on her book on u.s. national security, "insanity defense." join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪[washington journal theme plays] ♪ host: good morning. some weekend developments on the compromise announced last thursday between the president and senate republicans and emma kratz on an infrastructure plan. the house in session this week in the senate out for the next few weeks part of the july 4 recess and president biden returning from camp david today. it is sunday morning june 27. we will be talking about former president trump's rally in ohio coming up later in the program as well as the future of that bipartisan infrastructure bill. we begin our first hour for a

conversation on gun laws in this country. an issue that came up in a number of congressional hearings. should more regulations of guns be necessary? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000, if you say no (202) 748-8001, if you are unsure, (202) 748-8001 -- if you are unsure (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. good sunday morning, thank you for being with us. we want to begin with some headlines from the washington post, a grim situation in surfside outside of miami. the headline from the post, as the search grinds on the collapse fears spread, a makeshift memorial is a front-page photograph of the new york times. a determination there was a major concrete damage found in 2018 on the south tower.

the death toll continues to rise with more than 150 still missing , many presumed dead. this morning from the new york times and the washington post. p research has a poll on how people view gun safety and gun laws in this country. about half of americans favor stricter john -- stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019. around half of americans see gun violence as a very big problem in the country today. let's look at the homicide rates through may and you will see the uptick. in portland, oregon up 82%, in tucson arizona 76%, in minneapolis 72%. los angeles up 35% and philadelphia 48%. phone lines are open, if you say more regulations are needed (202) 748-8000, if you say no, (202) 748-8001. here is president biden this

past wednesday. pres. biden: i've been at this a long time. there are things we know that work to reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things we don't know about. things we know about like background checks, purchasing a firearm, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, no one needs to have a weapon that can fire 30, 40, 50, up to 100 rounds, unless you think the deer are wearing kevlar vests. merely to policing programs that keep neighborhood safe and folks out of trouble. these efforts work and save lives. over time these policies were gutted and woefully underfunded. our conversation today talked about our strategy to supercharge what works while we continue to push congress to act on sensible gun violence legislation. host: that from president biden

this past wednesday and our question, should more regulations be put in place with the uptick of homicides in so many parts of the country? this is from david on twitter saying there is no controlling guns in america, they control us. from the nra website there is this statement on the president and democrats on the issue of guns in america. while running for president joe biden said he went act as a check on radicals within his own party. biden quickly invited those radicals to serve in his cabinet and despite his rhetoric of inclusion there is not a single person on biden's team who is committed to protecting the second amendment and there are many that not only favor restrictions on the right to bear arms but who were selected precisely because they favor such infringements. you can get more details on the nra website. marine from port richie,

florida, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, more rain. caller: i believe that people should be told to keep their guns, it's not guns, it's the people behind them and i don't think there should be more restrictions. we need to persecute people using them in the wrong way. host: what type of prosecution? what type of laws? caller: laws to take them away. you need the laws to take them away from those people. i don't really know what laws to stand up for but it needs to be changed for those people to stop them getting the guns. host: we will go to paul next joining us from minnesota. minneapolis seeing a big uptick in homicides over the past couple of months. caller: absolutely we need greater control. i think it's time for the

lawmakers to think about the greater good, public safety and ask themselves the question, how would they feel if they dropped off their first grader who was subsequently murdered at a school in connecticut or their high school student who was murdered by some crazy person that had easy access to a gun at a heist -- to a gun at a high school in florida. people need to put themselves in the shoes of the families of these many victims. we need greater control. this is a crisis. host: the issue came up this past week with the fbi director christopher wray testifying on capitol hill and part of the questioning by a republican of louisiana was on background checks. we covered it live on the c-span networks. >> on the database, what do you get the information for?

>> for the next database? a lot of sources. most of the information is coming from state and local law enforcement. >> are they sending in all the information they are supposed to? >> we are continuing to improve that. every year we are increasing the completeness of the database. there is still room for improvement. >> there are still a lot of holes, aren't there? >> there are. >> the truth is, for some, my understanding is that for some at the state and local level it's not a priority, it's not that they are sitting around watching netflix, they are busy doing other stuff, would that be a fair statement? >> i understand why you would

describe it that way. i have to be careful to characterize our partners as distracted. i've gone out and put on the headset and sat with the operator and some of these things when you start getting into misdemeanor domestic violence offenses it can get complicated. if the record is out and they are not ready or clear it can become a real challenge and that was magnified during the pandemic. a lot of local departments were not at work. >> i read about the president and others saying the problem is we need to expand background checks, and it seems to me that a big part of our problem, nothing is perfect, but a big part of our problem is that the

