system. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and butter as well. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and welcome. 2020, election year, gun issues are becoming a hot topic. just spoke to the nra friday night. democratic presidential challenges are trying to position themselves with various positions on gun rights. how important are gun issues in your vote, 202? -- 2020? are there other issues more

important in your vote? we are opening your phone lines. democrats, --(202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. line, if youcial are gun owner, (202)-748-8003. once again, we are always available on social media on , and on@cspanwj facebook at facebook.com/cspan. president donald trump spoke at the nra meeting last night. he talked about his positions on gun rights and what he thinks should be done on gun control. [video clip] >> we have taken critical steps to improve school safety, more than 30 states now allow

teachers, highly trained, highly trained, talented people, to carry guns in the classroom to protect themselves and to protect their students, who they love. [applause] there was better? who is better? i have been calling for that for the last two years and i think we had a big impact. some legislation passed, and they do not have that few paragraphs and the legislators go back to governors and say, we are not passing it unless you allow that to happen. so we have come a long way. who better to protect our students then the teachers that love them? through stop school violence grants, we are helping schools and police departments to hire more officers, train more teachers, addressed early

warning signs of mental illness. [applause] everyday, citizens across america exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves, their families and their communities. that is a constitutional right. [applause] they want to take it away from you. they will take it away. you let these maniacs get into office, they will take that away. you see what is going on. host: democrats looking to challenge donald trump are staking out a different position on gun control. here is a story by bloomberg. "democrats are embracing gun control as the 2020 campaign accelerates, deepening the divide between rural areas with a rich gun culture and urban and suburban areas where the mood has turned in favor of tougher laws.

by shifting public sentiment, candidates are championing gun limits, universal background oncks and bans semiautomatic weapons. nra politicalthe influence wanes. promisingders is now to move aggressively to combat gun violence telling a crowd in wisconsin that if he is elected president, people who should not have guns, will not have guns. other top contenders, including, let harris, elizabeth 1 -- kamala harris, elizabeth warren and beto o'rourke are also running on toughing gun laws." there is what kamala harris had to say. [video clip] >> i'm sure there are plenty

here who, while you were in high school, middle school, you had to participate in a drill? right? where you were convened in your teachers taught you about how you need to run in a closet because there may be a mass shooter roaming the hallways. in our america, that should never have to happen. [applause] conversations take place every night, conversations take place every night between students and parents. why do these things have to happen? because theres, are people in washington dc, supposedly leaders, who have failed to have the courage to reject a false choice, which suggests you are either in favor of the second amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away, supposedly does, -- suppose it leaders, who have

failed to have courage. we need reasonable gun safety laws in this country, and a renewal of the assault weapons ban. they have failed to act. upon being elected, i will give the united states congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass gun safety laws and if they fail, i will take executive action and specifically what i will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns, i will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the atf take their license -- alcohol, tobacco and firearms, they have not been doing much of the f, and we need to fix that. host: let's look at some of the

data from the cdc on firearm deaths, 2017. deaths40,000 recorded from firearms, 2017, the highest in 40 years. increase of more than 10,000 compared to 1999. estimated 15,000 people killed in gun homicides in u.s. --000 guide from gun suicide 24,000 died from gun suicide, an increase from 2007. let's go to the phones. john, myrtle beach, south carolina, republican. caller: good morning. welp. here we go again. the gun issue, you bring your statistics, i will bring mine,

everything like that. the fear mongering. interestingly enough, think about it, you're walking around walmart, target, everywhere that allows people to carry concealed, with people that have concealed weapons. whenever we have any gun incident, a single incident or a larger shooting, people go out and buy more guns. correlating that action, we should have more blood running in the streets. but we don't. what happens is, people say to themselves -- if i try and commit a crime, chances are, i will be stopped by a good citizen. because people know we do not have police officers on every corner, in every store, in every place. granted, the schools, the

children should be protected. i totally agree we should have some presence there. it is a gun free zone. follow happen is, if someone wants to commit a crime, they will go, and they are not just uh, seek-- uh, um, mental help sometimes, they will take it out on people. the main thing is, you know, let's just, let's just, call the thing what it is. the conservatives in this country know that they have gun rights and they are allowed to own guns because the second amendment allows them not to guarantee their freedom and protection of other constitutional amendments. i know the democrats and other people will get upset but let's just think about what we have seen over the last two years.

coupirst coup, assault constituted by a sitting president using the fbi, the doj, et cetera, to put the fingers of a sitting president, or whoever, on the scales, to change an upcoming election in favor of a preferred candidate. host: before you go any further, how would you suggest we reduce gun violence without infringing on gun rights? you saw the numbers, cdc. they say the number of gun related deaths are going up. how do we change those numbers without infringing? caller: ice on interesting article -- i saw an interesting article talking about the 1980's. the drug issue. the old frying pan commercial. this is your brain on drugs. don't do drugs. thatsaid, statistics on

alone dropped drug usage in the 80's by a percent. -- 8%. key to education is the teach kids about anything. greata has always had a eagle program where they went into schools and talked to kids, if you see a gun, you talk to an adult, you do not touch it. a lot of this can be taken care of through education. our,e same time, you know, our rights are protected and secured by the mere fact that the populace is allowed to own weapons. host: helen, greensboro, north carolina, democratic line. 8002.r: i dialed i am independent.

