. then there will be a discussion with david stacy from the human rights campaign. also, the afghan ambassador to the u.s. ♪ host: a little more than 3 million muslims live in america. 1% of the entire population. this morning, we want to hear from muslim americans and learn about life in the united states for them. 202 is the area code. (202) 748-8000 in the western time zone.

(202) 784-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zone. we are going to take your calls and learn about life in the u.s. for muslim americans. a new estimate of the u.s. , pew researchion center estimates there were about 3.3 million muslims of all in 2015.ng in the u.s. this means that muslims made up about 1% of the entire u.s. population. it is suggested that the muslim population will grow faster than the hindu population and much faster than the jewish population in the coming decade. in 2040, muslims are expected to become the second-largest religious group in the u.s..

by 2050, the american u.s. population -- muslim u.s. population is estimated to reach 2% of the population. living in a religiously pluralistic society, muslim americans are more likely than muslims in other countries to have many non-muslim friends. muslimsut half of u.s. say all or most of their close friends are also muslims, completed -- compared to a global median of 95% in 30 countries surveyed. muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean to the democratic party than the theylican party and to say prefer a bigger government providing more services. as of 2011, u.s. muslims are

split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society. had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007. 202 is the area code. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern time zones. here is president obama recently talking about muslims in america. [video clip] , opponents of now criticized this information and me for not using the phrase "radical islam." that is the key, they tell us. isil unless we call

them radical islam is. what exactly would using this label accomplish. what would it change? isil lessake committed to trying to kill americans? would it bring in more allies? is there a military strategy served by this? the answer is none of the above. calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. distraction.itical since before i was president, i

have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted islam to justify terrorism. i have repeatedly called on our muslim friends and allies to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions. there has not been a moment when we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we did not "radical islam." host: this picture appears on all the front pages of newspapers this morning. president obama and vice president biden at the memorial in orlando. back to the pew research center poll. characteristics associated with westerners and muslims is this chart. traits associated with

muslims inamong predominantly muslim countries. 68% see them as selfish, violent, greedy, immoral, arrogant, fanatical. respectful of women, honest, tolerant, generous all fall below 50%. on the other side, traits associated with muslims among non-muslims in the u.s. -- these are western attitudes toward muslims. 58% say muslims are fanatical, 51% say honest. violent, 50%. below 50%, generous, arrogant, selfish, tolerant, respectful of women, and greedy. of there some characteristics people associate with these two different groups. we want to know your attitude

toward muslim americans. here are the numbers. michael is calling in from new kensington, pennsylvania on our republican line. morning. what is your attitude toward muslim americans? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call on c-span. youoncern is that whether are talking about muslim americans or illegal aliens or people coming across the border, flooding our borders from everywhere, the problem is that people have not been reeducated in the role of the constitution. the way these muslim americans, their attitude is mostly

democratic. i listened to the bernie sanders speech earlier and he might as well be the leader of venezuela. not one mention of the constitution. so muchwhy we have trouble with people understanding the role of the second amendment today, as we do that people want to forget we have a second amendment. dilutiont a continual of the role of our constitution. host: that is michael in pennsylvania. we are going through the pew research center poll or polls and surveys on muslim americans and we want to get your attitude on muslim americans. john is in glendale, arizona. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

hello? host: we are listening. caller: i just wanted to say this issue about orlando and muslims, it is not about guns, it is not about radical muslims, it is about the alligators. we need to do something about the alligators. host: we are going to talk to ahmed in columbia, maryland. my life is good. i haven't had any issues. i don't consider myself to be a religious muslim, but i'm a muslim nonetheless. life has been good for me, and for my children. i have one that works in the medical field and the other is in law enforcement.

were you born in the states? caller: i was born in the united kingdom. host: we have gone through some of this survey. when something like orlando happens or san bernardino, what is the reaction of your neighbors? i haven't noticed anything negative. for my neighbors or anyone. i have not noticed anything .egative from my neighbors

i have not noticed anything that was negative. thank you for sharing with us. it encouraging violence, the islamic religion? 50% say it is more likely. 39% say not more likely. very concerned about the rise of islamic extremism, republicans -- the rise of islamic extremism in the world, 82%. independents, 60%. democrats, 51%. fik in shreveport, louisiana. what is your life like in the u.s.? you know, it is good.

it is very concerning how islam in america is being depicted in the media there are two sets of islamic thought. honorablerom the most elijah mohammed. , we turned into orthodox muslims. what is happening with us is we are being grouped in with muslims from overseas who have had a lot of trouble with and how foreign-policy they have depicted these people as being terrorists. i'm an american. i love america. this is our country. but i'm very much against how

they detroit -- destroyed saddam hussein and moammar gadhafi. i think what we need to be concerned about is our government and how the government is putting those things out there and we the people have to bear the brunt of this kind of behavior. thank you. host: what size is the muslim population in shreve for? caller: it is a nice little community of immigrants and people from the nation of islam. maybe 25000 and that is just off the top of my head. i'm not sure about that number. opportunityiven the for us to really communicate with our neighbors on the local level and talk, we get a chance

to understand that slavery has happened, all those things have happened, but we get a chance to communicate with each other and talk about the real come a local level and we are able to really lift ourselves out of that old way of thinking. some people think muslims are mad and black people are mad because we want to kill everybody. but we don't have a chance to because all of the dialogue perpetuated by the news media and the government. that is what makes it bad for us. we've got to keep working. host: as you know, a lot of this conversation is because of what happened in orlando. muslimsattitude of

toward homosexuality. where are you on that? is not homosexuality something that i support personally. that alli do support lives matter, whether you are homosexual or not. again, i don't know how that happened or who did it -- i just , those people -- our hearts go out to those people. they did not do anything to to them.hat happened as far as my opinion about homosexuality because i am a spiritual man, it is not something i support, but people have a right to be with they want to be and that is how we have to deal with this. i don't hate nobody. thank you. host: maryland in inglewood, tennessee. democrat. caller: my opinion on the

muslims in america. i love everything he said, that gentleman. i have to agree with him, i have no problem with the muslims. i don't have any problem with the hindus was a buddhists. yes, i'm a christian. i have problems with radical christians, radical muslims, anybody that is radical. anybody who wants to change our lifestyle or destroy things for no reason. as far as any particular religion, no, i have no problem with any of it. host: do you know any muslims? caller: not here in tennessee. i'm originally from california. met all people from all kinds of religions. i live in small-town tennessee.

knoxville -- if i was in knoxville or chattanooga, i would probably know some. kkk and the neo-nazis and some of them were doing their destructiveness, our government stood up and said that is enough. even the gangsters back in the 1930's -- they said that is enough. they did not blame a whole society. .hey blamed a particular group that was cool. let's get them under control. them, that's fine, but they are not doing the destructiveness they did back in their day. that is the thing with isis. it needs to be controlled. not the whole group. they are muslims, they are christians -- no. go after that particular group. let them have their little yadda yadda, but keep them under control.

they are not going to destroy the country. we are not going to blame them. if you take the entire population of the united states and you pick out the silly people in all groups, you would still have a whole country in the united states. host: thank you. this is monti in ellicott city, maryland on the muslim american line. what is your life like? caller: good morning, c-span and everybody else. generally, it is very good. i'm very pleased to be in america. i had my first wife with two children here. my second wife is now in america with me. very happy. very pleased. somehow find myself trying to

hide the fact that i'm a muslim just to declare it out right. people say you need leaders to speak out and to do visible signs of objection and so on, which i think they do. muslims in general, everybody i know, not a single one counted out does not agree with what goes on in the radical thinking. not a single person do i see defending any action, whether it ,s against innocent people whether it is against other muslims, whether it is against people in france or gay people. that atvery wrong thing

least everybody i know feels, whether american or muslim, i should say. don't know how people believe that muslims would support something like this. i'm originally from jerusalem. i'm palestinian, originally. host: do you feel fully integrated into american society? do you have friends who are not muslim? caller: of course. i have neighbors to visit me and i visit them. i had my children grow up here. their friends walk into the house anytime they feel like. they have grown with my children. i am fully integrated. i work with purely american folks. i have a small company. every single person that supports me in my work is an american. the new york times had an

article about one of the doctors in orlando, a muslim american treating some of the injured, and they write that his first thought was please don't let it be a muslim name who did the shooting. do you have the same reaction? caller: oh boy do we say that, every single time. please, for god's sake, just don't let it be a muslim. it is very embarrassing. not only embarrassing, but you almost feel like, whether you like it or not, you are assumed to be -- you are the one who did it. it is just horrific. horrific, horrific, horrific. i promise you that nobody i know -- folks that i talk with overseas, they don't like it. true, i do agree

that some people, there are really some people that interpret islam in certain ways that says -- one of the most is standic things behind your leader. you should honor your leader. that is where part of the people becomes for these that don't have opportunity and so on. they seem to blindly follow whatever their leaders say. in that case, it could be a very radical person and they go down that path. when you try to argue with them that this is wrong, they will come back at you and say things like but so and so says. you know? host: thank you for your time this morning. we appreciate it. is in alexandria, virginia.