current system we have is only as good as the information input and all the information isn't being inputted. it's just not. i think the act did help, and i think it's better, but i don't think it's well, and it would seem to me that would be a logical place to start. host: referring to the national instant criminal background checks on guns. we are asking you whether or not you think more regulations, more gun regulations are needed in this country. we showed you the nra website and the brady gun control website has these facts, 97% of americans want expanded background checks. pointing out that every 16 hours a woman is shot by her current or former partner, and gun violence costing the u.s. nearly $230 billion every year, another

fact from the brady center is 90% of the guns used in crimes come from 5% of gun dealers. felix joining us from hope mills, north carolina. good morning. caller: c-span, america, good morning. how are you all? first of all, people have been killing each other, if cain had a gun he would've shot able and set of hit them a stone. people who live in a big city need different look -- different regulations from those who live in the country. democrats own guns, believe in god, and get married -- the news is meant to incite. under the constitution everybody who is pro-gun says second amendment, but there are two other amendments in which our founding fathers said we could protect ourselves with, which the republicans are continuously

chipping away at and that is the sixth amendment that says if there is a controversy for more than $20 they get to go to court. if a doctor cuts off a wrong leg i can only sue in north carolina for $500,000 for personal damages. my whole life it would take more than that. we have the second amendment on criminal activity, they want to criminalize stuff like crack cocaine and let powder cocaine be lesser when they are the same. news should be to inform not to incite. for all those who protect and serve, godspeed. host: more guns than people, why tighter u.s. firearm laws are unlikely in the u.s.. the story on the reuters website. dominique is joining us from staten island, new york. caller: i am laughing at some of

the comments made, it's amazing that new york city has something like 390 gun laws, and what happens is when you have these riots and stuff like that people get a hold of these guns, not legally like a legal person who has to go through a background check, there is a background check already. there are more murders because law enforcement is tied number one, number two, people are let out of jail. there was a guy recently who rob someone with a pistol three times and the guy walks out on the street. if you can't reinforce the law that was already there, what are you changing? it becomes a political thing. what is funny is the top person

who is handling the gun situation doesn't even know what an assault weapon is. there is so much lack of information and i feel that we have the right to bear arms. if you are a criminal you don't have the right to bear arms. what's the sense in making more laws? it's ridiculous. host: scenes inside some gun dealers, you can find this again at reuters.com if you listen to irene. you say more regulations are needed, why? >> more regulations are needed. how many people have to die or get killed before we do something about it.

children are scared to walk to school, they sit in class and have to do an active shooter drill. i'm seven years old. we never had to do that. when i was a child we walked to and from school. the only thing we had to worry about was an algebra test. i live outside of chicago but i grew up in the inner city of chicago. there was no access to guns. 14 -- people are bringing the guns inside of chicago and selling them to these kids. in the urban areas you have kids taking guns to school.

we have to do this together. nobody wants to take anybody's guns. we are worried about these kids -- we have to start thinking about everybody else. nobody wants to take anybody's guns. keep them in your house so they don't end up on the streets of chicago. everybody is not a law-abiding citizen, you have to realize that. we have mentally ill back when we were children, you see them talking to themselves. they had no access to god and we have to do something about that in our country. host: thank you, we appreciate the call from illinois. steve on our twitter page writes the following quote,'s civilized

developed nations with strong gun-control laws don't have the murder by firearms rates that we have. people in those nations have to shake their heads at the barbarity of the usa. this is from the washington post.com, three reasons the u.s. has not passed more gun regulations. gun rights groups have the money and staying power more than -- the u.s. political institutions favoring the status quo, feet more details at washington post.com. we would go next to paul joining us from philadelphia. >> we have regular -- caller: we have regulations and laws, but they are not enforced. someone with a drug problem had no problem getting a gun.

>> thank you, we will go to timothy saying i say own all the guns you want. we should just make bullets $259 apiece. juanita is next from kentucky, good morning. you say you are unsure whether or not more regulations are needed. caller: i'm not sure because a lot of people with mental health problems and a lot of times they become criminals for who knows what reason, when they embolic insane asylums, it's not pc to say that, but there are a lot of insane people that get a hold of guns. for gun laws to be updated, that's the only update i can see -- [no audio]

host: is that it? i think we lost you. thank you for the call. this is a headline, part of the debate we covered on the nominee to head up the atf, the headline from fox news, the controversial biden atf nominee advances out of the judiciary committee on a party line vote, a debate now on the senate floor, the senate is in recess for the next two weeks. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell last thursday on the president's nominee. >> president biden announced that his administration would help to combat the alarming rise of violent crime unfolding in our cities across our country. by making it harder for law-abiding americans to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. today our colleagues on the judiciary committee voted on the nomination of a person that

intends to lead the effort. david was tapped to be director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. if he is confirmed the nominee would bring to the job a dangerous and unprecedented hostility to the second amendment. we know it from his record against guns and we know it from the reputation he earned among atf veterans. it should go without saying that these are exactly the wrong motivations [indiscernible] to encourage at the helm of the agency charged with firearms enforcement. then again it should also go without saying that responsible gun owners don't cause surges in violent crime.