what i want to say is a lot of this gun violence is brought on, some of it, by our politicians. it amazes me, every time we have theylent gun crime, oh, are out there, talking, they are going to take our guns away. we have had guns centuries. -- what theyicians need to do is get off there can and get the people's work done. one thing i would like to see them do, every day they are not working, take their pay away. does the american people realize these politicians get paid anywhere from 150 to $174,000 per year. they are protected by guns. cars forto park their free. they are out campaigning. harris is a bunch of

nothing. host: what is your position on gun rights? caller: less. we do not need gun control. sir, is mostto do, of the crimes are committed by people that have problems. it is just ridiculous that they want to take the law-abiding citizens' guns away from them. maybe they don't need to be protected. wisconsin, a gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. waukesha. host: thank you. caller: all i'm trying to figure out is how do politicians get in office, swear an oath to uphold the constitution, protect its around tothen do end

try to strip them? things likeifferent everything they have been doing with trump. your holding secrets, this. two stage system with these people. our rights were granted to us for the sole purpose of, if our government gets deranged -- i do not see it going any other way -- these people are extremist -- host: what would be your solution for the rise in gun deaths in the united states? more education? how do we turn numbers around without infringing on gun rights? caller: i have a family of five, two grandchildren. all of my kids use guns. the youngest grandkid is six. they will not touch guns. they know what they are.

you put stuff in the closet and don't tell anybody? most kids learn about what guns are from videogames. to be honest. -- you cannotood, walk into a movie without somebody shooting somebody. you understand? you walk in and you can dump 100,000 rounds in a couple of minutes, never kill anybody. go back to the 1980's with the 18. no one ever got shot -- the a team. what does that tell a kid? guns ain't that bad. they shot somebody. somebody died. you shot an indian. they died. they shot you. you died. gunsundamental thing about as they protect us from tyranny from our government.

host: mike, republican line. caller: thank you. i ride public transportation almost every day. sometimes i feel like getting off a bus because of what i see, and catch the next bus. we have incidents with illegals in this town for years carrying firearms and weapons in getting deported in this sanctuary city. those of the people that better wake up. sanctuary city politicians. they have made seattle nothing but trouble. they are getting away with it. i do not carry a gun myself. ,he assault on this president the father of our nation -- i take it personally, you know, you know, you went after my own father, i am a trump supporter, i will support him and go for him again because you have attacked my own father with this robert mueller thing and i will never forget it and as long as i go to the polls, i will vote for

president trump. host: karen from falls church, virginia, democratic line. caller: good morning. understand what all this controversy is about. if people would get out the constitution and read what it says, amendment two is one sentence. this is what it says. "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the to keepin the militia, and bear arms, shall not be infringed." that has caused all this craziness. people misinterpret the meeting our founding fathers had when they wrote this amendment. host: it seems like the supreme

court disagrees with your interpretation. caller: i know. i don't understand. i don't understand that. it makes no sense. you read the amendment. they are about the militia. freedom of the press. in our founding fathers time, freedom of the press was thomas payne, common sense, benjamin franklin, poor richard's almanac. ideaounding fathers had no what needed to be said in order to, to view the future of what was going to happen. they were clearly just talking about the militia. any other interpretation, to me, is crazy. host: how will this affect your vote? out the you parse candidate you go for? caller: i am for gun control.

i am totally. our founding fathers certainly couldn't know about uzis and modified rifles that kill thousands of people at a time. all of this really has nothing to do with the second amendment. it just doesn't. greensboro, north carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: i am curious how the founding fathers established the bill of rights, first and second amendment, freedom of religion, press, right to bear arms, and politicianss later, think they can start messing with that concept? host: would you agree with the fact that the second amendment

hasn't always been read the way it is being read now? caller: not necessarily. i think the founding fathers set washington up to be gridlock, to where, you have the states, the different branches of government, that we sit down and discuss different issues in order to make resolutions. i think washington, the founding fathers were smart enough to set washington up to be total gridlock. host: so what do you mean by that? what does that have to do with how the second amendment has been read over the years? caller: it is not a tyranny, making a decision. it is not one person deciding everything. we as a governing body have to get together, elect our duly elected politicians and majority rules. host: you say the constitution

should be read by whatever the majority thinks it should say? caller: by all means. everybody wants to get rid of our guns. president donald trump said earlier on the nra about france. if one or two people had a gun in a crowd, those hundreds of people would not have done. if they want to get rid of guns, until then, it is written law. stand by it. host: let's go to twitter from viewers. gunsll always cling to my and bible." "no one wants to take anyone's guns. that is a talking point." "i am a law-abiding citizen. not a criminal. some people are criminals. they commit crimes. democrats think criminal should be able to vote and citizens

should have the rights taken away. president trump says i should keep my rights. i support president trump." democrats have been talking gun rights as we move to the presidential election. [video clip] president, i plan to continue to advocate for things --e universal back objects background checks, to enforce gun trafficking, which has been one of our focuses. mayors care about this issue. it is the worst part of our job. getting that message that we lost another young person to gun violence or suicide in our communities. experience,ithout who is there when we swear in

cops, with children at their side, who does not wish to see them outgunned in their own neighborhoods, who is familiar with weapons of war, who carried a rifle and pistol around a foreign land on the orders of a president, there are some weapons that just do not belong in our neighborhoods in peacetime, in america. [applause] we have already decided this is within the second amendment because we have decided somewhere between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon, we can draw a line. that is not unconstitutional. it is common sense. [applause] that is what i think assault rifles need to be on the table, too. host: president trump spoke to the nra annual meeting in

indianapolis on friday night. he puts forward some of the initiatives he will move for in his coming year, before the presidential elections. [video clip] >> we have shut down the previous administration's massive abuse of power, known as operation chokepoint. [applause] under this ill-advised program, government bureaucrats discouraged banks from making loans to gun retailers, a backdoor attack on private gun ownership that will never be allowed to happen on my watch. step one, folks. [applause] step one. you know what 2, 3, 4 is? you do not have guns. you do not have any way to protect yourself. another historic step to protect your second amendment rights --

i didn't tell chris, wayne, listening iny are this big room someplace, saying, i wonder what he is going to do? the good thing with me -- you never know. [laughter][applause] [applause] making tradee are deals. so good for our country. in the last administration, president obama signed the u.n. arms trade treaty and in his waning days in office, he sent it to the senate to begin ratification. yourtreaty threatened , your rights, your constitutional and international rules and restrictions and