what is your attitude toward muslims in america? caller: i don't have any attitude toward muslims. i think that muslims are very good people just like every other american. people are trying to be politically correct, but muslims are fighting every day. they put their lives at stake to defend this great country. some of the rhetoric coming from that side should have to be very, very guarded. i understand that most people are feel full of what is going on. i remember one of your programs about two years ago. a u.s. senator mentioned that --se who engage in such acts

there is a section of the muslim espouse those views. it does not have to be generalized. i'm not trying to be politically correct. that is a fact. we defend this great country every day. office should for it is easy for people to say what they want to say. president obama has been standing tall to make sure that we are all embracing everybody. one thing i will mention is that we have a society where people are closed minded. you want to be very careful what they. that is my call in this morning. host: thank you for calling in. abdul. what is your life like as a muslim american? caller: it is very good.

it is a great life living in america. it is the land of opportunity. i love this country. i work in the intelligence community and i have multiple deployments to afghanistan and iraq. i just wanted to shed some light on the issue that we are currently facing as americans. we should not be putting a label on everything that happens. especially incidents like this that happen. we should not be putting a label it. that is what the terrorists want. talking from my experience in the intelligence community, that is what the terrorists want right now -- to put a name on it. they want the credit so badly. if we put the islamic name on

it, we are it. actually leaning toward what they want. they are using us. we should come together in and weons like that should be more like a nation rather than muslims, christians, hindus, or jews. we should all be one nation. we should come together and fight this. host: do you think the term radical islam is not a good term to use? caller: absolutely not. we should not use the term because what the terrorist organizations want right now is to legitimize their message. if we legitimize their message , hereling a radical islam --america, we are leaving

there are 3 million muslims that live in america and every one of them work in different walks of life. they are serving this country in the armed forces. they are working in our industries. making great contributions in every field in the united states. , wee call it radical islam are letting those people outside and that is what the terrorists want. they cannot come over here and attack the united states. us leaving that certain population of the u.s. outside of our lives and not bringing themin, by not accepting -- it would further their purpose.

do you understand their fears when something like people's nightclub shooting or the san bernardino shooting happens and it is a muslim american who does it? caller: absolutely, i and her stand that. there is going to be some black sheep and every community, every religion, every country. there are some black sheep. there have only been three attacks carried out by muslims in the past so many years. while there have been hundreds of other attacks, similar attacks, but they have not been named after a certain religion. as ahave been labeled tragedy rather than a terrorist attack. labeling something is a terrorist attack is legitimizing the cause and the purpose of that terrorist organization.

we are giving them more credit than they deserve. is donald trump talking about the term radical islam. [video clip] mr. trump: we cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to percent of our country who have the same this savageess as killer. many of the principles of radical islam are incompatible with western values and institutions. [applause] mr. trump: remember this, radical islam is anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-american. [applause] refuse to allow america to become a place where gay where gay people, christian people, jewish people are targets of persecution and intimidation by radical islamic

preachers of hate and violence. russ, connecticut, our independent line. what do you think about muslim americans? what is your attitude? caller: i wanted to say quickly that i am pleased to hear these muslims call in and talk about how their life in america seems to be going well. incurred by the calls you are getting. the reason i called was because to a talk by a muslim. i asked a question about whether or not there was any feeling in american muslims reflecting the split between the shiites and the sunni that we see so much in the middle east. his answer was a good answer. it is one i wanted to relay to you. he said the american muslims,

the muslims who have come to torica are more -- they tend be more accepting. that is why they are coming here. they are trying to escape the hatreds we see in the middle east. not all the ones in the middle east feel that way. not all can come to this country. seeaid you are not going to any of that, or very little of that in this country because that is the 10 he. that is white -- that is the tendency. that is why these muslims are coming to america. they are trying to escape what is so much of a problem over there. host: catherine, bolingbrook, illinois. good morning. good morning. i want to make a comments. -- i ran to a store

the other day. a brand-new story in our area. i was the only one there. solved mypeople technical problem. in the course of discussion with them, they turned out to both be muslim. they were born in america, treated me so well. left the store. as i was walking out, i felt -- do i have to worry about some big disaster in our area. it made me think how my brain of this washed with all rhetoric about muslims. these two people were saints. they treated me with so much respect and i have to tell you, i was ashamed that i even thought about these two people as being terrorists. we have to solve this problem of

taking the muslim faith and treating it like dirt. they are human. they are holy people. brainwashed this way. that is all i wanted to say. i am ashamed that thought even came into my head. host: catherine in illinois. springfield, illinois. what is your life like as a muslim american? i believe muslims are the second-most successful religious minority after the jewish faith. education, financial stability. we tend to be on the higher end

of the spectrum in terms of religious minorities. , hopefullyen a book people are interested in muslims, called christ, jesus, the son of mary. it is a muslim perspective of what muslims feel about jesus and mary. we do ise things generalize a stereotype, not knowing what the other person's views are, beliefs are, morality, and so forth. what this program does is highlight and educate the people who are ignorant, when donald trump speaks about manning muslims, -- about banning muslims, he does not realize there are 67 countries that are muslim. of five persons on earth

is a muslim. for him to say he will ban someone, there are french speaking muslims in france, belgium, england. people need to be educated on workersr citizens and and neighbors are. that is what is more important than having this discussion. all minorities go through these crises. 100 years ago, it was the mormons facing these things. the jehovah witness can be facing these things. it is awareness and education that will emanate the bias and prejudice. host: have you faced discrimination? honest, i be very have not. my family has not. do feel that. we have discussions, god for bid there is another 9/11, a hijacking of a plane, a lot of

casualties, as an american, where would we go? what country would we have to travel to? those are the things that brought us here. we are from india. because of the lack of opportunity, my parents came here. if things turn bad, we talk about -- where can we go? where should we go? i do not know there is any other place i would rather be. it is not europe, south america, africa, asia. discussions muslim families are having. , they mighte people very well do something. thing thathe

happened in orlando. we are going through the south -- that shot my people because they are african-american. he was brainwashed, thinking africans are a parasite on america. a freere the things society deals with. we over exaggerate the fear and the threat. there are media groups, talk radio, fox news, that exaggerate the fear people should have about an attack. ,e have had equal attacks survey show, of domestic terrorists that were non-muslim. we do not label them as christian. we just say there is a nut

shooting up kids in sandy hook. we do not label him as a christian. host: we talked to monte earlier, in maryland, who said his reaction after orlando was please don't let it be a muslim name. do you have that reaction? caller: we do. every minority tends to have that. muslims are faced with that. i hope it is not a muslim. to be honest, if it was a , i hope it is not a hispanic name, because it is a tragedy. 49 people dying. it is one of the worst. bad coverage of police officers about a year and a half ago, in st. louis.

if you asked a police officer how they feel when they stop somewhere, they look around to to if there is not a nut target them because of the coverage they had. you know what i mean? host: you mentioned you wrote a book. i think we found it here. book of signs foundation? is this your book? caller: yes. it was published about five years ago. for people tot read it. it is a little challenging because i am giving a muslim perspective. christians beliefs may hold may be challenged through this book, but it is worth reading so you know what muslims feel. your timek you for

this morning. a bit more from ap pew research center survey conducted in 2014. it asked americans to rate religious groups on a feelings thermometer, where zero reflects negativecoldest, rating and 100 represented the warmest rating. americans rated muslims rather coolly, an average of 40. comparable to the rating they gave atheists. religions in the warmly.ere rated more carrie, jonesboro, georgia. what do you think about muslim americans? you have to turn down the volume on your tv, otherwise you get a delay. yusef, springfield

gardens, new york. what is your life as a muslim american like? caller: i love it. it is great. i am african-american. i grew up in christianity. host: ura convert? convert?you are a caller: yes. since 1970. i find it enhanced my knowledge of religion, my knowledge of christianity, which i grew up in. it spoke to me. yes. koran.th isemember thinking this scripture. it is similar to the bible. it enhanced me as a human being. in the african-american

community, islam is viewed different for the most part then maybe how it is viewed in other communities. i was in the same community as muhammad ali. we converted to the nation of islam and in 1975, we went into , what some people call orthodox islam. our indoctrination, if you will, is different from some of the immigrant muslims. only do a lot of americans, the vast majority of nmericans who read the koran i english, they do not know what they are reading. i find a lot of the immigrant muslims really don't know is psalm proper.