i think they prevent them. host: that's from mitch mcconnell. responding to him is dick durbin, democrat from illinois, the chair of the senate judiciary committee. sen. durbin: i couldn't help but listen to the republican leader, and he is a man who will be reported out of our judiciary committee and brought to the floor. he was considered today, the judiciary committee, 11 democrats and one republican split along party lines on this vote. senator schumer can still bring his nomination to the floor. it's no surprise that republicans opposed him. let's put it in context. how many times have you heard a gun debate and heard someone say , we don't need any new laws, we just need to enforce the laws we

have, don't dream up some new law that will burden someone who is an innocent law-abiding gun owner, enforce the laws we have. what agency do we look to when it comes to enforcement? certainly the department of justice, they returned to the atf, that's the agency that was supposed to keep an eye on how guns are being sold. let's take a look at the leader of the alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives agency under donald trump. i would like to give you her name or his name, but i can't, because there was no leader. in four years president trump never nominated a person to head the agency. was it an accident? far from it. those who are on the side of increased gun rights at the expense of safety don't want anyone to leave this -- lead this agency, they want the agency to go away.

david chipman, a man with over 20 years of experience in the field who worked for this law enforcement agency risked his life in doing so and has been nominated by president biden to head up the agency, and republicans can't stand the idea. host: that's how the senate debate unfolded on david chipman, the headline from reuters, you heard that from senator dick durbin. easily split over the leader of the atf and some comments on our twitter page. ask yourself why the washington journal is having a segment on this dead issue. how many years have we heard the stupid argument about have -- taking guns from everyone but criminals. republicans in texas have deregulated and loosened all gun laws they can, they just can't shoot them fast enough in texas. did texas release real crime numbers? no. david saying biden made a good

first step with his action against gun dealers. back to your calls, from detroit, also seeing an uptick in homicide rates. more regulations are needed. caller: good morning, steve, and the washington journal community . this is what i would add to the discussion, there was a caller to calls before me and people may throw up their shoulders and laugh and think that you can have all the guns you want, it's the second amendment, have at it, but the bullets are very expensive. to add to that, here is my thinking, this is what i would advocate. i would like to see, just like you have no phone insurance in michigan, you have auto insurance in the states, you

have to ensure your automobile because it could be catastrophic injury as the result of the wrong person behind the wheel. i advocate that we often -- that gun owners ought to have some type of liability insurance and if you have to pay for each one of those guns you own and possess you have to show and have insurance. insurance should be the mitigate her. i think having insurance would be a fair -- it might address some of the violence we are having and that people who want these guns should have to show and possess that they have some sizable liability insurance policy to substantiate ownership. host: david from detroit, thank you. jody with a sweet "two of my neighbors died and had large numbers of guns in their houses

and their houses were broken into when their obituaries were published. everyone knew they had lots of guns and who knows where they are. used in crimes for sure. unintended gun ownership as i see it. >> mcconnell -- mcconnell doesn't want to make it harder to own guns, but once to make it harder to vote. a call from decatur, georgia. caller: thank you, and good morning to c-span and yourself, steve. we have to face reality. guns are america's [indiscernible] two thirds of gun deaths are suicide. more kids have been killed with guns since 2014 than policemen and soldiers. more americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than all the wars combined. when they look back on america in 2121 and they are going to

say america worshiped at the idol and god of guns. until we realize that, there are no regulations coming. the hospital makes money, the undertaker makes money, the police make money, the lawyers make money all because of guns. host: the headline from the associated press, president biden puts forth his own anti-crime plan, some details saying the president announcing new efforts to stem a rising national tide, saying the federal government is taking on bad actors doing bad things in our communities. but questions persist about how effective the efforts can be in what could be a turbulent summer great jim calling from faro beach, florida on the line for no new regulations. caller: it doesn't make much sense to implement more

regulations if you don't have law enforcement to enforce it. it is just political, and they tried down here in florida. they do gun buybacks and no questions asked where the gun came from. nobody shows up or once the gift cards, they would rather keep their guns. the only way i can see to fix it is if you go back to the wild west, where people would shoot up the town there was no due process, they saw you, they are guilty, and they took care of it. if you shoot up a mall you have done away with your due process in this country. if we got back to that there would be law & order. host: bill from new mexico, good morning. what is your view? caller: good morning, steve, sorry to see you go. i have a question first. how many bump stocks were created, how many bump stocks were sold?