regulations. under my administration, we will never surrender american sovereignty to anyone. [applause] we will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your second amendment freedom. [applause] administration will never ratify the u.n. arms trade treaty. i hope you're happy. [applause] host: catherine from bolingbrook, illinois, democrat line. caller: good morning. with all this gun violence, everybody having a gun, a gun on every corner, i have a son who lives and works in the czech republic. he just had a new baby. he said, mom, i don't want to raise my baby in the u.s. it is too violent. in the czech republic, they do not carry guns. when they walk in the park, they are not looking around their

shoulder to see if anyone has a gun. they have peace and quiet. that is all i am going to say. there is a gun on every corner in america. can we live that way and raise our children in peace? i don't know. other countries -- host: how will you pick among the democratic candidates on their gun rights issues? is there one that sticks out? i am just beginning to listen to the different people. joe biden strikes my heart. he understands what happens when you lose somebody. of, um , uh, feeling the pain of what happens to someone that loses a child

because of gun violence or illness -- i would hope he would take this gun violent issue and get rid of, at least, the assault weapons. how many times have we seen mothers crying and their children were just shot? we cannot live like this anymore. son for note my coming to america to raise his son. that is my story. host: rick, warrensburg, new york, gun owner. caller: good morning. i have a comment on this issue. i am in my 70's. i live in the adirondack mountains, new york state. when i was young, in school, we used to drive our trucks to school, park in the school parking lot, our guns in the back windows.

nobody thought anything about that. my gun i have today is one of the guns i had when i was 15 years old. my gun has not changed one bit. something has changed. society. majority is, the children and young people today, that is what has changed. it is kids killing kids. these schools, kids killing kids. i blame the videogames, that teaches them that killing is good. the more you kill, the higher the score. it doesn't show any loss. host: what do we do to change those gun violence numbers without infringing on gun rights? caller: well, what you need to do is to stop and outlaw violent video games, number one. some of these people can shut it

off and walk away. others mentally cannot. that is always in their mind. i believe that is the basics for these violent killings. that is where you need to start. host: after videogames, what do you do? what is next? taker: eventually, it will time to wash out but that strategy of videogame violence will leave because the next generation won't have it and you will see the difference in killing of kids by kids. host: william, st. mary's, pennsylvania, republican. caller: thank you. opinion, i am a law-abiding citizen. st. mary's, just about everyone hunts, fishes, got guns. i don't have any fear of walking anywhere. i believe a lot of it has to do

with your religion, upbringing. i agree with the gentleman just on. video games, i don't know if it desensitizes kids, they don't know right from wrong, but if it was up to me, i would put some -- criminalslaws who commit crime need to really be punished, not the law-abiding citizens. i have not done anything wrong. i have no reason to be punished. these people are going to a church, school, theater -- i look at some of them on tv there, and i don't know if they are playing a game, personally, i think anyone that murders people for no reason, there ought to be some type of standard law that says, it sounds cruel, but maybe you want to take them out and hang them and let everyone see what it is

like for them to try to grasp their last breath of air. i have no pity on them people. you should not be infringing on law-abiding citizens. you do not punish everyone for what a few do. that is my opinion. thank you. host: npr wrote an article earlier that we should look at. it came out in february. year after marjory stoneman douglas high school, the urgency for new gun restrictions has declined. roughly half the country is concerned a mass shooting could happen at a school in their community. in the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting that killed 17 on valentine's day, 71% of americans says laws covering firearms should be stricter. now it is 51%.

when it comes to stricter gun says it should% be. 59% says theiry, first reaction when hearing about mass shootings is that the country needs stricter gun laws. a quarter say their first thought is more people need to carry a gun. 53% of americans are concerned a mass shooting could happen at a school in their community. women are far more concerned than men. 63% versus 43%, about that possibility." york, ridgewood, new democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am good. caller: i would like to say, there is a difference between legal gun ownership and illegal

gun ownership. killings listed on this cdc, you know, these are murders committed by people who do not own legal guns. there has to be a separation of legal and illegal killings, you know? host: how do you get the guns away from the people who own them illegally, without infringing on the people who own them legally? caller: the people who get their hands on these guns are getting them from certain areas. instead of using the cdc records, you should go to the fbi and find out where the guns are coming from, what state, what gun store is selling them. also, you have gun owners who buy them and say, they were stolen out of my trunk. you have to get rid of the

buyers or put more regulations on the stores as far as who they are selling, 20 handguns to, then they are being shipped up to new york, chicago, other inner cities. i grew up during the crack raise in new york city where people centsetting killed for 20 because people were strung out on crack cocaine. dore are things people can not to violate rights. with an comes in heegal, um , uh, id, and will sell them .45 caliber, .22 's, whatever gun, then bring it up to a city up north and sell it. you have a lot of things the government can do where they can do regulation but not infringe

on the rights of legal gun ownership. i support the second amendment. i believe everybody that wants to have a gun should have a gun if they are legally allowed to. host: do any of the democratic candidates' positions on gun rights appeal to you? caller: no. back.ave a weeak they will say whatever they can say to get elected. 1995, there was a supermarket closing in my neighborhood and i started a protest because of how it would affect senior citizens. i have local politicians,. i was speaking from my heart, no script, and they came up to me and wanted me to be a politician. i found out later on, the same politician that represents my district, she was behind the sale of 40 supermarkets to a

drug chain, drugstore chain. you cannot believe what these people say. they will say anything to get elected. women screaming about gun rights or restrictions, this politician will bend over backwards to get their vote. are gunitemportant to your vote in -- gun rights to your vote? i support legal gun ownership. if they are going to try to restrict the second amendment, i'm not going to vote for them. i would like to see somebody do something about illegal gun purchases, the straw buyers. that is where guns are coming into the city's. host: wendell from michigan, a

gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. pleasure to talk to you. talk,k the show and the we are all looking at this from an incorrect angle. the way i view this is, do we want to allow the dmc to create a generation of people that have no idea how to use a gun? have theens when we threat of another country invading? who is going to defend this country? a bunch of human beings who have no idea how to load a gun? host: is that the responsibility of the country's military? caller: that is what we are going to rely on? the military? they may or may not be there when they hit the beaches. who's going to defend us?

