iran does. then we could have a nuclear arms race in the middle east. the turks, egyptians -- everybody is going to want a bomb. >> a nuclear bomb would make the whole middle east -- it is very dangerous. it is unclear about how much damage it will do to the nuclear capabilities. some people estimate that it is only a year or two worth of setting them back.

>> it is a problem, a threat that the israelis have been thinking about for a very long time. they have spent a great deal of effort trying to figure out how to develop a military option to disarm iran. >> israel would very much like to stop the iranians before they become too much of a threat, but they would like help from other countries, specifically the u.s. however, an alternative to the sanctions -- >> i think the most important thing is to sound the bell to the world about this in a way that has led the united states, european allies to take seriously this problem and to impose on iran that sanctions should become very severe in an

attempt to persuade the iranians they are better off without nuclear weapons than trying to acquire them. >> the eu put an oil embargo in place in july, and we have certified that every single one of iran's oil importers have either significantly cut or completely ended their purchases of iranian oil. we have been able to put unprecedented economic pressure on iran while minimizing the burden is on the rest of the world. >> the best option is some kind of deal, a deal that would verifiably stop the nuclearand you weapons program. without nuclear activity. it would give iranians some himect from the heavyand in

and him and sanctions. >> mr. president, some people, including israel's presidentand netanyahu, say that the work that you have done has done nothing to stop iran. >> for nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the iranian nuclear program with diplomacy. that has not worked. iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program. >> the problem with using force to stop iran is the damage it will have on our economy and the loss of lives that will come from a war, especially a nuclear war. >> especially a war like this. iran is a very large country. israel is very small, but it has very large military capabilities. a conflict between the two countries, if it were full- blown, would very likely involve other countries in the region. the countries do not border each other.in

>> many people say that to prevent war, we must take all possible efforts to stop iran. >> it is essential. winston churchill said it is better to jaw a jaw than to war a draw than to war a war. before there is any resort, there needs to be a major diplomatic measure. it is possible to resolve the differences between them, tohim direct negotiations, and if that is possible -- but if it is not a a a possible, then we can say that

we tried in every way to avoid the deal.-- the war. and that is essential. >> mr. president, this means that in order to protect our allies, the u.s. needs to make a decision regarding how they will respond to iran's threat.and you >> the u.s. would like to stop being a israel from attackingand unilaterally. it is in a difficult situation where it needs to do two things at once. one, it has to critically convey its resolve not to let a nuclear weapon program in iran. without the u.s. resolve, there is very little that will stop him them from doing it. >> on my annual visit to israel,

and in i visited a member of the israeli parliament.in >> our target is very clear -- andin recognition, respect, trust,and from that we need to make peace between nations. >> congratulations to all of the winners in this year's student cam competition. to see more winning videos go to studentcam.org. you.d you are a weekly addresses from francine wheeler and representative will or ski. then a senate hearing on u.s. pacific defense. ,n "newsmakers," buck mckeon

chairman of the armed services committee. he talks about the president's proposed defense budget and takes questions on north korea. respondhould the u.s. to south koreans if north koreans do another missile test? second-not want to chief-- the commander in will make the decision what to do military will give him options. am not the president. i do not have that responsibility, that ability, and i do not want to get out in front of any decisions that he might make. thisthink -- i have said before, not just on this instance -- our whole posture around the world, i think we have to be very careful about setting redlines and then moving them and moving them. int has happened with --

the past, not just with this administration. when you do that, you encourage people to move forward good i compared nations to individuals -- forward. i compared nations individuals. i was just meeting with some of our top military leaders, and i asked them, and he reared children? they said yes. i said, did children of her push you? they said yes. that is human nature. you push until you get stopped. that may be an action that should be taken. remember when we did not take .ut iran and the israelis did sometimes it is best to take action. "newsmakers" with house armed services committee

chairman buck mckeon is 6 p.m. eastern sunday on c-span. leadershipe annual program of the rockies retreat in colorado, discussion about gun laws and the second amendment. among the speakers is a policewoman who shot and killed a gunman at a church in colorado five years ago and this is an hour and five minutes. -- ago. this is an hour and five minutes. topics that few capture the national conversation with more ideas, thoughts, and emotions than gun laws. i'm pleased to announce a very distinguished panel that is here to discuss this very issue right now. our panel is entitled our second amendment. a guarantee of freedom. to speak on this topic, allow me to introduce our speakers. i will read the introductions as we introduce them in order. mary catherine ham, who is spoken here before two years at large at "hot

air." she brings to our panel a deep understanding of the national media's politics on gun control. on any given day, you have probably seen her on the fox news channel taking on some big names from the left, most recently -- left. most recently, she made headlines after heated debate with juan williams about the politics and facts of gun laws in this country. david coble is here. he is a research director with the independence institute and a policy analyst with the cato institute in washington. before joining the independence institute, he served as an assistant attorney general for the state of colorado. known fortionally his expertise in national firearms policy. ," was namedamurai