how many bump stocks were returned, and who is responsible for the percentage of bump stocks that are still out in the public. to answer your question, there is no such thing as an honest gun owner. the minute an individual has a gun in his hand and he loses his mind for a little second, he becomes a killer. i say regulate the gun. in 94 i sent a letter to president clinton, will you establish and create a gun that only the gun owner can use? you know why they don't want to create that gun? because it makes the particular gun owner responsible when he uses that gun. nobody else could use that gun but the gun owner. to this day they have not come

out with that gun. host: did you ever get a response from the white house? caller: i never did. they started and sandia's laboratory in albuquerque, and they came out with a gun who is attached to a ring, and if you don't wear the ring you don't use that gun. that ring can be taken away from a victim of whatever and then use the gun. my invention is designed by heat sensors that regulates the body heat. if you put your fingerprint on your gun you can use it. if somebody else puts a fingerprint on your gun nobody can use it. i still have the letter i sent

to clinton. host: how effective is it? how effective is your invention? one? caller: let me tell you, it looks pretty good. there is another individual in colorado springs that created almost an identical thing to mine. i don't have an education, i just know guns. in world war ii a prisoner in prison created the thing that saved us from dying in world war ii, thank you. host: it is the bottom of the hour. if you are listening on c-span radio here in the washington dc area or perhaps on the free c-span radio app, it's also on the bbc parliament channel and great britain. asking you about whether more gun regulations are needed in

this country in part because of the plan put forth by the white house this past week and the nomination of the atf director. among those speaking out during a congressional hearing is a republican senator, tom cotton. senator cotton: the vast majority of murders and crimes are committed by [indiscernible] which would be unaffected by democrat proposals. joe biden wants to ignore the gun crimes that are happening in cities across america, while he takes away the rifle you have in your home to protect yourself from those very criminals. it shouldn't be surprising he nominated a man like david chipman, an anti-gun radical. i asked him very simply what an assault weapon is and he could not define it because it's a made up fictitious term crafted by a bunch of liberal lawyers and politicians in washington to

describe a kind of weapon based on mere cosmetic features. going to a gun store, look at the labels in the aisles. you can find in iowa shotguns, you can find one for pistols and rifles. you won't find one for assault weapons. it is a fake, made-up term. and i pressed him he finally acknowledged that he was -- he would call an assault weapon, let me be precise, any semi automatic weapon larger than the 22 caliber -- 22 caliber with a detachable magazine. that is almost every modern sporting rifle in america. that is one of the most radical proposals that we have ever heard from congress. it would do almost nothing to affect the gun crimes that are happening in this country right now. >> that's from senator tom -- host: that's from senator tom

cotton in the debate over actually nominating an atf director. we carried that debate live on c-span two. we will have our coverage available on the web. we go to mike in akron, ohio. what is your view on regulations? more needed? caller: i don't think they need for coney and laws, but they do need laws. we are all a product of how we grew up. by 16 i was an expert on three types of guns, bb guns, pellet guns, and squirt guns. by that time i changed two girls, cars, and a part-time job. i went to an all boys catholic high school, and believe me i threw away my bb guns and pellet guns at the age of 16.

my dad served in world war ii and knew what guns could do. that's why he only bought those guns for me and my brother. i love my brother steve, he was feisty. i miss him, he passed away a few years ago. i need to ask you a favor at c-span, could you do a special on the nra? the body of the nra -- it was founded by a union general, not a confederate general. i find it hard to believe that a union general would promote the taking over of the government. general tecumseh sherman moved through georgia like a knife through butter and i'm sure the good people of georgia had the same kind of weapons at their disposal as the union army.

as far as firepower with guns and good people of georgia -- [indiscernible] the bigger arsenal you had will just be a bigger explosion -- i don't think we need a civil war. ambrose made up the nra, not for gun rights but gun safety. the scientific and safe use of guns, that's what the nra is all about. shame on wayne lapierre and others at the nra for changing the entire -- i union general, ambrose burnside started the nra. >> over the years we have consistently asked representatives of the nra to come on this network, we have covered their campaign rallies and events and the imitation continues -- invitation continues for wayne lapierre and any members of the nra to come

on. this is another view on our twitter page. "until -- you will need guns, it's that simple. from forbes magazine there is this opinion piece, reaction to the plan being put forth by the white house, biden's call for more gun control will accelerate the sale of guns. for americans 150 million gun owners much of our law enforcement community and rational people everywhere president biden's call for more gun control measures dangled like a punchline to a bad joke. we will go to robert joining us from tuscaloosa, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make this observation. these united states will come together and radicals, people with guns, we were colonized by