you say the military. who is going into the military? people have never used a gun? they go into the military to be trained, and that is their first experience with a gun? i really think, the way you and a lot of the colors are viewing this -- the callers, arguing this, i do not think we should view it in that close context. we should expand our minds. we have to have people who know how to defend this country and use guns. bottom line. host: robert from cleveland, ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i am good. theer: quick comment about second amendment, the right to bear arms. our forefathers put that to protect us, to protect us from

our government. that is what i believe. i believe everybody should have a right to own a gun who is a legal citizen because if my family is in danger, i will shoot them, and explain what i shot them. i was scared. the way things are going, i don't really trust the government, and i don't think they should take away our guns. bulletsde the price of go up. that is all i had to say. jason, san diego, california, democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to remind everybody that president obama had executive order for anyone not dealing with a full deck in their head that was receiving who isent subsidies,

known to have medical problems, he decided through executive order, they could not go out and buy half a dozen ak-47s, 1000 rounds, armor piercing bullets. they couldn't do it. donald trump reversed that. crazy people,, mentally challenged people, receiving money from the state/government can buy as many guns as they want. he is always talking about making america safe. , then, pre-existing conditions of the aca, just one point, you have mental in there also? what he does, he gets rid of the mental part in the affordable care act, so they cannot get help. go figure that. thank you. interviewng the march on a new hampshire television station, cory booker was asked

about his plans to reduce gun violence. [video clip] >> when you where the mayor of newark, gun violence was a daily basis. 2013, you referred to the gun debate as tiring. what did you mean? >> i say tiring because why are we having a debate, of which 90% of americans agree on? members say we should have a universal back object. terrorists have been using our gun laws as training. go to america. load up. go do unspeakable carnage. that has to stop. internet sales, loopholes gun shows, these have to be closed. most gun owners agree with that. most gun owners are sensible. that is what is tiring. not doing the things we agree

on. >> second amendment activists, point out, criminals do not obey laws. illegal guns are a problem in any city. to what extent should we focus on the existing laws? >> we know from the background check systems, they find people often from having a background check. closing gun show loopholes and having common sense safety, this -- assault against women with guns go down 40%. you cannot say these laws do not make a difference. we have got to do common sense things. host: president trump spoke to the nra in indianapolis on friday. one of the issues he talked about was school safety. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i promise to defend the

second amendment rights of every american and i always will. i will never let you down. [applause] never let you down. haven't so far and i won't. because as the famous saying goes, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." very simple. host: let's look at a. fume more on twitter protect gunsn't ownership rights adequately enough. there are better groups out there who will." "guns are here to stay. we do not need bump stocks to turn them into military death machines." "abolish second amendment. take back all war guns." alan, manhattan, kansas, gun owner.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. gunsr: i inherited some from some members of my family who passed away, grandfather. they are civil war stuff he didn't even use. today's gunpowder would probably wreck these guns. everyone has the right to on them. what is going on right now, the borders, people coming across the border, previous president let millions of people come in here. that is how stuff comes across the border. some of these people are carrying contraband. everything, knives, guns. there are people coming ashore. i am a sailor. i am a radio man. i used to do things to confuse russian and soviet subs,

communication was. ise. they would surface within 30 miles of our coast. they are cruising up. looking for a spot where they can offload enemy agents. we used to catch them doing it all the time. i don't think we have anyone patrolling and keeping our water safe, likely used to. to.ike we used host: how do you keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals while not infringing on legal gun rights? caller: i am a law-abiding citizen. the chance of my guns getting turned over our zero. -- are 0%. law enforcement in kansas, you violate a serious law, they will search through your stuff, while

you're locked up. they will look for things like illegal guns. guns that you shouldn't have, that kind of thing. there is some legislation that could be done on some of this stuff. people taking certain medications. they continue to argue the point. they never come up with a law that prevents someone taking a certain medication, from buying a gun. you know, we have a history of them going out and committing mass killings. when you have that and the proof is there, you have to do something about it. idaho,ottonwood, republican line. good morning. you for taking my call. i have several points. asill try to quickly make

many as i can sensibly. over fromrd over and reliable people that study these matters that all these mass shootings, almost every single people,e involved children, teenagers, on psychiatric drugs. or at least, had been on them at one point. the psychiatric drugs, that these pharmacies, pharmaceutical companies are pushing, are actually altering the minds and conscience of young people. there is another point that is important, i believe. we do need to have the right to defend ourselves. i don't think we need to have

machine guns, bump stocks, all that. the other important point -- there is a general decline in just knowing right from wrong in our country and the respect for life period. these democratic politicians claimingun control and you are an immoral person if you want to have the right to own a gun, they will turn around and promote abortion right up until the moment the poor child is born. then they want to kill it if there is the least little defect in this poor little baby. matthews, north carolina, democratic line. caller: good morning. i tell you, i am not even sure this gun issue is about guns.

this, that.ll, i am looking at the laws. theyrly cowboy days, brought guns to town. up,issues we are bringing they are being about certain cultural issues but they are really about, they go deeper in america. this is the first generation born that will be less off than their parents. think about this. aspiredneration prior for more for their children. this generation don't care. issuedo you think the gun is not going to affect your 2020 boat? -- vote? are there other issues? caller: listen to your common sense. give everyone in the country a gun. it makes no sense.