-- don't know islam proper. they are reading it in arabic, but they do not have the context. soam and christianity have very much in common. it hurts me to hear the ignorance that is spewed over the radio, the television, about islam, muslims. do i feel any persecution, so to speak? only when i listen to c-span and withr people call in ignorant things to say or i watch the news. extent, it is being promoted through the media, peter. like i said in the beginning, i am in the same community as muhammad ali. i remember sitting and praying next to him. by that time, he had come down with parkinson's.

we had a different indoctrination about coming into islam and interpreting the arabic. there is a fact, movement in morocco, i saw on pbs, where they are teaching imams and other people a new way of looking at the religion of islam. i applaud that. a lot of the immigrant muslims be re-indoctrinated or really fit in congregation -- or in congregation and be reeducated about the religion of islam. will leave it there. stephen, south jordan, utah. what is your attitude towards muslim americans? aller: i used to work with muslim one time. he was good, honest, decent.

toyou know how easy it is become a muslim? all you have to do is say one sentence. -- i testify and witnessed there is no god worthy of being worshiped other than allah and mohammed is his messenger. you must believe it and say it. you do not need the muslim church to say you are a muslim. that is it. they believe in the 10 commandments. of good muslims and a lot that are radical. so, that is all i have to say. host: laura, spokane, washington. you are on the air. is the shariacern law is what concerns me.

-- i haveo very much read them. they are terrifying. ,hey are anti-woman, anti-gay anti-whatever. it is enslavement of anyone who does not become -- who is not a muslim. it is not good. it is not good we have these people coming over by the thousands. we have no idea who they are. it has already been told there are islamic terrorists that will be admits them. -- that will be among them. earlierthat one man say he brought his second wife over? we don't have second wives here. don't they know that? i am not comfortable. ok, toas if this is not

have these people, in who despise women and gays. there is a worldwide network of them. not just people coming over. a christian is a christian. we have a network throughout the world of people who hate like that. and about these sharia laws why are they being pushed so hard? coming up, we have three guests on "washington journal." david stacy. we like to go around the country and visit various cities and learn about their literary and historical

cultures. are featuringwe national, tennessee, on book tv and on american history tv. here is a little from the mayor of nashville, talking about the importance of country music. there are wonderful things about nashville that make us unique. the thing everybody knows the most is country music. people come here from all over the world to enjoy our music. it is not just country. we have everything from jubilee ,ingers to jazz, hip-hop americana, to rock 'n roll. so many people come to nashville for different reasons. education, to make it in the we havedustry, because a great quality of life.

when they get here, they stay. they find it is a wonderful place to have a job, raise a family, work, live, play. a couple pieces of history have set us to the path where we are. the first, our role in civil rights. courthouse, there was a march that came here. nonviolent desegregation of the lunch counters. diane nash came to the mayor and said how can you allow this? he said we cannot. we are going to solve this. have a consolidated metro government which has laid the foundation that makes nashville work efficiently and well. we do not have municipalities fighting over resources. a huge opportunity for all of us to invest in , transit, affordable

housing, all those pieces that make nashville work. we have built an incredible city. making that city means sure the prosperity in the equity are incorporated into all of the pieces we do, from where we decide to put a park, to where we decide to put a sidewalk. as we build and grow, that is the future of nashville. journal"ngton continues. the senate pratt, will vote on gun legislation monday. what do you think? failure of the republican leadership that they have to bring something like this up. help thethink it will democrats. i am puzzled, i have not figured continuehe dimock rat to push gun legislation when every time they had done it in electoralit -- their

troubles, starting in the 1990's, bill clinton. he observed pushing the gun control measures that he did was his bad and it cost his party control of the congress. similar result in other occasions when anocrats have pursued anti-second amendment agenda. a primaryaving won based on how anti-second amendment he was. the general election came along and he was able to lose. . am still puzzled maybe the democrats are continuing to -- like that boy with the manure pile and he is told there is a dime at the bottom of it and they keep digging through, but they are getting dirty. host: what is the downside to

people on terrorist lists not being able to buy guns? why not? guest: if there had been a corporate seizure saying someone on a list, even had charges brought against him in a regular special national security court, a regular court, where he had an opportunity to have representation from a maybe, then i would say we can talk about that. withto have a list people's names on it, we do not know how the names get there. listdo you say about a that says ted kennedy is on a no-fly list? it is preposterous. wasesentative mcclintock recently on this list. that tells you there is something very wrong with this list.

the fact that none of us know how that happened -- i am not even sure kennedy knew how his name got on the list. are there restrictions, middle ground you would support when it comes to guns? guest: we have had a lot of experience in this country with gun control legislation. it has not been a satisfactory at.. where you have the most intense efforts at control, chicago, you hear these dreadful weekend reports of murder committed in those places. you do not have a problem like that coming out of vermont, wyoming, all, alaska, arizona. places where people can carry a gun without a permit. they can put it in their purse, pocket, and they are good to go. we are having trouble digesting the fact the government should

not be regulating this, but it has done a poor job. is our guest.att gun owners of america is his organization. we will put the numbers on the screen divided by political affiliation. the fourth line is set aside for gun owners. is the number for you to call. how many people in america own guns? guest: no one really knows, but i would guess half the country at least has access to a gun in the house. host: what about expanded background checks for the sale at gun shows or anything like that? guest: in the last year of there were some 18 million background checks done. there were 14 prosecutions that resulted from that.

would call a stellar performance of a crime-fighting tool. it has been a crime-fighting failure. more than that, it is being conducted by a government that cannot be believed. the government was not supposed to be listening on our phone calls and yet the meta-data was collected by the nsa against the law and no one was punished. was not supposed to be giving guns to mexican cartels and they did. no one has been punished. people actually died from that. more than in chicago on a weekend. the government has a very poor and to entrust something as critical as who can own a gun , which is a constitutionally protected right in absolute language xiao not be infringed, we do not see any argument -- in absolute language, and it shall not be infringed, we do not see

any argument. how do you define an assault weapon? guest: in our form of government, we do it by elections and you have a chance in that election district or state to have it out. to have a debate. that is what produces the congress we have. an imperfect process, but a far cry from government by polling. polling is not even a science. it is a guesstimate at best. are these people represented in the poll of those who might go to vote? frequently, they are not. are frequently wrong. sometimes they are right. it is kind of like flipping a

coin. not a good basis for making law. is your definition of an assault weapon? guest: something invented in the media. if we are talking about a real assault weapon, it is something the military issues to soldiers, capable of firing full automatic. it enables the person with the between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. are a few of those in private possession, but very few. most of the firearms in this country that are called assault weapons are actually they are the and same as the hunting weapons lots of people have. they may look different. ofy may have a black coat paint, but the functioning of the gun is the same.

interestinga very debate using words that have been brought forth by the likes kennedys of the world interested in banning guns and does not have a basis in what goes on. we are often talking about something in a debate conducted by people who do not know what they are talking about. host: can you defend omar ar-15's ownership of the he took into the pulse nightclub? guest: i can defend him buying the gun. there was no criminal record available on him. what i can never defend is the fact he was able to find a place where nobody had a gun. he went into a gun-free environment that was imposed by law and the people that died

there, partly died at the hands of the legislators who put that law in the books. they did not pull the trigger, but they facilitated what he was able to do and that is something should bery intensely taken off of our books. that is the task in front of us at the moment, to get rid of gun -free zones. john, on the republican line. you are on with larry pratt. americanu are a great -- caller: you are a great american. let's start with that. there is a bigger picture going on in our government. it is not just the guns they want. what theyepa laws, want to do is take our land. they cannot take our land until

they take our guns. if they come after everybody's property at the same time, you are looking at a violent revolution. with the government is after is to disarm the population so they bogus laws they have written into the epa code and come to your property, take your land.le and your degradation to their property, they are going to make their bogus arguments to take our property. host: we got your point. guest: it is a concern that his acute among people in the west. he represents the concern many have. , andave the epa, the blm many other federal agencies telling people how they are supposed to be making a living

using federal regulations to make making a living difficult and then you add on top of that gun control. it becomes a very oppressive burden of federal regulation when you get people and forcing that don't behave well and act as petty tyrants, it makes the situation intolerable. that is what was behind a lot of that bubbled up ,t the bundy ranch in nevada where there had been a long-term effort by the government to lands tople on those sell to the federal government.

part of the argument was this was an effort to save a tortoise. out the tortoise is flourishing and is hardly in danger. people in danger is working on the land because of the federal government. robber, washington, d.c., independent line. not know where to begin. this gentleman is unbelievable. opinion --s on his there are two parts to my question. what is the difference between the shooting in over a, those urora, thosein a children, and so much emphasis and focus on the muslim aspect of it? we know it is political. you have a lot of blood on your hands. -- would you have

a problem if they showed those dead kids' bodies and all of those folks in the dark movie theater that you say there were good guys in there that nobody would have gotten killed up the except thekilled killer? you are almost a nazi to me. aurorathe killer in over went to a number of theaters until he found one that was posted no guns. that is the one he chose to commit his horrendous deed. when you look at the data we have, all of the mass murders in save two since 1950, have been perpetrated in -free zones, these places prohibit people from

carrying guns. in florida, people can carry a concealed firearm. in orlando, in that club, law said it would be illegal to have a concealed carry firearm. it appears the perpetrator of very familiars with that club and knew that the .atrons would be unarmed we will never have an interview with him, but it seems he took advantage of a gun free zone knowing he would be the only one doing the shooting for some time. fact can you speak to the that guns stream from lax free gun states in two with stricter laws? guest: even if they are nate from states where the laws are relaxed, also in those states, there is less violent crime. anomaly that is not

explained by the anomaly of guns. chicago has extremely strict gun laws. until recently, it had what amounted to a ban and it has one of the worst murder rates in the country. even in jurisdictions in illinois outside chicago, you have lower violent crime rates and guns are readily available. that somehow guns are streaming into the areas that end up with the worst violent crime does not hold a lot of water. in the district of columbia at c-span. across the river is fairfax county, virginia. well over a million people.