england, then it was overthrown by [indiscernible] and the rest of the people called criminals. not just americans, but the united states consists of the most criminal elements from every continent in the world. in the most criminal elements, the numbers from whichever continent they came from. there are a lot of good europeans now. the criminal element in this country was brought here after the enslavement of african-americans. there are criminal elements of the african-american community. they don't criminalize european americans or other so-called white people or so-called black or white people. most criminals are from europe, a lot of good people came from europe, but they are the one who

are -- all those ethnic europeans don't love one another either. i feel sorry for the young people. this must be the most dangerous country in the world. people are jumping in the ocean and getting out. that's why china and north korea built that nuclear weapon to make sure manifest destiny doesn't spread to their country. host: robert, thank you. a couple of text messages, (202) 748-8003 is the number. from skippers, virginia, more regulations on guns will not lower the crime rate, funding more police and putting criminals in cages will lower crime. crime is up from defund the police policies like in portland, oregon. this is from michael who is in portland, oregon. more regulations needed but the horse has left the barn. here in portland there has been a storm of shootings and a flood

of gun purchases. from john in new hampshire, no more gun regulations except if you buy a gun you should have to take a class on gun safety and i feel if you have a license to carry in your state you should be able to carry the gun anywhere in the united states. president biden outlining some plans to restrict gun laws in this country. we have seen a spike in crime rates across the country. >> last time we had data on this issue -- pres. biden: 5% of gun dealers it turns out in the study we did showed that 90% of illegal guns were found at crime scenes sold by 5% of gun dealers. these merchants of death are

breaking the laws in the process. they are selling guns that are killing innocent people. it's wrong and it's unacceptable. we are going to crack down on those gun dealers and the violent criminals they knowingly arm. the justice department will issue an annual report on gun trafficking so we can update that data. today they are announcing a major crackdown on stemming the flow of guns used to commit violent crimes. zero tolerance gun dealers who willingly violate laws and regulations. zero-tolerance. if you willfully sell a gun to someone who is prohibited from possessing it, if you willfully -- if you willfully fail to cooperate with inspections, my messages this, we will find you. we will seek your license to sell a gun. we will make sure you can't sell death and mayhem on our streets.

it's an outrage and it has to end. we will end it. host: that from president biden this past wednesday going back to the issue of the criminal background check. this is part of the debate we saw on the senate floor, this from gao, the government accountability office and it says the following. the national instant criminal background check system used to check the records of people seeking to buy guns from licensed dealers. people convicted of felonies and of domestic violence misdemeanors are among those prohibited from purchasing. a law sought to improve federal agencies from reporting on relevant records -- the number of records submitted increased, the number of information's that automatically prohibit gun purchases more than doubled, but the gao found agencies interpreted the justice department reporting guidelines differently and recommended

clarifications to help ensure more people are completing in their reporting from the government accountability office . our more gun regulations needed in this country? we have divided our fun line between yes, no, and unsure. on the no line mac scene is joining us from michigan. caller: this gun issue drives me crazy. our politicians, all they can do is pass laws that don't work. no one pays attention to them. if i murder someone it's against the law. he already have laws against what they are attempting to do and biden, my goodness gracious. i think our politicians should take a course in problem-solving. there are eight steps of problem-solving. unless you get to the root cause you're never going to solve the problem.

murder begins in the heart. cain slew his brother with a rock, man will always find a way to kill his brother. you can pass all the laws you want and it will not do one bit of good. that's my opinion. host: from new baltimore, michigan. a look at the homicide rate and how they increase, up 82% in portland, oregon, 76% in tucson, arizona; 72% in minneapolis; los angeles a 35% hike, philadelphia up 28%. from daytona beach, florida john is up next saying that more regulations are needed. caller: this is my opinion. i don't think we should violate the constitution and take guns

out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. i do think it is past time that the federal government and our congressional leaders make smart guns mandatory. there were two things that i saw in the news recently that make me think that it is time for smart guns. i read an article where a good majority of gun owners are reporting that their guns were stolen out of vehicles, guns that were left in under octave -- unlocked vehicles that were stolen. i saw on tv recently that law enforcement agencies -- they showed a room with all of these confiscated cell phones being plugged in and they were constantly checking the

passwords to try to unlock these devices. we had the people making smart guns -- only the legal owner's fingerprint can unlock that gun and fire it i think it would go a long way. i think it's time we start having smart guns mandatory. host: thanks for the call from florida, john from north carolina saying ar-15's, ak-47s should be totally banned, both are not useful for hunting. from this sunday take column, along bumpy road ahead for the biden agenda, also available online as they talk about the bipartisan deal -- larry is up next from stephen,

minnesota. good morning. caller: howdy, i have a question for you. but between a gun and a human, can you tell me which one is self-aware of their existence? you always like to ask us questions. you can answer it in front of everybody. host: the good thing about this program is it's about you. how would you answer your own question? caller: i think it's pretty obvious which one is self-aware and which one is in. host: then why do you ask it? caller: i've never seen an object that is not self-aware being able to be in a sense dangerous. something that is self-aware has to take that object and go do a bad thing with it. it almost makes sense where you'd have to go back to the thing that is self-aware, like when a guy looks in a mirror. navy that's where we might see it. >> thank you for the call.