of the year by the american society of criminology, division of international criminology. and resident of colorado expert on firearms policy, dave will bring an interesting and resourced viewpoint on the issue of gun control on the point of view of a coloradan seeing all of these new gun laws he made here at home under our gold dome. trevor burress is a research fellow at the cato institute center for constitutional studies based in washington d.c.. ms. richards -- his interests include constitutional law and criminal law. his work has appeared in several law reviews in agazines and ripped he holds ba philosophy from the university of colorado at boulder and a jd from the university of denver college of

law. trevor is often do go to expert by the washington d.c. expert firearms expertise. is the police officer that shot and killed a gunman who entered new life church) colorado springs on december 9, 2007. [applause] engaged in a shootout inside the church. she is credited with saving countless lives that day. her background includes several years of patrolling with the minneapolis police department, criminal investigation for the state of colorado, and a parole officer for the colorado department of corrections. eight, she met with president george w. bush at the president's request. 2000 eight, she met with

president george w. bush at the president's request. i'm a hero say experience brings an incredibly arsenal perspective to the issue of firearms policy. help me welcome our panelists today. [applause] mary catherine, why don't we start with you? >> it is a real pleasure to be in california -- in colorado. i'm a real sucker for colorado. anytime you guys need me, holler. it is a pleasure to be on this panel with folks who frankly know a lot more about this issue than i do, especially with gina over here, a bona fide hero. it is exciting to be here with you guys. the toughest fire i go up against his juan williams -- is juan williams. last week, i did get into a fiery debate with juan.

that is about as close as i get to biting somebody's head off on tv. he implied, of course -- you --l recognize the strategy he implied that i did not care about victims of gun violence because i happen to believe the second amendment is useful in part of the constitution. useful particularly to me as a woman if i would like to protect us all at some point. he turns this into, why don't you care about people who die in washington dc of gun violence? this is where i want to say during this particular debate thatnewtown, post-aurora gun control advocates have gone .own that road i think second amendment advocates have done a good job of repeatedly asking them, you show me how this helps. you show me how this changes anything.

if you watch ben shapiro up against piers morgan on cnn, he just crushed him. he madeed him because very logical arguments emma he did not get cowed into saying, of course we should do something. the fact is doing something -- which is to say the assault weapons ban which did not prevent columbine when it was a national piece of legislation, which did not prevent newtown -- looking at the situation and saying, we must do something -- this is something, let's do it -- that is not sufficient. i would argue that when you look ,t chicago, washington d.c. that enacting the same laws again that have demonstrably failed and do not protect the exact people you claim to want to protect that you are edging from silliness into criminal negligence. you are disarming people.

you're taking people's freedoms away. you are doing absolutely nothing to help the people you claim to want to help. do not tell me i do not care. you tell me what you are doing, taking my rights away, to not fix a problem. [applause] i think turning that around and doing it calmly and asserting, i do care about these people, the proof of that is that i would like to do something that works -- i would like to examine deeper social issues at work both in newtown in a single, isolated shooter or in again more in chicago. i would like to examine that and maybe put in public policies that might actually work, instead of something that takes mike conaway while i'm sitting my guninia, dax takes away, while i am sitting in virginia. -- takes my gun away, whiile i

am sitting in virgina. notnra, for instance, is an extremist lobby. it is a group of millions of americans who have come together to assert a right. i think personalizing ourselves and not just letting the only human beings be on the other side of the equation is important. one area where i think the lack can get into very dangerous territory, as you have seen with certain, mr. salazar in colorado, is when talking about self-defense for women -- this is a perfectly plausible situation that many people can imagine. when you go back to the constitution and explain the original rationale, maybe that does not reach anyone -- everyone, but a lot of middle class upper-middle-class women who have been in threatening situations, who have felt this way before, will say, that does

make sense, i do not want to take that away from my fellow woman. during democrats downplay the threat of rape and want to take away rights from women is very damaging to them. it is our job to make very clear that that is something they want to do. the second amendment community has done a very good job of inviting and welcoming women in. the percentage of women who own guns has gone from 13% up to 23%. that is over maybe the last decade or so. that is really impressive. it means that owning a gun is something that those people can relate to. you cannot make it so spooky and scary. also, when they become part of the second amendment community and own a gun, they understand the huge web of laws that already exist that often