the gun lawse in is stark. it is almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit in washington, d.c. in fairfax county, you can make your initial application over the mail. a lot of people have concealed carry firearms in virginia, in fairfax county. the murder rate in fairfax county on any given year is the same as or lower than england, which is often held up as the gold standard for how well gun control works. we have a murder rate in fairfax county that, in many countries of the world, they would love to be able to hold up as their own. is larry packing now? carry a gun always? if not, why not. are in the district of columbia. last i heard, there were 50

people who carry a concealed. carry a concealed carry permit. they make it difficult. host: next call, richard, gaithersburg, maryland. gaithersburg is in the washington suburbs. i appreciate you taking my call. i have two questions and a comment i would like to make to your guests. i will do them all at one time so he can respond. on smart gunstand ? what about requiring gun owners, just like car owners, to purchase insurance? those are my two questions. except we as a society

automobile accidents because automobileccept accidents because people drive, no matter how many accidents we have, people will continue to drive. you and true that people who support your position have made the decision that the price for you to have your guns is all of these mass killings have, matter how many we as far as you are concerned, that is the price we pay for your privilege to carry guns? i am not saying you do not care about the people who got killed. i am not saying you want this to happen. it is the except price and that is my comment. guest: if we are going to argue people are willing to accept steep prices for the result of

their position, are you willing to accept the slaughter in gun free zones as the price of zones, knowingee that is where virtually all of our mass murders have occurred, or are you willing to work to get rid of gun free zones so the dirtbags have a warning it is not going to be shooting fish in a barrel anymore in such places? technology for smart guns is a long way from being where anybody is willing to put their life in the hands of a so-called smart gun. police agencies do not want them for themselves. if are in a world of hurt the battery goes out in the gun will not function. it becomes exceedingly dumb and it could be a dangerous point.

smart guns, if there are two police officers in an engagement and one finds it necessary to use the other's gun, he would not be able to with this kind of technology. there are a lot of steep obstacles that would have to be policee before, even agencies, certainly we could add the general public, would be asling to accept something dangerous and risky as smart guns. insurance for gun owners, a lot of people have liability insurance already. really much of an issue, even in legislatures were guns are not popular. impose ahing, if you kind of insurance on a constitutional rights, you are

heading into dangerous territory attacks and you are taxing a right and that is the power to destroy the exercise of that right. we are not in favor of that. if somebody uses a gun and they harm someone else, even in a noncriminal fashion, they should be held liable. we have laws on the books now that will hold anybody liable for something like that. hads the same as if i something around my house that leads to somebody being harmed. beould be sued and would liable for damages. the same with firearms. we do not need it legislation at the hands of the likes of senator schumer of new york or former senator kennedy.

the idea that guns are the factor in the mass killings, maybe you came in late, but i pointed to the fact that we know all of the mass killings in our , save two since 1950, have occurred in gun-free zones, where the law prohibited the average citizen from carrying a gun in that area. that is where dirtbags choose to commit their crimes. case point to at least one , two or three years ago in oregon, in clackamas, when a dirt bag was in a mall. it was posted no guns. he pulled his gun, killed someone, happily, a concealed carry holder, who was not supposed to have his gun, but he

was legal carrying the firearm outside the mall. he saw what he was doing and ran towards the dirt bag. when the dirtbags saw him coming , he committed suicide. --t: what is your viewpoint where did your viewpoint on guns come from? from my time getting interested in politics way back in the 1960's, looking at the constitution, the history of our country, and realizing as much as any rain, the war for byependence had been sparked the british embargo on the ammunition,of powder and ball. the british ignited the --tilities, all their although there had been skirmishes before lexington and

concord. the battle of lexington, viewed as the iconic beginning of the american war of independence began as a way of intercept thing british troops on their confiscate the magazines, muskets, ball and powder. the ammunition, not the muskets. i misspoke. from the study of our history, it is clear the british tyrants wanted to disarm us. as we began to realize we could at continue living under government 3000 miles away that about their a rip american cousins, it was guns that enabled us to defend ourselves. had we been like the chinese, that iconic figure standing up against the tank, he got run over. government that did

that to him is still in power. when the british tried that in 18th-century america, we sent them packing. larry pratt is the author of a book and edited another book. his latest book on the firing line, essays in the defense of liberty, was published in 2001. allen, you're on with larry pratt. caller: thank you for taking my call. computers,ork on fixing and upgrading them. out of the box what you put out into them is what you get back. i look at our children, and there is increasing violence, year by year since the 1970's. even if parents do not want their kids to see the shows, there are advertisements and commercials of what is coming up.

out guns, the increasing violence hollywood is putting into these young kids' hands is amazing. what you put into their heads is what you will get back. can we do anything about this? -- youra lot of that west, i am sure realizes, used to have decency standards and everything is out the window. much gunur kids so violence. host: you called in on the gun owners line. would you support further restriction on your gun ownership? so.er: i do not think i have a lot of fun shooting what i have. our country gets to the point -- why are we putting all of these ideas into these young kids' heads, they grow up and look what we have now. out, withould point

the side of the capital -- we are inside of the capital here. had not know what schools in them years ago, less than a mile from here, there is still standing a building, may not be used as a school now, but that was used as a school in the past and in the basement, they had where students could go and shoot. members grew up in new york city and he told me he and his classmates once a week would have junior rotc at the school and he would get on the subway with his taste rifle and ,ide the subway to school

engage in target practice at the junior rotc program and go home with his rifle. kept locking not key at the school. that is new york city. i could tell you accounts of the passed on from all over the country of that sort. those were teaching moments. even if the kids were not involved in shooting themselves, they realized guns were not something that were going to go off by themselves. classmates were entrusted to handle them in a safe and intelligent fashion and that is what was done. a problem with shootings in schools, even though, on any given day of the week, there might be a lot of guns and ammo in many schools.

in this day, there are schools in the hinterlands of the country where you can find that kind of activity going on. given up whate was a very powerful teaching tool, teaching not only responsible use of firearms, but teaching that firearms are no more alarming than automobiles. more people die because of the misuse of automobiles than firearms in our country. that -- we are losing the opportunity to teach young people in schools because we have cut them off from any kind of contact with firearms, for the most part, in their schools. i would like to see us turn back from where we are now and return to a time when we had a better ask. , andchildren, young people firearms. raul, republican line, go

ahead. in the times of the conservative union, it has been a long time since i have seen you. host: what is your question or comment? i have i called because been watching carefully. i am involved heavily with and i happenaliens to be a clergyman. killings --hese because of the innocent people who suffer. the pope was one of the first to come out and condemn what happened in orlando.

i wonder about how you feel. -- what about the hypocrisy of the people who get on the bandstand and they do not even raise their voices with the amount of hispanics over the past -- especially over the past those go years, i have been watching it carefully. york to florida that are assaulted, attacks, robbed. even their leaders do not even raise an opinion about the suffering of the people. going to let it stand there. any comment for that color? -- for that caller. i think we can find a lot in many of those

leading the charge against firearms. moments inavorite history in this regard was the mayor of chicago at the time, many years ago, going before city council and arguing for what became the longtime gun banrol, almost total gun law in chicago. she argued nobody needs a gun. cops were six armed surrounding her as she made her presentation. -- do they wonder have any connection to the words they are saying? do they pay attention to themselves? an extraordinary bit of hypocrisy and she was not alone. she is not unique by any means. right to ownut the

a howitzer? the founders did not deal with it in the language of the second amendment. the founding of the militia act in 1791, they made it clear what they had in mind for the second amendment. all men of military age were subject to call up by a militia. militiaime, the practices were fairly common. the law stipulated that they had whening their own rifle they came. if they did not, they would be fined. also provided if an individual work in an artillery company, going to the howitzer question, they were not expected to bring artillery with them. they still had to bring their rifle under the marine concept.

from the beginning, there was ,his understanding in the law the gloss of the second amendment, that the founders wanted the people to have military long arms equivalent to that which were in use by the military. not artillery, not canon. today, it would be an m-16 battle rifle. ron, bradenton, florida. caller: i am glad you said that. an m-16 battle rifle. gun annexed mullein, a owner. i have been since i was 16 years old. i used the m-16. i can tell you from being in the fire team squad, and m-16 is used as a single shot.

on the squadon would have it on automatic because you would use too much ammunition in a firefight. m-16, something you described, is like an ar-15 that the gentleman used in orlando. thet: it is the tool for wealthy people. caller: i am not done. i love the second amendment. it has to go. it started out with a single shot musket. since in the newspaper, 1970, there has been more gun deaths in the united states than there has been since our great revolutionary war that you just talked about also. those things concern me. say the second amendment has to grow, how would you grow it?