the book is titled "insanity defense: why our failure to address national security problems makes us less safe." jane harman will join us at 9:15 eastern time. tom is on the phone from hagerstown, maryland. good morning. caller: there seems to be a strange memory about [indiscernible] [indiscernible] up to and including machine guns. one friend was an engineer. [indiscernible] he went through the atf to get a background check to get permission. my other friend who was an engineer who had top-secret security clearance with projects

like the space shuttle they had hundreds of guns including machine guns and -- he never once got permission -- anybody can buy any kind of gun they want -- went through all the regulations [indiscernible] thank you. host: tom, thank you for the call. if you say more regulations are needed, (202) 748-8000; if you say no, (202) 748-8001. start by enforcing the ones you have on the books first, a

viewer says. a study looking at the u.s. postal service and the possibility of delays especially if you live in the upper midwest or out west. this is a map inside the washington post where you will slow down based on proposals putting -- put forth by mr. dejoy to slow down delivery. keith from palm bay, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. been talking with you for about 20 years, going to miss you. ironically everything that has been brought up his suggestions to restrict guns, it's not a gun problem, it's a rage problem in all colors of life. to have insurance on the gun,

that affects low income minorities the most. the ring trigger thing will be a high-priced gun which will affect low income people, minorities included. there are so many regulations on the books now that are not being followed to keep doing these focused things to wear these agents go in and only focus on the one problem they are told is a priority and these other laws are being broken and not followed up on. the ones that are attended to our brought into the court system and dismissed. we keep moving the chairs around instead of focusing on the problem of the rage that is amongst civilians that have the right to defend themselves. lowering the law from 21 to 18, now young adults with families have no protection in their

houses. we are a nation of experiments and where it is working they want to take away the rights of people where it is working and where they have all the laws and the other states or the big cities, it's going to be where only the rich and criminals have guns. middle-class and low income people aren't going to have them because of these regulations that have been put out there. you are regulating yourself and asking for laws that are going to take your rights away from defending your family. host: thank you for the call. this is from our facebook page. regulate the people causing the problem, why are we so concerned about guns when alcohol kills 10 times as many? it makes no sense to regulate the law-abiding citizen when is the actions of the lawbreaker we wish to prevail -- curtailed.

the new york times and that makeshift memorial in surfside, florida and pictures of loved ones missing presumed dead. 156 people who have not been accounted for. the headline from the new york times is in 2018 a report saying there was major concrete damage cited in the inspection report of that south florida tower. the front page of the new york times, we will go to wisconsin and charles, good morning. caller: it seems to me people are singing the wrong tomb here what our government needs to do is to have all the drug cartels, international terrorists and go after them like they did al qaeda and isis. i think if you get this drug thing under control your crime rates will go down drastically. host: craig shirley who has

written three biographies on ronald reagan, he will be joining us in about 10 minutes to talk about the future of the republican party and the reaction to the rally we covered in ohio with mr. trump. this is from our facebook page, yes we need more regulations on guns, so it starts with the nra and its corrupting effect on washington. the band the 3d printing of firearms and bump stocks. alfred in boca raton, florida. caller: good morning. 70-year-old who was reported for 40 years before i retired recently. this encapsulates everything about the problems of america. when we had the problem in newtown, connecticut with 35 second and third graders gunned

down, 97.6% of americans said there must be more regulations of guns needed in america, including 83% of republicans. 97% of americans said you must have more regulations of guns needed. the nra and all the other gun lobbyists said let's let kids keep getting gunned down in schools. obviously the constitution is a living document. do you think our -- if our founding fathers found out that assault rifles were wiping out 2000 people with constant rounds coming out they wouldn't say, wait a minute, and the old days it took a minute and 15 seconds to reload a musket, the newtown, connecticut incident showed how twisted america is.