it is not about guns. it is about cultural issues. west coast and east coast -- people talking about, we hate middle america. only middle america is talking about hate. we hate new york, california. it is not about guns. it is about hate. it is about putting a divide between the people. i never hear people in california putting down people in kansas. i don't hear it. i don't hear people in new york, putting down people in ohio. i hear people in ohio, putting down people in new york, in california. it has little to do with guns. these people don't care about guns. they only care about pushing an issue of hate, anything to divide us. they don't have guns in the capital, in congress, in town

halls. you can't walk with them in the theater. give me a break. hampshire, a gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. cordeliaith things mentioned. a few points. i feel we are missing a lot of points in that, unfortunately, tribalism,, pushing to have one faction against another faction, is quite predominant. like,ncerned about, just the way the alcohol prohibition in the 1920's, we actually got more problems, and there were unintended consequences. the unintended consequence of prohibition weapons is you're not going to confiscate 20 million weapons. in fact, look, what happened, is

that the weapons would become more valuable. there would be increased illegal trade in weapons. thus, we would have less accountability of who owns what. i'm concerned about the, over and over again, unintended consequences of every legislation and prohibitions are fraught with that. also i'm concerned that the discussion about restricting gun ownership doesn't address issues like mental illness. -- then -- the german murder in las vegas, all these people had a history of isolated, some sort of mental, either, personality disorder or mental illness. host: what do you do to keep the people who may be until he ill

from getting guns? ill fromy be mentally getting guns? caller: well that is the discussion that has to be front and center. it is not restricting the weapons sold. it is addressing an epidemic of loneliness in our country. look at senator ben sasse, who wrote books about how we have this tribalism, people hating people, the previous caller mentioned, one-sided hate, but two-sided, we have an epidemic of loneliness. the practical thing of knowing your neighbors. how many people know their neighbors three houses down the street? by building community, we can actually become more aware of where threats are. what to do about those threats? that is where the discussion has

to lie. they have red flag laws. that does not address the sociopathy of someone desensitized in the basement playing violent video games 10 hours a day and not having social contact and airing their grievances. this epidemic of loneliness, that has not been discussed. point of actually, how to address people predisposed. it is not the weapons. it is usage. i don't know about since las vegas, but prior, the largest mass killing in this country whereby bombs. bombs. by alabama.com wrote a story recently about the alabama legislature and the attempt to

pass a law. "considering a bill that would allow people to be stripped of the right to purchase or possess guns if they are deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others. , fostered by a state representative is a red flag bill, similar to others across the country. it would create a measure allowing the court to deem a person a threat. the bill would require the surrender of all firearms and ammunition and would allow law enforcement to search the residence for firearms or ammunition. people could request an order, which the court would issue immediately, based solely on information and testimony from the petitioner.

coleman said some of her republican colleagues took issue with this portion of the bill. gun rights advocates also took issue with it." mary from south carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. i am a 72-year-old woman. never owned a gun, never shot a gun. i want our gun rights kept. i do not intend to keep a country where people are terrorized by communists. cuba or any of that kind of stuff. we won our freedom, god, guts and guns. them, runningt of for office this year, sound like they are socialist. i don't want no communist government. i tell my grandkids, buy guns and plenty of ammo, because you

may need them someday. host: dawn on the democratic line. happen gun control can by intercepting drug dealers and drug factors that sell to inner-city kids. pharmaceutical companies and newspapers owned or pharmaceutical companies that contribute to media outlets will not print what these mass gun shooters are on or what they were on before the shooting. this is a big problem in terms of the pharmaceutical industry and mental illness. they need to be separated. drugs that are causing people to want to kill themselves and kill others. that is a very big problem we

don't have any speakers on c-span speaking about, the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the monopoly of the media outlets not discussing mass shooters' mental state and what they were on. host: coming up, ellen haring what talk about the debate over adding women to the military draft. it is autismer, awareness month. we talked to julie bascom and allison ratto to talk about treatment and resources. newsmakers,e c-span we interview ralph reed, the faith and freedom coalition to. he talks about -- coalition chair. 2020 presidential race. you can see this entire .nterview sunday at 10:00

you can hear on c-span radio and .org. it online at c-span biden had a distinguished senate.n the he has been around a long time. he has been in public life for a most half a century. as a presidential candidate, he has not had a lot of luck. his 1988 campaign, he had to get out of the race after allegations of plagiarism and falsifying aspects of his resume. 2008, he had a rocky launch and never really emerged as a strong candidate. today is a very different situation. he is at least nominally, in

terms of the polling, he is the front runner. the challenge will be twofold. number one, the party he is running in now is totally different from the party he ran 2008 it hasnd shifted much further to the left. the large donor organizations that a candidate like biden would rely on has turned into a small donor and online universe. it is interesting to see how he will adapt to that. i don't really have a view on how it will turn out. 2016, after what happened in the republican primaries when donald trump, to the surprise of many, emerged as

won thenee and evangelical vote in the primaries, i was never in the prediction business, and even less so now. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with ellen haring with the service women's action network. we are going to talk about the current controversy over the military draft and women's role in it. good morning. guest: good morning. host: tell us about your organization. guest: i am the ceo of the service women's action network, a nonprofit that advocates on the behalf of service members. there has been a lot of talk lately about women being drafted. let's set the stage by talking about how many women there are

in the military. we have about 16% women who are active-duty troops. this includes the army, navy, marine corps, air force, and coast guard. about 20% of women are in the national guard and reserve components. we have over 158,000 women who already served in the national guard and reserve. the question has come up over women being included in a possible draft. tell us about this issue. guest: this has been a debate that has gone on for many years. it was first introduced in 1980 when they reinstituted selective atvice by president carter that time. he wanted to include women in the selective service, but congress did not agree with him. it became a male only selective service in 1980. that was challenged by men.

the supreme court ruled against including women because they said the purpose of the selective service was principally to draw men into combat or fighting forces and since women at that time were prohibited from the cam that -- combat branches, the supreme court said we would keep it mail only. that was the way it was until 2015. it was 2013 that secretary of bannse panetta lifted the on women serving in combat units. 2015, the next secretary of defense, ash carter, opened all ground combat jobs to women. shortly after that, to members of congress decided they were against the opening of the ground combat jobs to women, and

so they thought they would thelize some action against opening of these positions. they introduced the draft our daughters act, which they thought would cause this outrage. it actually pretty quickly passed the senate. both republicans and democrats agreed women should register. they backtracked and withdrew the bill. they decided that instead of putting women in right away, they would study the situation, whether women should be registering for selective service and the draft. administration is making moves on this right now. tell us about the court case and what the administration is doing. guest: what happened at about the same time, several men challenged selective service in a court case that was ruled on in texas in january.