would grow it because the firearms have grown. a single shot means a single shot. i do not like a 30 round magazine. it is not sport. i grew up with my father hunting. one shot, one kill. that is what the founding fathers said. they also said of the militia. the gentleman that called in and said they are going to take his land and he wants his guns to protect themselves, that will not protect him from an apache helicopter. this conspiracy theory is out the window. you have to be realistic. your point, let's hear from larry pratt. think the second amendment has to grow. the founding generation was clear the second amendment, when they passed the militia act of

1791, was being fleshed out and it was clear that a military rifle, the same rifle that a have is what the militia was expected to have and if they did not have it, there were states where one would be with if you did not come militia muster and properly equipped with a rifle. the technology can change, but the principle of the second amendment of an armed people does not change. reason we have a second amendment does not really get to hunting and target shooting. that is a collateral benefit, and at least in target shooting, i enjoy. the second amendment is designed as part of a package of amendments. the bill of rights, what the founders wanted to use to keep the government under control.

thatecond amendment has purpose in mind, to keep us a free people so we enjoy the security of a free state. a free society that we do not have to worry about a police state emerging in america. , in that sense, the second amendment has grown because technology has changed, but the principle has not. the national guard you mentioned came to existence in 1903. it does not amend the second amendment. it is federal legislation making that entity, the national guard, an instrument of the federal government. the federal government claims the ability to take over a state militia if they so choose. that is not the militia. militia couldonal

not be controlled the way the national guard could control a state militia. gene, jackson, mississippi. caller: i have been a hunter and sinceour -- and gun owner 1950. here, your gun can hold no more than three bullets. i have a pump shotgun with a five round capacity. see no problem with me or any other gun owner that can get along with an eight or 10 round magazine. dirtbags a few times. my definition of a dirt bag is someone who would make a snide remark about ted kennedy's driver's thank you, c-span. host: would you support limits on capacity?

guest: the second amendment speaks clearly to the concept of limiting the people's ability to be armed. as we were it in visions the same kind of people who has the same firepower in terms of every soldier. if every soldier has an m-16 with a 20 round magazine or whatever the military may be easily within the amendment,the second and the idea that somehow we can ort ducks with a three round a five round magazine. i don't have any problem with that. sport and regulation. we are not talking second amendment when we talk about duck hunters. are we are talking about the people being able to protect themselves in a constitutional system. host: you just mentioned

.overnment guns and civilians phil colburn, the former senator has an op-ed this morning in the wall street journal. why does the irs need guns? it details some of the departments that bought assault weapons, inc. a sure interested in reading it yourself. you aren, pennsylvania, the last call. go ahead. thank you for taking my call. i am a gun owner. i bought my first gun when i was 12. it was a single shot 12 gauge. i think your guest today is doing an excellent job describing the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sports, target practice, personal protection. you didn't take it to the real extreme, which is that guns are to prevent the tyrannical

government from ruling the citizenry in a-- trial ran away. if he gets to that point we are to be armed. if the irs agents are armed, we are armed. it would be referred to as a confrontation. and the government doesn't like the fact that people's point out that the second amendment is there is a check and balance in our republic. as your guest mentioned, it is required, was required, by the states as one of the 10 bill of rights in order for us to ratify this constitution. host: thank you very much. guest: if you do a search on ,outube for battle of athens you will come up with a tail and , this was a 1947

situation. it was described in the movie, veterans returned to find that their town had been taken over il very corrupt machine -- .olitical machine they anticipated that the next election would be stolen. indeed, the night of the election the police illegally removed the balance from the place of voting to the police station here that violated state law. the militia, a bunch of men from the town and county came swarming into town ,ith rifle is -- rifles surrounded the police station. there was a brief shoot out that followed, and the cops realize that it would not end well. they left the ballot boxes,

surrendered and left the police station. ballots were counted and it turned out the opposition slate had one. that was the second amendment in athens,that night tennessee in 1947. pratt, gun owners of america. the senate on monday will be conducting gun legislation. thank you for being on the program. host: two more segments coming up, david stacy of the human rights campaign and after that the afghan ambassador to the u.s..

>> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. at eightay night eastern, from book expo america, the annual trade show in chicago, former nba player and writer kareem abdul-jabbar discusses his book, writings on the wall. 2:30 p.m. eastern, a discussion about donald trump smoke, the art of the deal. panelists includes carlos lozada , michael cruz senior writer for political and a senior writer for the wall street journal trailer. >> this spectacular surge of

isis was the result of sector is the, the civil war, in the air of east, the security vacuum and the perception that somehow the arab spring is a police -- peaceful collective action could not change the existing order. >> go to book tv. work for the complete schedule. with the political primary season over, c-span's road to the white house take you to this summer's political convention. conventionepublican starting on july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> we will be going to the convention no matter what happens. watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward and win the nomination.

and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national convention on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: david stacy with the human mattercampaign, does it if orlando was a hate crime or an act of terror? guest: it can be both. it does matter. if you are going to prevent these crimes in the future, you need to know what happens and why it happened. it is important that we know what the motivation was so we can print -- present these in the future. it can be both. we don't have all of the evidence here but it is clear

that the pulse nightclub was a gathering place for the lgbt community. it's clear that the suspects --cased it.e did they clearly had some animus towards the lgbt community. host: what is the status of hate etc. in thest gays, country today? guest: they happen on a regular basis. when you take a look at numbers, 20% of all hate crimes in the u.s. are against the of to bt immunity. -- lgbt community. it is really the highest chance of being victimized.

host: what are examples of some hate crimes? collects arehe fbi hate crimes that are violent in nature. sometimes assault or attempted assault with a deadly weapon, those types of hate crimes. largely not property crimes. they range from murder to beatings to any kind of crime that does bodily injury. host: what is the human rights campaign? guest: it is the nation's largest organization for lgbt writes. we are 36 years old. we've started out as a political action committee but has grown into an advocacy organization that works at the federal, state, and local level. we also have a foundation that

does a lot of work around educating the public about the things that they need to know people, like issues of health care, we work with corporations to encourage them to have policies that support their lgbt workers. lobby congress and the administration. what is the status of job protection for gays in america? guest: have the states have state laws that prohibit employment discrimination here at the federal government does not have any explicit protections. employmentpportunity commission has taken complaints on the issues, and begins to get resolutions. the protection has just begun. we are hoping that the courts

will conclude that is the right interpretation of the law. we will get into that in a minute. i want to acknowledge our viewers if you would like to call and and talk with david stacy, we had the numbers up on the screen, divided by political affiliation. we have a fourth line set aside for lgbt viewers. we want to hear from you as well. yourple of top items on legislative agenda right now? passage of comprehensive nondiscrimination protections. it is called the equality act. 170 plus cosponsors in the house and 41 in the senate. we are pleased with the large degree of support for that will. -- that bill. it will provide housing

protections, federally funded , and theyeducation would apply to people across the country. it, the think about supreme court just a little under a year ago, said the marriage equality was everywhere in the country. now, any state or territory you can get married to your partner. married, the next day you can go to your employer and say i would like to put my new spouse on my health insurance and your employer may say, that's fine for you, but i don't want to do that. there is no federal law who says that they cannot bend fire you. you work for a company for example, that have these protections, and says from a company standpoint we will hire lgbt people but your new spouse or partner works for a company that doesn't have these protections.

you get married, and then suddenly your job is at risk. the same thing for housing, you have a landlord who says i don't get out. that can happen in the majority of the states. it also works on state laws. we want the protections to be as robust as possible area half of the american people that have these protections at half don't. lgbt this is a map with employment protections. this states in purple have full protection, the lighter purple states not quite full protection. the red states are no ,iscrimination antidiscrimination laws passed in those states. itit reasonable -- does happen where somebody can be fired legally, simply for being lgbt? guest: it happens, people are

fired. the eeoc is saying it is illegal under federal law. we do with that interpretation. discrimination if you fire a gay or transgender person. when you think about what it it is about how you express your sex. heterosexual person expresses that by loving a person of the opposite sex. the eeoc agrees with us. many federal courts have. the supreme court has not yet ruled about that question. host: let's take some calls. cortez, colorado. you're on with david stacy of

the human rights campaign. true that allnot the laws that you pass and try to get done are not going to do anything until you get into the hearts of the human being and remove the hate? is, is not the sole nor a color or anything? there's no such thing as a color when it comes to a soul. look at the question and look at attitudes versus law. guest: thanks carol. attitudes have changed to eliminate forms of discrimination against lgbt people. on the other hand, these laws do make a difference in that they provide recourse to someone if they are discriminated against. if you do get fired from your

job, and if you can prove it was because you were gay or transgender, then you get to file a complaint with the eeoc and take her case to court. that is critically important. at the same time, we have had the 1964 civil rights act, protecting people. we still have discrimination against women, against people of color. having a law doesn't end the discrimination. it helps people find a resolution and gives them recourse. when we change laws, we do change attitudes. many times i have heard in focus groups and talking to people, if it is against the law we should not do it. the laws that we pass are a way of saying as a country here is what we believe is the right way to behave, the right way to think about people and the right