97% of americans said there must be more regulation of guns needed. you have these redneck hicks calling into your show saying that you have to enforce the rules on the books. they are idiots, they are dummies, and i'd like to have them one on one enough fight and they can take the first five shots. the way i dealt with this my entire life is with my fist, not with guns. people who need guns or cowards. host: alfred from boca raton, florida. jason with this tweet, the good guy with a gun argument that armed good guys will save the day is flawed him a with so many good guys with guns how are all the good guys with guns supposed to know in a chaotic situation who is and is not another good guy with a gun? the new york times taking a look at mass shootings in the united states, in the first six months of 2021 with shootings in

chicago around evanston, illinois. four people were killed -- in atlanta on march 16 eight people were killed. four in allen, texas on april 3; six in muskie, oklahoma; or in orange, california; nine in san jose, california on may 26; in boulder, colorado 10 people were killed. the full survey available at nytimes.com. from asheville, north carolina your view on gun regulations? caller: i don't think we need more regulations. i remember when timothy mcveigh blew up the federal building, he didn't use one gun, he used fertilizer. host: stephen in big creek, mississippi. caller: hello.

i'm blind. i had a lot of trouble buying a gun. i had to have a witness, how is that different from somebody that cannot read or somebody that does not speak the queen's english. i think the law needs to be even across the board. host: thank you you for the call. another viewer saying ar-15's are no worse than rocks, knives, baseball bats as weapons. rocks, knives, and baseball bats won't mow down 50 concertgoers in vegas from an upper story hotel window. tom saying to treat firearms the same way we treat them as cars, registers, titles, license, record sales and transfers. thanks to all of you for your calls, comments, and tweets. re: air of the sunday morning program beginning with nbc's meet the press.

during washington journal we will have a conversation with reagan biographer and author craig shirley on the future of the publican party, and mr. trump's rally in ohio, and dan balz from the washington post on his thoughts on infrastructure and what is next for the president and congress. we are back in a moment. ♪ [washington journal theme plays] ♪ >> book tv has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern a critical look at the 1619 project which examines foundations of america's beginning with matthew spalding, executive director of president trump's 1770 -- the author of a critical response to the 1619 project. tonight at 11:00 p.m. eastern,

the amazing story of george h. w. bush's post-presidency, his former chief of staff recalls his 25 years after leaving the oval office. watch book tv tonight on c-span two. ♪ >> in his latest book, edward looks at the role that drinking has played throughout history. >> alcohol makes it harder to live. it's harder to make up alive. it makes sense that a. -- it makes us better. if we just relax and take it in a variety of cues, we do a better job. in the same ways that when we meet, we shake hands to show that we are not holding a weapon

in our right hand, cultures use intoxicants -- anywhere where hostile people need to figure out a way to cooperate. >> edward tonight at 8:00 on q&a day. you can listen to human day as a -- q&a as a podcast. >> washington journal continues. host: our focus is the biden administration and the party. good sunday morning and thank you for being with us. guest: thank you very much. host: let's start with the state of the republican party. as someone who has written books about ronald reagan and his political career, would he be

comfortable in today's republican party? >> the answer, i think -- guest: the answer, i think is yes. he bent the party with the force of his ideas to his own service. the republican party became a taxcutting party. it had been a tax increasing party. he made it into a pro-life party. previously, it was divided. through the course, megan, the party he inherited in the late 1970's became to his liking by the time he ran for president. the platform of 1980 is vastly

different from the republican party in 1976. that was do to reagan and the conservative takeover of the party. host: did it surprise you that the republican party did not have a platform? guest: it did. a party has to stand for something. it has to have a concrete set of ideas. because we have two, it has to mean something for the american people. the democratic party -- it is not hard to state. because of internal warfare and battles, they do not have a

party today. going into the 2022 election, what it stands for -- it is not enough to run against democrats. you have to stand for something and believe in something. host: a column that you wrote was published earlier this month. american governments stopped working for the people a long time ago. they have become increasingly entrenched in blood would -- bloated political machines. as it worse today than 30 to 40 years ago? guest: definitely.

every level of government is servicing the american people, more or less. the term civil servant is not being used anymore. they are working for us. we pay their salaries. we do not give them the power to the willy-nilly passed laws. washington is a corrupt city. less and less resonance with the american people today. a lot of state governments are the same way. state government in new york. many died unnecessarily. vaccines were administered in a haphazard fashion.

the government was supposed to be small and efficient. host: let's turn our attention to former president donald trump discussing the 2020 race, a vase that he says that he won. a demonstration took place in june of last year. mr. trump: you have seen over the last three weeks, the media and democrats are admitting that i was right about everything. the election is over and they do not care. big deal, right? big deal. they lied about so many things before the election and it is not just what they said, it is

what they did not say. where is hunter? the virus came from a chinese lab. hydroxychloroquine actually works. remember? i made a mistake on hydroxychloroquine. i should have said it is a disaster. please do not use it. instead, i said it works and now reports are coming out that it works. hunter biden's laptop was real. lafayette square was not cleared for a photo op. they tried to burn down the church the day before. the russian bounties story was a total fake. the cameras are starting to go off. i better speak fast.