the judge in that case said it is unconstitutional to only but we men to register, have this study going on. there was a commission required in 2016. that commission is underway. report is the national commission on military, national, and public service. duefinal report will be this time next year. the purpose of this report is to broadly, the possible types of national service. the trump administration has put a hold on this until we see the results of this national commission. host: now that we have the background out of the way, where does your organization stand on women being drafted into america's military? guest: we have long said that with full rights comes full

responsibilities of citizenship. we believe women should be required, should have always been required to register along with men if we keep selective service in place. we agree that it needs to be re-examined. we're not sure it is even a necessary program. it is not expensive, but it does cost the government money to register young men and women for selective service. host: should there be any exemptions for women? some of the arguments we have heard is that women are the child bearers, the people that keep the homes going. should there be any exceptions for women? guest: there are exceptions for men. many men have been exempted from selective service or the draft when their numbers came around. being a father was one of those potential exemptions. i think there should be family exemptions, but it should not be applied differently to women

from men. host: we want our viewers to join the conversation. if you want to call in and talk about the issue of women being made available possibly for a military draft, we want you to call in. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. if you are active or retired military and want to talk about the possibility of including women in a future draft, we want to hear from you. you can call (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter, and on facebook. one of the discussions we have cases isut the court this is a decision that should not be made by a federal judge.

this is a decision that should be made by congress. where should this argument be settled? should it be settled in the courts or legislation? guest: i agree that it should be settled through legislation. members of congress often don't like to make controversial decisions, and they will leave it to the courts to make those decisions. a fewss wrestled with it years ago, did not want to make a decision, pushed it into a study. they often study things and don't want to vote on them. the courts are acting because cases are being brought. it could end up that the courts rule when congress should be making the decision. host: here is what the justice department had to say. if ordering women to register for the draft would occur by judicial fiat before congress considers the matter, no party

before this court represents the interests of those would be impacted by this change. you do see congress being afraid of making a controversial choice, so the courts may have to make this decision and congress reacting to it. guest: exactly. they would be a little late to react to a court decision that has ruled it unconstitutional. i think that is what this report will do. it will put in their hands information about selective service and a broad range of potential options for national service. i suspect they will go towards something that is more national service then military, and that will allow people to choose the type of service they want to be in. host: you have mentioned national service a couple of times. tell us what you mean. guest: right now we have several types of service programs. you can join the peace corps, you can join americorps, and also senior corps.

those are existing service options. they are considering more that would be options you could choose. if you don't want military service, and you want to go into the peace corps or americorps, that would be an option for your national service. host: let's talk to bruce calling from charlotte, north carolina. bruce was in the military. good morning. caller: good morning. army. served in the one of the things i had about the draft, i think it is fair and equal if they are going to have a draft. there is the problem of the pt test. they are changing the testing system for trainees. i would like to know from the, from your guest, how does she

feel about this? military, army, infantry, marines, anything like that. guest: there are physical fitness standards required of military members. --erved in the army for 18 30 years. i was subjected to many fitness tests. what we have advocated for as an organization is that there be job specific physical standards tests. since women have been allowed to join these recently closed combat occupations, the military has moved to occupationally specific tests as well as a general fitness test. when a soldier comes into the military, if they were drafted, they would go through a series of fitness tests, and those would determine which types of

occupations they are fit for. that would apply to men and women equally. if a woman can perform at the highest physically demanding jobs, which they are doing today. we have women in the infantry and the armor, and they are required to meet the same occupational standards as their male counterparts. host: there are some people who disagree. last week, the national commission on military, national and public service held hearings. marine iraq female , explained her opposition. here's what she had to say. [video clip] >> one aspect makes drafting women a negative prospect. the wide injury rate. active duty military women average two to four times the injuries of military men.

these injuries have been constant over decades despite advances. a survey of one of the army's stryker brigade combat divisions found that 58.8% of women versus 21.4% of men were injured. the american journal of sports medicine reported that risk of acl injury associated with military training is on is 10 times higher for women than men. they study by the british military found that women were injured 10 times as often as men went training for the same standards. women it fair to draft for combat replacement when these are the facts? how will this enhance our

lethality against our enemies? women on military standards are injured at such rates, civilian women drafted would mean more casualties and fewer men and women coming home alive. host: what is your response to her objections? guest: what she does not say, and she cites the marine corps study of a few years ago. what she does not say that was in that study is that when they compared men and women of equal fitness levels, they found injury rates to be the same. the key is screening, to make sure people are of equal levels of fitness and capability. it is interesting that she is so critical because she herself was a marine that served in marine combat units in iraq. she does not want women to be able to do the same things she did. it is a little perplexing to me

to see her. i had read her response before. i am curious that she had been one of these women, and now she does not think women should do that. host: let's go to charles. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for accepting my call. host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: we hear you. go ahead. caller: i am opposed to the women being drafted for two reasons. have -- it has been proven that the injury higher. much the other is the fact that there are so many jobs in military services, all branches, that could be handled by women, but

they need to be volunteers. let's let the men be free to do the combat that is necessary. proven that the draft is not even necessary. maybe certain circumstances. that is all i have to say, except it should be left to congress. decidetheir wisdom, they women should be in listed, i am still against it, but i could go along with them because that would be the law of the land. guest: there wasn't really a question there. i don't have any comment. host: let's go to mike, calling from iowa. mike is former military as well. caller: good morning. how are you feeling? host: i am feeling well.