ensnare innocent gun owners who are trying to do the right thing in good faith. i think one of the things we can do is explain that giant web, pointed out over and over again , it does these calls for common sense gun control often survive based on the fact that people who do not own guns do not know there are any laws. they think it is the wild west, when in fact, it is highly regulated. the last point i want to make -- i'm not trying to steal drafting's time -- in a lot of this legislation that they are doing in state, democrats are making some huge mistakes that we need to exploit on a national level. for instance, the publishing of the gun owners in new york made quite a splash. it is a very good teachable moment for why we do not think things like national registration of gun owners is a good idea. , as will reveal themselves they did in washington state, where the legislation in that

state obliterated the fourth amendment for gun owners by saying that a sheriff can come into your house once a year without a warrant to make sure that your gun is locked up rapidly. -- properly. that has now passed. now liberals who sponsored it are now saying, we do not know that was in there. we never meant to do this. those kinds of mistakes, when they get too emotional, they get so excited that the politics have changed on this issue, which by the way, they have not -- you can catch them in these moments. i think that works well for our side of the argument. >> thank you mary katharine. i'm excited to be here. i went to work at the cato institute. i love coming back here because this is where my heart is. mary katharine had some excellent points. i get to do a lot of these

things and usually i don't have as friendly an audience. i usually assume everyone thinks i'm crazy when i open my mouth because i'm a libertarian. one of the things i've realized about gun control advocates is they are in their heads, they are in their hearts. and we should be in our hearts too. the simple fact is for advocates, what they feel towards guns is disgust. when you say we are going to put guns in schools to stop other guns in schools, their immediate

thought is contamination. and that is fine. but what really is a contaminant is when someone goes into a gun free zone which is like a diversity zone. when someone goes into a victim zone and kills a bunch of kids. there is another thing that guides gun control advocates too which is the view of prohibition. i talk to a lot of crowds and i ask them two crowds, who is disgusted by guns and i get a lot of hands. and who think that is a civilized society would have guns in private hands and you get a lot of hand. that is a culture war which we are fighting a trust in government that the left has been growing over the years and a trust in the fact that people don't need the right to defend

themselves and we can rely completely on the police and also we can rely on obama care and the public school system and all the things the government fails us in and taking away our ability for preferences. the talk is not like it used to be in the 1960's. and i think there are a lot of people who say shot guns and hunting is okay. but they want to live in a star trek world where no guns are needed. it will never happen. there are three and a half million guns in this country there. is no magic button to take guns away. we are winning this debate on data unquestionably. things are off the table. the government's own data talks about how the assault weapons ban did nothing and they know that. i started watching the west wing, the fifth episode of the

west wing they introduce an assault weapons ban and talk about how they know it will do nothing. but then they say it's a start. a start to what? the most responsibly owned gun in this country. about 3 43 people died of rifles in this country and 500 people died of blunt objects. it has to be discussed because it makes no sense otherwise. if you imagine a debate over swimming pools and if there were people disgusted over swimming pools which kill far more children than guns do you would have a culture war about swimming pools. on the other side they make people happy and they are fun and so it's worth the cost.

they do not understand anyone who likes to use weapons for sporting reasons. it's like if you like dog fighting or bear baiting. there is no weight whatsoever. hunting, going to a firing range, having a gun at your house, that is no way. you say we weigh the value of speaking for the speaker against the first amendment, there is no weight on this side. that's why this is a culture war. that's why it's difficult to fight on a national level. they are trying to win it through surreptitious means. why are children expelled or suspended for a week for using their hand like guns. there were shooting clubs in high schools until the late 1960's. can you imagine now the way they treat guns in the public school system? we used to have responsible fire

ownership but we had a culture that was widespread of responsible fire ownership and it worked across blue states and red states. now it's pretty much centered in red states and it's very disturbing. the way of winning this war -- we will win this on the national level by the way. the n.r.a. is an amazing organization who believe in the right to self-defense and believe guns are not the problem, it's the people who shoot. another point i want to point out with jeanne on the panel. i tell jeanne's story all the time. i think everyone needs to know her name and make her a household name.

we need to make all the people who defended people over the years a household name and not glorify these killers.[applause] we are going to win this. possibly background checks but president obama needs votes from louisiana, arkansas and north carolina, senators who are not going to vote against the responsible gun owners in their districts. so i'm optimistic about nothing passing on a national level. gun violence is bigger than mass t shootings in this country. it's created by a failed drug war, a failed public school system that leads people to avenues for violence for success. and government policy that's been destroying communities in this country for years. all of those things -- one of the best solutions to end personal violence is the sense

of shame have you in your community. that's where the debate should be have over the problem of gun violence in this country. we should realize the tragic situations like newtown could be stopped tomorrow. the problem is it's not worth it because gun violence is really a problem in our inner cities. thank you. >> i have a little more of a progovernment view than perhaps some folks because as an attorney at the u.s. supreme court and the federal circuit courts of appeal i represent law enforcement organizations. i represented the sheriff's of colorado in the colorado supreme court in the case of university of colorado's illegal attempt to carry licensed carry on campus. i've represented in many courts