way to treat people. they provide a signal to people, here is the way we want to treat our fellow citizens. host: kelly in georgia on the republican line. caller: the only thing i want to correct this big thing that y'all keep talking about is you are trying to make this out like y'all have the states colored on the map like this is an lgbt thing. is you are talking about a right to work state. here in the south and right to work date, this applies to everyone. not just lgbt. white, black,e woman, or man. hooters and you are not thin enough or big

busted enough or a woman, you cannot be a server. that's just the way it works in the south. if you are not on a construction crew, and you are not bilingual, and you don't know the difference between certain things, you cannot work on a construction crew in the south. you can be dismissed from that construction crew for no reason. they don't have to tell you why. that is right to work state. host: we got the point. guest: thank you. she has -- part of her point is right and part is wrong. when we talk about a right to work state versus as stay where you have a right to organize and join a union, there is a distinction there. but not description a -- you use theon law,

hooters example. if hooters says we are hiring a white waitress and not a black waitress they have a big problem because that's under federal law. if they have another standard for what their criteria for hiring them that is not based on race or another in permissible characteristic like that, then hooters is able to do that. nothing that we are saying here says you must hire an lgbt person. what we're saying is you have to look at people objectively based on this legal criteria. anyou say i will not hire lgbt person for this job because i don't think they should be employed here, that is in permissible. we want it to be in permissible.

that's what these non-discrimination laws are about, taking a look at specific characteristics that we think , religion is one of those categories. you cannot go and get fired from a job because of a religion. we provide that extra protection. to what that is so core i human being is that it should not be a criteria for a job. host: stephen and sioux falls, southport -- south dakota on the independent line. that thisat i see is in many peoples's minds, is too much of an intrusion. in private business, people are being told that they have to hire somebody who is homosexual, or they have to serve somebody who is homosexual. i think it has gone to far.

i have a personal experience where in 1976, i went into the navy and was identified as homosexual and set up to be killed, covertly. things don't come out publicly and say this is why. but there is a lot of ill feeling. stephen, a quick clarification. are you gay? that therefeel should be a national law? gayer: i do not identify as or homosexual. i think the gay pride thing has got to for -- far also. it should not be the oppression of any group. host: any comments? guest: sure.

we sort of have this debate in this country for a long time. as far back as 1964 in support is off civil rights act the charts support among the american people. agree high percentages that the idea that you would be able to discriminate against somebody in a housing or we think is so wrong that it should be illegal. we believe that same protection is something that lgbt people deserve. it doesn't require an individual person to hire somebody regardless of their qualifications, or other things that are relevant to a job, relevant to their credit. discrimination. at the bank can still look at your creditworthiness and decide whether or not to provide you credit. they cannot say we will not give you credit because we think you are trans gender.

that would not be permissible. three --lking about haveing people equally and objective standards that are not based on these arbitrary characteristics that people have that are so intrinsic to who they are. shouldavid tweets and, religious organizations that lose theire tax-exempt status? organizationsus under the existing double -- exempt,ght are tax-exempt statuses are not threatened. i know that there is some fear of their in the country that this might be the case. the number of religious organizations that loss tax-exempt status are small. jim and tammy faye bakker, evangelicals that had a tv show,

they lost their tax-exempt status, but not their religious briefs -- beliefs, but it was because of fraud. -- i know people are afraid of this, but that's not what we are talking about. i would say the catholic church discriminate against women. women cannot be praise. they are denied leadership positions in the church. agree or disagree with whether that is appropriate, but the catholic church's tax-exempt status has never been questioned. host: florida, had james. caller: what i wanted to say is that the legislators and the president, i am a registered

democrat. goneems like we have all off the deep end. no matter what happens, we go off of the deep and. -- deep in deep. we don't look for rational solutions. about rights. i consists -- i consider myself bisexual. to -- i don't care about that. i never filled out an ,pplication, for credit or job and they haven't asked me and -- whether i am bisexual or gay. i have never had that problem. getting to the point to the legislators, if they want to get -- if we are still on the war --

in the war on terror, i have children. here.ldren go to school i would like my children to have security. be so many going to people that get together and now they are tartarus -- targets for terrorists, i would like the people whether be the school, or -- host: any reaction? guest: i'm pleased that james hasn't seen any discrimination based on his sexuality. one of the things that can happen, this isn't just about protecting lgbt people. people face discrimination because people think that they might big a or transgender. this provides protections for those people, too. man who happen is -- a

seems to be too effeminate or a woman who seems to be to watch. butch. there can be assumptions that they are gay. these laws that we would like to pass, the burden of proof is on the person who is discriminated against. there has to be evidence of the bias and you have to prove that in court. it is not that this is just somehow you make the accusation and you win. it's a situation where you have to prove your case. in most situations, people don't go to court. what mostly happens when you have these laws and say it is wrong is most employers say it is wrong to we won't do it.

we don't want to be in violation of the law. that's good for business. tweets then,unter can the guests give an example of someone getting fired? we have a lot of examples of people being fired. long ago,hat very just from the federal government , we were pleased -- we repealed don't ask, don't tell. before that if you came out as gay in the military and the military did in a investigation that you might be, even if you said nothing or did nothing but were reported as gay, the department of defense would fire you. we have numerous lawsuits around the country of people doing this. we have been -- we have seen complaints filed with the eeoc. it happens every day. it is something that we need

recourse. high-end word. i heard you talking about the hatred in the hearts of people. i came to the conclusions that children show the signs of around 13 whent they are just starting to mature. the churches don't want to talk about it with the people who are ignorant about it. that makes it harder for people to understand that these people are born this way. they are not putting on a show. if the churches would give him and start to let the people that more --there, and learn

like a 13-year-old would talk to about it. the book says you must put them to death and such things like that. back then they didn't have science, they didn't understand why people were gay and could get killed over this. they keep doing it because that's the way they are. edward, has your attitude changed over the last 10 years? caller: i would say about 20 years ago, i used to be the opposite of the way i was at i was mean towards them, then i noticed 13-year-old from other people and i thought to myself i didn't realize it happened when they were like 13, when they were first maturing. they were probably not real happy knowing then that they

.ere different when you are gay, that's all different. people wanting these people to be beat up -- you could be be born -- host: do you think your friends and neighborhoods -- neighbors, have their attitudes change? caller: in my little circle, it's down to two or three left that can't accept it or they do go to church a lot. when i try to talk about it a little bit, they get very offended by it. we get into the bible part. i said, don't you think they didn't have enough science than? and they said no these people are doing it because they want to. host: we appreciate your call. guest: edward is like many

americans who have changed their attitudes and evolved and learned that lgbt people are everywhere and we are just like everywhere else. we are white, we are black, we are muslim and christians. gay and lesbian and transgender people are just like everyone else. american people's attitudes on these issues we have seen a huge change in the last 20 years. nearly 80% of the american people are supportive to pass up the prologue that provides protections. marriage equality has over 60% support. americanajority of the people have support for nondiscrimination is even higher.

even those people who say homosexuality is wrong and talk about lgbt people, even those the -- things, the pope said who is he to judge, and we need to treat people with respect. that is a core value. you treat people with the respect but you want to be treated with. you treat them as human beings as opposed to some category of other. it brings us back to orlando. or inappened in orlando other crimes where lgbt people have been targeted or in charleston where african-american people were targeted. doing that type of harm is dangerous and hurts people. part of what we can do to expressedat is not

hateful thoughts and feelings and say that to people. i would like to ask the american people to treat people with and call of people who are bigoted and say, that's not nice. i would love to have that everything a person in the world say, i am supportive of the right to live your life the way you want to. we do have a great deal of people who are willing to do that, even mitt romney tweeted the other night that he and amber going to pray for the lgbt victims in orlando. he has a basic decency, and i the americanflects people broadly. washington times, headline, lgbt activists rejects

trump's promise of protection. voters appeal from lgbt after the orlando terrorists attack fell flat with gay rights activists. just more of the divisive and bitter rhetoric we have come to expect from me presumptive republican presidential nominee. host: donald trump in that statement was saying, trying to pit lgbt people against muslim. lgbt muslimts of people. we don't need to divide people, we need to bring people together. part of the reaction in the is, he's not for federal or state protections, against marriage equality.

he supports a federal bill that would allow kim davis style discrimination. his entire agenda is something that would harm lgbt people, rollback existing protections. context of this trying to argue that he somehow is better than hillary clinton on gbg issues, i don't think it's a convergent, i think it's opportunism. host: please go ahead with your comments to david spacey. -- mr. stacy. caller: good morning. the question not being asked in the room is there is an active shooter killing people nonstop for three hours, and the police were there within minutes, and they did not go in. in california they would have time.n at that

why is this question not being asked, the news is not covering this. was killing people, the cops could have gone in. was murdering these people. they were not hostages. in california, the cops went in to san bernardino right away. they were after these people. why are you attacking donald trump? what reallyheck happened. a terrorist went into a soft place and kill people. host: we got the point. thank you. david stacy? guest: i'm not an expert in law enforcement, so i can speak to how they dealt with the situation down there.