go ahead. caller: women fought for their rights to burn their bras in t.c., so you are damn righ they should fight for their country. i can say 50 million things. let the women fight. they deserve it. they are part of our country. i have one other thing. when are you going to do a show on trump's economy? yesterday the number came out. he is awesome. he has put the economy in a stratosphere we have not seen in decades. host: one of the things we have not talked about yet, under the current selective service system , you have to register within 30 days of your 18th birthday. failure to register has penalties. including disqualification from federal jobs and federal student loans and possible federal

conviction, present, fines. included in the selective service, should they face the same penalties as men? guest: absolutely. i have two sons who had to register for selective service. i am personally opposed to selective service broadly. my sons had to register. they went into college. they moved multiple times. they are in violation of the selective service because every time you move, you're supposed to notify them of your new address. my youngest son is still in college, still is probably in violation. i see a number of problems with the existing selective service, one of which is this punishment process that they leverage against young men, and young women are completely exempt. they are for bid and from registering. i have a daughter, the one who served in the military, and she

was not allowed to register. my sons were forced to register. it is a peculiar system. host: let's go to jocelyn, also former military. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to comment with regards to the lady you have on tv. women who are in control, and i conducted patrols in the past, when you go into patrol, if you need to use the restroom, it took me five minutes to take off the gear and 10 minutes to put it back on. withoes that pan out regards to physicality? how would that add to the vfl tye of the military -- lethali of the military? host: which branch did you serve in? caller: i still serve. i am active duty. guest: there have been a number

of workarounds that have been evolved in the most recent years. up,n can now pee standing something called the she-wee. women get issued those at basic training. you can pee standing up. you rinse it off and put it in your back pocket. you don't have to remove your gear or equipment. we have women in the infantry now, and they swear by them. i have talked to women tankers who say they can pee inside t heir tank with all the guys around them without anybody even knowing that they have used it because you pee inside of the container in a tank. men and women do the exact same thing using this device. host: you are saying there are

changes that have to be made, but they are not insurmountable. guest: absolutely. they are already being made and implement it. she is right. that was a problem. i remember taking on and off heavy equipment. that was a pain in the neck. we have solved that problem. host: let's go to mark on the republican line. good morning. was justeah, i about -- host: you still there? caller: yeah, i still think women ought to have to sign up like a skies do when we are 18 -- us guys do when we are 18 years old. host: you don't have any objections to women serving in the military? caller: no, i think they ought to go. host: let's try barbara, calling

from greensboro, north carolina. barbara is also military. good morning. caller: morning. host: go ahead. caller: i just want to say that i am against the draft in all forms. the u.s. has become a war machine. 1971, thesay that in u.s. government wanted me to abortionsortion when are illegal. i thought people should know that. callingt's try richard from washington on the independent line. good morning. can you hear me? caller: yes, i can. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: back in the day, women fought to get into the military. richard, can you turn your television down for us? caller: back in the day, women

fought to get into the military. they are u.s. citizens. i believe they should have the right, plus they should have the responsibility. guest: well, we agree. host: what is the next step for that commission? when can we expect a final report? what is going to be done when we see it? guest: the final report is due to be released this time next year. i think it will have a number of recommendations, and then it will be up to congress. they will have to make a decision at that point. they will have studied it for two years, and it will have been three years since women conserved in all combat decisions -- positions. i think the courts are going to force congress to act. i think this will have enough

information to make an informed decision. we talked about this earlier, but many people have said the draft should be eliminated completely, that an all volunteer military force is the only way to go for the american armed forces. where does your group stand on the question of whether there should be a draft at all? guest: we don't have a consensus in terms of our organization's views on this. my personal view is that the draft and selective service is an undemocratic institution. if we have to force our citizens to fight our wars, then we probably should not be in those wars in the first place. that is my personal opinion. the organization does not have an opinion except to say that whatever is good for men is good for women. we need to treat both populations the same because we are citizens of the same country. host: let's look at a few tweets

from our viewers. lisa writes, as long as standards are not lowered for women, i see no problem. don't expect less of women. this one says, why do they want to put more americans at risk for some banker's war? another one reads, until all women are required to register for the selective service like men, then women will not be truly equal with men. otherwise men will just be attending that women are equal to them. step up to the plate and register at your local post office. guest: unfortunately, women cannot register. they are forbidden from registering. host: what would happen if an 18-year-old woman tried to register? guest: they are rejected. they can join the military. this is one of the reasons this has not been a big issue for our organization.

women can still serve. brianlet's talk to calling from minnesota on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. what is your question? that the armyeve is only for single men, but if women want to register for selective service, it should be at their option. if they want to come they should be able to. but they should not be required to. i don't believe that soldiers should have spouses and families. guest: that would eliminate a lot of our military today if we make people leave because they have spouses or families. host: have you all talk to about military members

their feelings about women not being allowed in the draft? is there a divergence of opinions inside the military? guest: the military is pretty universally in agreement that women should have to register. if men have to register, women have to register. you only see this disagreement when you look outside the military in some of the civilian communities. i have heard women object and say i don't want to register for the draft. my response to that is most men don't want to register either, nor do they want to be drafted. it is unfair to leverage that responsibility on their shoulders. host: how would our draft numbers change if women are allowed to be in the selective service? what is the pool now? guest: i don't know what the pool is now. it would double the size of the pool. it would double the money we spend on selective service.

it would not completely double it because the systems in place would just have to become more robust. we don't have to create new systems. the people that manage the selective service system, they would have to grow. it is $24 million a year to manage. it would have to grow. host: let's talk to paul from connecticut on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: i think women should go into the military for a couple of years. a lot of kids are getting out of school. they don't know where they want to go. they would make better decisions in life by having a couple of years. host: would you agree with the idea that all americans should serve, some type of national service as a requirement, like some countries? caller: yes, a couple of years

would not hurt them. host: would you agree or disagree with the idea of all 18-year-olds come inside of a draft, be required for national service? right now it is all volunteer. some countries like israel require everyone to do some type of national service. where would you stand on that idea? guest: i go back to the kind of libertarian approach to this, which is that i think this should be voluntary. i think it should be an option. i like the idea. i don't think anybody should be forced into any national service. host: let's talk to cynthia, calling from alabama on the democratic line. caller: good morning. that i believe it should be voluntary for women to serve in the women -- military,