the two major police training organizations in the united states, the international law enforcement educators and training association and the international association of law enforcement instructors and a number of other organizations such as the fraternal order of police and on and on. and sadly my clients have been on the losing inside colorado this week. all 62 elected sheriff's in the state of colorado, which includes democrats and republicans unanimously asked our state legislature don't pass something this year. don't do things in a rush. if you want to do anything, let's have study and bring people together and talk about things. and further the particular proposals the sheriff's said are all bad ideas. well the sheriff's got ignored

in the legislature. the legislature rushed things through. the bills were introduced toward the end of one week, had the hearings the next week and were moved as fast as possible on to the floor of the house for second and third reading. because what is going on in colorado is not an indigenous gun control movement. what is going on is colorado as the pawn of the obama biden and bloomberg plan. joe biden called wavering democratic legislators on the floor of the house and told them don't worry, you can vote against your district, you can do whatever you want. because next time you are up for election, we have loads of campaign cash for you. and maybe he's right because michael bloomberg personally has more money than the entire national rifle association and probably more than the entire firearms industry in this country.

and he can drop unlimited sums into whatever race he wants to. the bill that passed in colorado are not colorado only bills. they are drafted by michael bloomberg's people. they are lob bid in colorado by michael bloomberg's contract lobbyist, they are the national model for what president obama and mr. bloomberg are going to try to push in congress. so let me -- and yet, if they were actually interested in saving lives, we know none of these bills will work. how do we know that? because eric holder's department of justice, the research arm of that is called the national institute of justice. in early january the national institute of justice did a report on various gun control proposals.

that report was understandably kept secret from the american people but it's been leaked and it's available. here is what the national institute of justice said. and again, this is the research arm of the united states department of justice. that first the ban on so-called assault weapons which many of you know are only different in superficial characteristics such as where the grip is on a gun and whether the stock can be adjusted, the national institute of justice said this does nothing, these guns are rarely used in crime. there is no point in doing this and of course this con firms the study that was done by researchers, not one of the top progun cabinet officers in history to conduct a study in 2004 for fine sign the ban.--

feinstein ban on so-called assault weapons and on magazines and that report issued with preliminary reports over the years and a final report in 2004 said that ban accomplished nothing. no lives were saved. it didn't change how many shots were fired in confrontations or anything else. they could find after ten years no benefits from the laws. and yet president obama after giving that very good speech at sandy hook in newtown connecticut on the sunday after the murders said we have to change.it's unacceptable to continue like this and i certainly agree with him about that. what do you have? something if we repeat it, maybe sometime after ten years will

start to do some good. that's a hypothetical. but we can know it won't do any good for ten years. and that is not acceptable. that's the wrong approach. that's a political approach whose purpose is to divide suburban women from the republican party. that is the meta strategy of what is going on here and it's not about saving the lives of anyone, especially not saving the lives of school children. on magazines, the national institute of justice said this would do some good if you could confiscate all the supply of existing magazines. well, that's tens of millions and that will among other things endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers who would be in charge of having to carry out what could only work if it was done through house to house searches and confiscation. an then on universal background checks. very popular idea when you say it as a three-word title.

but not effective when you look into how it would operate. they said there is no way this can be enforced unless we have universal gun registration. we know how universal gun registration works because our neighbor, canada tried it. it cost hundreds times more than the promise made about the expenses of it. it was a complete fiasco. there was massive disobedience by the people who tend to be more obedient than the americans. it was repealed last year by canada's parliament. how about the universal background check, so-called bill, that passed colorado on monday? well, people think they like it because they say some guy meets

somebody else via craig's list and they sell a gun and it's a transaction between strangers, should there be a background check on that? a lot of people say yes. but this bill is far, far more than that. it is an instrument for the destruction of the lawful ownership and use of firearms. let me give you examples. there are very limited exceptions about which when a person can give -- not sell, but just temporarily hand over for a few minutes a gun to another person. one is if you are at a target shooting range. another is if you are out in the field while hunting, you can do that. let me tell you some times when you can't. i'm an n.r.a. certified firearms instructor for the handgun course and protection in the home. to follow the n.r.a. crick column and they are aside from

being the oldest organization founded in 1971. if i'm going to follow that curriculum for how to teach people about safe gun handling, one of the things we do in the classroom, not at the range but in the early parts of instruction, in the classroom, i'll bring in some guns, absolutely no am in addition allowed in the classroom, not even my own. under my supervision the students practice loading and unloading the guns and pulling the trigger and those kind of things. getting that basic safe operation of the gun before you ever go out to a target range with live am in addition.-- ammunition.