i think everyone will look to see how he could have been done better and save more lives and end ed it sooner. lastt to pick up on your point. i responded to a question about mr. trump. i did not, on the show to go after him or make this political. i do have a point of view on that. host: democrats line, patty. caller: good morning. have family that lives in orlando, florida. they are the younger generation. they went to that club on occasion because of the excellent entertainment. , thescary to me to know emphasis needs to be with regard to gay rights, but just to be able to gather and be safe. a retired nurse.

i have taken care of gunshot victims. i will never ever forget it. when this happens again and it will happen again, some of these people who are so pro-guns need to be marched through the bloodbath. i think they will be converted. thank you. host: thank you. this was a club that largely community, but others go with their friends to also visit places and venues. i think that's a great thing. this has an impact on everyone. last weekend was a pride celebration in a bunch of cities. went with some straight friends to the d.c. pride and they were very supportive. to thesee are threats and where there is violence, it

doesn't just threaten the lgbt community. lots of the victims in this war not lgbt. host: do gay americans face a muslim problem with attitudes towards homosexuality? guest: i don't think we face a muslim problem. what we face is that there are lots of people who have anti-lgbt attitudes, some are rooted in religion. some are fundamentalist christian. they come from all different denominations. i do think that is a problem. when you have pat robertson denouncing lgbt people, calling on the wrath of god it to come people us, that shows that it is ok to hate and your second of rhetoric. i think that is incredibly heartfelt. -- harmful. it should beying

illegal to say, we are saying it is wrong to say it. host: andrew, colorado on the and -- independent line. david, i think what you have to say is great. i'll try to make this as concise as possible. here are my thoughts. so you're gay. ok. i've been gave it four. i've had sex with two men. i realized that is wrong because i am speaking from a higher level. or so my opinion goes.

i think that being gay is wrong. but that's ok. that's my opinion and i'm not going to hate. people who go after people and ok,ate crimes and stuff, so, maybe you are right from a certain perspective. i think you will be judged a little more harshly if you go up and shoot up a nightclub. i just think people need to chill out. i think people are just afraid. i have been terrified to say that i have had gay sex. i am a sexy little human being and that was my fault. i think the people that do violence and kill people is much more of a crime than having sex with men, because we are

beautiful people and we don't really know what is going on. host: let's leave it there. mr. stacy? guest: i agree that it is horrific that people would kill someone because of their gender identity. people will have different views based on their religious beliefs about what is right and wrong in the world. thinky we view it and i the way it makes sense in a pluralistic society is that treating everyone with respect, people shouldat be treated the way they want to be treated, we have many religious denominations and people within dominations. they may have teaches against homosexuality. people still believe that lgbt people are good people, they are their friends and neighbors,

etc.. they are not discriminatory. then we have any denominations that support same-sex marriage. denominations. we have differences of opinion. that's ok. whenwe need to focus on you think of something like orlando is the hostile rhetoric does have an impact. sometimes, overall the tone being hostile being violent, the tone is threatening, some people, not most people but some people are then compelled to dangerous action. we all need to be conscious of what we say. send whatr tweet upsets people most is not the child -- choice of lifestyle but the mandated acceptance of

federal laws to do so. the laws don't mandate acceptance, but what the laws would mandate if they were in place would say, you have to treat people equally and can't discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation or identity. we do that on the basis of race and sex. we do that because we think that those characteristics are immutable or in the case of religion, i think some people think that is core to who you are that you shouldn't have to give that up or keep that secret when you go to a job. many people are not out at work. i don't talk about sex at work, but if i am out with my partner and we are getting married in a few weeks, and people see us

together and make an assumption about me, even if i said nothing , now i get fired, that's a problem and it isn't fair. it is not allowing me to live my life. do i have toied, take off my ring at work and deny my marriage at work because i am afraid i will get fired? is that fair or the right thing to do? haveink and if you don't legal protection you are at the mercy of the employer. michael in morris, oklahoma, a democrat. guest: good morning. caller: mr. stacy, congratulations on your net not jewel. there is one thing i cannot

, i keep hearing these things online, people keep saying homosexuality is wrong, it is against god. what does jesus say? love everybody as you would love yourself. that's what i have to say on it. i will stand with the lgbt community. , so is the gun owner haters want to, to my house, that's fine and dandy. host: thank you for calling. in venice, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. anybody ororn hating anything. very carefully

taught to hate by their family, friends and church. my question is that david eluded to a bill in the congress that has a number of sponsors. what party those sponsors belong to. guest: from both parties, mark kirk from illinois one of the republicans, bob dole from illinois, one of the republican sponsors, we have had strong bipartisan support in the past. there is no doubt that by and large democrats have been more supportive. but that is changing more and more every day. about a year ago, the house of representatives voted -- the president has provided federal

contractors with the requirement that federal contractors should against lgbt employees. the house supports that order. house republicans voted with us, every democrat voted with us. there is bipartisan support. republicans have a way to go. their nominee for president is not there. we think we are making some progress and have strong support like from susan collins from , we are making progress. david stacy is the government affairs director for the human rights campaign. one more guest coming up, the afghan ambassador to the u.s..

new often say 50 is not the and it's the new 50 ok. people want to own their age and ought not be talking about being over 50 as a. of decline. ceo talksnight, aarp about the health and financial

challenges people have. the fastest-growing age segment there are people over the age of 85 and the second is the people over the age of 100. not only are there more people in the system that they are living longer. we have to be able to look at these programs and make meaningful adjustments that will allow people to live for much longer. of time. after the surrender at appomattox,, the u.s. faced a decade more of a challenge and policies at a lasting impact on american history. this saturday starting at 1:00

history tv oncan c-span3 is live from gettysburg college for the annual civil war institute's summer conference. authors, historians and professor examined topics, such as freedom people refugee camps with abigail cooper. reconstruction in the north with associate professor of history at east tennessee brooks simpson, professor of history at arizona state university. hear conversations on the return of the confederate veteran and the origins of a lost cause, the annual civil war institute's summer conference live all-day saturday beginning at 1:00 eastern on c-span3 american history tv. for the complete weekend schedule go to c-span.org.

washington journal continues. the afghan ambassador to the u.s. is our guest on the washington journal. how would you describe the current state of u.s. afghan relations? guest: in one word, good. f -- afghan and u.s. relations are based on a strategic partnership agreement, so in the context the andtionships are firm instructive. unexpected -- not many random, unexpected things coming up. it is mostly good. currently, for the last 15

or 16 years we have had troops in afghanistan. we currently have 10,000. is that the right number? should there be none or maybe 100,000? what is the stability right now? guest: the afghans and the u.s. have a strong partnership, which is based on mutual interests. situation,n the considering what the state of afghanistan, the threat level is what decides what level of support would be needed. as you are probably already aware, the afghan security .orces have been developing they have taken the lead cents 2014.

--since 2014. , there isdependency still assistance required, and the u.s. troops have been support whereical we need it. it is the situation and the threat levels that define what level of support would be required at what time. host: you were quoted as saying that the afghan war is not yesterday's war. that it is still very current. guest: to those people and you probably hear in the context of thatcide attack in kabul killed over 70 people and injured more than 300, to do afghan citizens who continue to that, the war is not over.

it will be over when the attacks stop, when we are fully secure and not under threat from international terrorists like al qaeda host:. general for afghan reconstruction said that afghanistan is not ready to stand on its own. the government of afghanistan has been working on self reliance approach, to be able to stand on our own two feet. we are working on that. progress onking that, to increase our own revenue and spending, and to be able to train and get our security forces ready to be able to take on full control, which

they has in terms -- they have in terms of combat. the requirement is ongoing. tot: the afghan ambassador the u.s. is here as our guest on the washington journal. this is your chance to talk to him. talk about the war that is going on in afghanistan. we will begin taking those calls in a minute. mr. ambassador, are you satisfied with american policy towards afghanistan? what would you like to see done? guest: we have been working on awareness about afghanistan and the situation. most americans hear about

afghanistan from the news, or the print media. news, the news about the attacks and the war. they don't hear about what has happened in afghanistan and what the rest of afghanistan looks like and how the afghan life is today. we have been trying to create more awareness about afghanistan, all of the progress we have made. war is not our only challenge. what are the other challenges we have. what is it we have been able to achieve over the last 15 years in building systems, building institutions, and the kind of services we are delivering to our citizens today. how the afghan public feels about the state of the situation. we have been trying to create more awareness about afghanistan.