as it is now. does not seem like there is any reason to change it now other than an opportunity to strike that the female vote. that is my comment. host: this is washington, d.c. we have a 2020 election coming up. issue being talked about in presidential politics? guest: not yet, but i'm sure it will be discussed as we move closer to the election as well as the fact that this report is going to come out around that same time. i'm sure it will be a topic of discussion. host: have we seen any presidential candidate or major candidate talk about this as an issue that should be talked about political campaigns? guest: human in the current round up? i have not seen anybody discuss it so far. callingt's talk to dan

from virginia on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a few about -- i support the gates commission findings by the republican former president nixon, and i agree with that. the draft was not economically profitable for people's choices. i agree with the guests on that. service, the formerlyservice formall two women did not result in a huge tidal wave enlisted. if you open the draft to women can anybody that has been drafted -- two women, anybody that has been drafted, they did not have a choice.

ofn you convolute the choice jobs, it is convoluted. women and forcing them into the infantry. the closest jobs are firemen, policemen, roughnecks. these are jobs with propensities below 5% where women are able or willing to do the work. you are saying that if you open the job two women, you are going to force them to jobs they were -- it has been open for two or three years, for them to do. you are getting against what the gates commission found for women. guest: that's an interesting point. i would argue that most men who are drafted don't necessarily want to be in the infantry. they are forced to go into those

branches and are assumed to be able to do the jobs whether they are capable or not. the key is you have to screen people, men and women, for what they are capable of doing. notion that all men are capable of these jobs and few women are defies reality. this propensity question about women wanting to serve in these ground, jobs is that ground is a red herring. we have had 500 women that have gone into the infantry and armor occupations. women are not naturally going to be drawn to them if they don't see women there. the more women you see succeeding, you will find more women are interested. this propensity argument, that is a choice that men don't get to make. host: let's talk to kenneth, calling from georgia.

good morning. caller: good morning. i am very interested in the military. i do a lot of looking on the internet, and there are a couple things you never see. you hear about it, but you never see a woman out on patrol, pictures of one, with full combat gear on. they are usually out on patrol in a home the of some kind. -- humvee but sometime. the other thing you don't see is features of women doing the army pt test. why is that? it was designed just for the women. there is nowhere on the internet a picture or video of a woman actually doing the new army pt test. host: i'm sure you have several

reactions. guest: if you would like to see pictures of women actually patrol, ill kit on ds,gest the color go to dvi the pentagon location where they post their stories and a great variety of pictures. google women combat gear or fitness test, you will see plenty of pictures of women doing those jobs. host: let's talk today, calling from ohio. dave is also military. caller: good morning. my point is this, we are enjoying the benefits of having a relative peacetime environment even though we have been at war in afghanistan, and except for

iraq and fallujah,, that has not been a combat situation that would be called high intensity. you don't have people shooting at people from a distance off of humvees. you have folks that engage close with and kill the enemy. is, in hand-to-hand combat, not all men can do this. men that get into the infantry are 30%, a low percentage of those actually tried. you get into hand-to-hand combat, you want the biggest, strongest, artist, meanest person you can get. i guarantee. i am an older guy. at my age, approaching 60, i can

physically kill if i wanted to. i would not want to. if i had to, having been in the military, knowing what i could come i could probably kill 95% of the women in a hand-to-hand combat situation with nothing else given. you think of the football lesyers as opposed to femai and other things. people are saying we are getting more technologically sound. you don't have to get in and actually grab somebody and kill them with their bare hands. we are enjoying a peacetime environment where it is not iitnam, korea, world war hand-to-hand, but we have competitors out there where if we get into a conflict. host: go ahead and respond

before we run out of time. guest: i have two responses. one is that yesterday we celebrated the 30th woman to graduate from army ranger school. they graduate by doing the same things as their male counterparts. yesterday was the first african-american woman, who we celebrated on our website. she graduated yesterday. there have been many historic milestones for what women are capable of doing went before we were denied the opportunity to test ourselves. point relative to what the caller said, he is talking about size as though size is the all-important factor here. the most decorated american murphy, a small man, 5'7", 140 pounds. he was denied entry into the main court and navy for not meeting -- marine corps and navy for not meeting size

requirements. he completed incredible combat feats in world war ii. the marine corps and navy turned him away, thinking he was too small. the army accepted him. he became a paratrooper. he is the most decorated american soldier. this notion that have to be a 200 pound football player to be successful as a combatant is just a fallacy. host: we would like to thank ellen haring for being with us to talk about the possibility of women being included in a draft. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will take a preview of tonight's big split screen moment in politics. the white house correspondents dinner and president trump's campaign rally in green bay, wisconsin. at the top of the hour, we will talk to the autistic self

bascomy network's julia and allison ratto of the center for autism spectrum disorders. we will be right back. >> here are some of our feature programs this weekend. tonight at 8:25, robert caro talks about his latest book, working with conan o'brien. >> just remember, turn every page. never assume everything. turn every god dam page. i cannot tell you how many times in my life that stuck with me. words,ay night, on after pre-barrera gives an inside look

on how the judicial process works, drawing from personal experiences in cases street in his -- and case history in his new book. >> the basic issue of how to resolve a dispute, what you have too much in society is to problems. when people do engage them they get invested and say you are ugly or fat, or there is what about-ism. there is also took nonlogical argument that goes on that is mean-spirited. is worse that is, what is the other problem. people don't engage with the other side at all. host: watch this weekend on booktv on c-span2. q&a, new york times columnist david brooks on his

book, the second mountain. >> some of the most amazing people are not motivated by money or status. they are motivated by their desire to do good. life was truly hard for them. they take on heavy burdens. they lead very inspiring lives. night onbrooks sunday c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: coming up tonight will be the white house correspondents association dinner in washington, d.c. at the same time, president trump will be holding a rally in green bay. let's talk about the white house correspondents dinner with the white house reporter from politico. good morning. guest: good morning. host: as backgrnd