i want to hear your colors, as their oppression, what is going through the american people's minds and asked them directly. let's hear from shawn in greenville, south carolina, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm in americat heroine production has gone -- gone up 300%. afghanistan is the number one country that produces opium. viawells fargo and walkover ia, they -- banks are dealing, it'sdrug obvious the government --

will talk about the afghanistan issues with poppies i heroine. guest: there is a direct correlation between the opium .rade when a war goes on for this long, people have have interests in the war, and that includes the people in the front trade. the very same people .ho use those very same groups including the human smuggling and weapons smuggling. there is a direct correlation affects the the .pium trade

it is important to have that to counter this. with provinces and areas there compared tole provinces and areas that are unsecure and stable. .t is extremely important host: our next call comes from a -- from the home at -- from mohammed. i basically wanted to give you a little background, i have lived in the united states my whole life. in the u.s. here there is a lot of religious diffusion in a

sense. a passage from the book of genesis and i was when it if you could give me your thoughts on it. host: are you still there? he is gone so we are to go to rochester new york. i wanted to draw an analogy and i wonder what the situation is in afghanistan. in america the inner-city black kid community are people who .rotect criminals around him police have to move through without much support from the community. people who aref enthused by those in the country and surrounded by taliban are so tear for eight --

are so terrified that they are not reporting what happens in that area. guest: what we are working on is to make sure that the people trust in their government. for that purpose we have programs like the citizens charter, which builds upon a ,reviously ruled out program the national solidarity program. and in the areas where the community contributed to the to -- invernment in direct collaboration with the individuals.

we are expanding on that. also some basic administrative support to the communities to more engagement directly with the governments of they can feel confident to be able to on the room. the relationship is simple. host: the shooter in orlando has a connection to your country. father, does he have any official role in the afghan government? guest: he has spoken as if he has. the internet is a wonderful phenomenon. afghanistan is a very free country.

uncensored completely. people are free to raise their opinions wherever they are. they are entitled to their opinions. people have their opinions and it doesn't necessarily mean that have anynions connection to their country. host: is afghanistan under sharia law? wast: the constitution built in consensus with all parties in afghanistan. if there is a clause in the constitution where the constitution cannot make a ambiguity, wee is rely on sharia law.

in america when you talk about sharia law didn't meet goes to the thinking of what the taliban -- very strict islamic rules with a different interpretation. is a strict interpretation of what the other regimes would have wanted to implement. it is not what it is. most of what is already so far, there is a very comprehensive constitution. it has built upon the

constitution afghanistan has had in the past. basically having the knowledge we have already had. host: jim is in virginia. hello. caller: your last two questions were pointed and great. bestmbassador, i hope the for your country. speaking on the terrorist issue of the taliban and, isis, and al qaeda. i would like to receive more on the news. maybe c-span can do something on it. ,he middle eastern countries my sone eu over there, was over there twice. there are anti-interventionists over there.

get a response from the ambassador. guest: the afghans would want to nothing more than the have this war end. for the past 40 years we continue to suffer. there are no good or bad terrorists. you have no boundaries. the afghan security forces are fighting on behalf of the afghan people. we have suffered through it. from times that i remember we make sense of things.

for peace and stability in afghanistan, it is about time we have that. dawn from virginia, how are you? landlord is in afghanistan now. been trying with two administrations to raise $2 to -- farmers to grow cotton. we encourage alternative crops to poppy. -- we encourage that kind of approach. administration is actively

alternative crops. caught and others have done very well. they are will by the communities as well. -- they are welcome by the communities as well. host: daniel, you are armed with the afghan ambassador to the u.s.. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i am a retired military man. i served in the united states marine corps and did some time over there in the middle east. i feel very bad for your nation, the long history of intervention from other countries with russia , our country over there doing whatever, i'm not sure what they are doing over there right now.

believe is really the core reason why united , i know talk about terrorism and a lot of us americans don't understand the telegram, al qaeda, isis, these are all different organizations, a fight amongst themselves. people try to simplify and just say terrorists, period. what do you think the core reason is we are over there? is a because there are things over there that we like? earlier brought up opiates and stuff and afghanistan has a lot of resources in your country. where do you stand with this? host: why are we over there?

guest: i want to say to all those who have served directly in afghanistan, thank you for your service to both your country and hour ours. it is a shared threat. of differentot terrorist groups with different names. they all have the same root and and route is to terrorize have whatever the perception or interpretation is on population and the world. these threats we saw in 2001, it was not restricted to the geography of afghanistan. wasnabling environment provided to attack the united

states all the way from the planned attacks. your troops are there as our making sure afghanistan never becomes a country for terrorists. the afghani people deserve stability in their country. and also ensure our region is stable and safe. >> obama restarts combat mission in afghanistan. white house officials have given the administration's passive approval to allow for u.s. commanders in afghanistan to conduct defensive air raids against the taliban and and , and let american troops restart ground joint

operations. do you support it? guest: absolutely. our security forces thought bravely and -- security forces fought bravely. this year we also learned what we needed to update on our security front. it is a relatively new military force. we had a 12-year-old military last year. we were under a tremendous amount of pressure. they really developed the coordination, internal coordination.

we are on the front foot, with you on the offensive. want to make sure afghanistan does in return to the ages where instability will increase. we are supportive, we are glad that the authorities have been increased to help us in combat. our security forces are on the offensive now. we welcome support we will be able to achieve. i also want to thank the american administration for the train, advice, and assist.

host: what percentage of the country does the host control? all of it yet so what about the telegram, don't they control -- what about the telegram? ?on't they control swaths guest: they may be able to or perhapse damage have more influence. is where you can provide people with certain governance. it is not about terrorizing people. the afghan government provide all represented in the afghan government. servicesve provided from medical services to education.

if it was simply to threaten people, then perhaps control would have to be redefined. host: who funds the enemies of your government? guest: there is foreign funding for these enemies. getting funding from opium trades. that is where the line between the criminality and insurgency has to be defined. which one is funding lot to? we capture people who turn out visit jokesn -- is it drugs fueling

insurgency or is it insurgency fueling the drugs? we want to go after the criminals, the pure criminals. these criminals have taken advantage of the instability. host: let's hear from greta from west virginia. caller: i had a question about the ambassador. i thank you for c-span. i'm interested in learning more about the structure of afghanistan government. and the interest is is on the

participation of the citizens of afghanistan. what the deal do they have to speak out against various channels? i was wondering what the real structure was for afghanistan and what their plans will be if they wanted to change it? guest: it is a very important question. afghanistan is a democratic state. one of the previous media in the region, it is a surprise to many. we have over 35 tv channels.

channels, allio operating numerous print media. civil society is also very active. it is accountable to its people. we as a structure of a our president and members of parliament. they represent the people's wishes. it is a lot of engagement from the people in the process. the people decide on what kind

of development they would want. the amount of budget to that community and how the community would want to expect -- would want to spend it. is a huge amount of engagement between the government and people. are increasing that even further to make sure they have further engagement. the afghan public is very active. they have been utilizing some of the resources. many of them have access to the internet via their work. and they are very active on social media.

they make sure they are hurt. >> good morning, you are on the air. >> i am very conflicted. the united states has been is war with african-americans. the same factors that are being used here can be applied in afghanistan. then the war starts. if you have a democratic , all of our soldiers have been killed. i just don't believe there is a

direct connection between democracy and all the positives coming out. there has to be another piece that people are not getting. >> the people want services. direct connection between stability and some of these activities. there are levels of criminality. instability provides an opportunity. that is what we want to put an end to. stability and services for our people. it is ending impunity for

, including terrorists. >> prior to coming to washington what are you doing? guest: i was working with our -- i work who activities around him, his correspondence, diplomatic relations, his protocol and organizing his in thebroad, working .overnment counterparts host: is kabul safe for prisoners? guest: most people who live in kabul, it isve in

the threat you feel from outside. people who do not care, they kill indiscriminately. you could be the target of something you are not. community,e it is a it is a place that is extremely hospitable. me they had a connection with afghanistan. they are extremely passionate. i think that's what draws people to the country. it is unfortunate many people are afraid to go with it.

those people who have been in afghanistan in the 1970's and 60 still remember and still work with afghanistan. over one million americans served in afghanistan. many whom i meet want afghanistan to succeed. they see what the afghan people are doing. they have suffered, we have suffered through decades of war. we still strive for a developed society. we rebuild institutions to make an equal partner in

the community. it's amazing to see how the afghan people have been able to put up with all these difficulties. relations with all our international partners. even today there are people who travel to afghanistan. we wanted to make it so you have peace of mind to move back. to have a peaceful afghanistan. to connect energy rich central asia. the markets to connect to south asia.

we are a center of roundabout. to make afghanistan into a , a place where people, ideas flow freely. to pakistan and india. and electricity line connected with it. we also have electricity running -- there is that interconnectivity we have already begun. that is our aim. the place was to be in the heart

. countries to collaborate. host: where were you on 9/11? guest: i was an asylum seeker living in the united kingdom. a shock toy that was everyone around the world. i think everyone, even in ,fghanistan's remote villages trying to make sense of what , the world is coming together at that time.

terrorists have one goal, to divide people between countries, , andres and religions trying to frame themselves as representatives of an entire community. there was a time when countries, cultures, and religions came together. including the afghans who took an aft depart -- took an active part in condemning that. is -- with thean action in support presented by the community. schools were children, we have 8 million children in the schools today. we have built over 7000 roads alone.