they do not like this speech. host: a campaign rally that we carried live. your comments and reaction? guest: he certainly has lost his touch. i happen to think that joe biden won legitimately. there are always questions. i think it would be better for him and the country if he simply dropped the issue and looked to the future. the best course of action is just for him to drop it. national media has grown increasingly biased and not always truthful about things.

they regard it as a pain in the neck, but they also saw him as an ally of the american people. they fulfilled that obligation. they were a force against john adams. ronald reagan had to contend with and only in recent years has the papers and media of the current era firmly allied themselves. that is to the detriment of the american people. the only solution that i see is to create alternative press as conservatives done -- have done with talk radio and the internet.

that is really the only alternative. i do not see them reforming nbc or the washington post. host: our phone lines are open and we will get your messages in just a moment. speaking of former wright -- former president reagan. he spoke extensively about the events of january 6 where he was presiding as the president of the senate. >> january 6 was a dark day in the history of the u.s. capital but thanks to the swift action of capitol police and law enforcement, the violence was quelled, the capital secured, and we reconvened congress the very same day to finish the work

of counting electoral votes in every state in the union. there are those who believed that in my position as presiding officer of the joint session that i possess the authority to reject or return electoral votes, certified by the states. but the constitution provides the vice president with no such authority. the truth is that there is almost no idea more un-american than the notion that anyone person could choose the american president. the presidency belongs to the american people and the american people alone.

[applause] and i will always be proud that we did our part. on that tragic day, to reconvene the congress and fulfilled our duty under the constitution and the laws of the u.s. host: we have the full speech on our website. craig surely is joining us from virginia and there are divisions between the former president and his vice president, mike pence. guest: it is -- >> -- guest: it is unfortunate. it is a mistake to keep emphasizing this. he needs to change the subject. he needs a signature issue like the panama canal treaty or

various ideas that reagan proposed. it needs to be in motion. politics is motion and it is done and over with. she needs to stop going backwards. host: a lot can happen between now and 2023 or 2024. right now, is donald trump a candidate in 2024? guest: donald trump? she is playing it wisely by not declaring one way or the other. if he says he is out, he is no

longer a relevant factor. if he says he is in and treated differently -- the best thing to do is to talk about his issues, not about the election of two years ago. always about who controls the future. he needs to start talking about the future of the american people. host: a text message from dave. this new republican party is the most twisted radical group of people and you cannot reason with them. do you agree? guest: no.

they have gone through different permutations throughout the years. they used to be divided. i remember in 1972, a large tax cut was proposed to the american people. the nixon administration said, no. we need to prime the pump with more federal spending. arguing for more federal spending with senators arguing for tax cuts. now that is completely reversed. the republican party of the tax cut. the republican party has changed positions on many issues.

richard nixon made it into an international party. it is just going through a different iteration right now, trying to decide what it stands for. some of the parties have been more consistent. the democratic party has been the party. it has been the party of big government. it is interesting. a lot of reagan's policies and proposals. that was part of the reason why he was elected and was thinking about tax cuts. the democratic president before the congress and said the era of big government is open.

he was flexible, which is good in politics. host: our guest is craig shirley. he has written many autobiographies. -- autobiographies for ronald reagan. let's get to the democrats line. caller: speaking of reagan, seeing megan on a phone call recorded, reagan was a monster and increased payroll taxes on the middle class repeatedly. he did/the top bracket. reagan was crushing the middle class.

he was talking out of both sides of his mouth on election issues. on one hand, biden was legitimately elected, but then talking about voter fraud. host: we will get a response. guest: reagan left office in january of 1979 with an approval rating of 73%. he virtually had all of the republican party supporting him. there was no denying that he was a great unifier, unlike joe biden who has been mostly a great divider. you can say all you want, there will be people with different opinions, but the vision is pretty clear among historians and the media that reagan was a successful president.

he did restore national morale and eradicated interest rates and created over 18 -- millions of jobs. by any stretch of the administration, there were dozens of other accomplishments. he did not -- it explains why the reagan library is the most dissident presidential library, even today. this is 20 years after he left office. it is more out of the way. it is not more centrally located like kennedy library.

the american people still revere him as their president and history has judged that he was a successful president. host: how critical was nancy reagan? guest: nancy reagan would have made sure that he was the best salesman in the world. she was going to ensure that he was going to be president of the u.s. she never got involved in policy. she took a shine to jim baker. reagan had the final say.

he said, nancy does not make these decisions. i make them. she had the advantage of position and she made her thoughts known on issues -- not all issues, not nuclear disarmament. she made her opinions known. she was very important to the reagan presidency. she was a trooper. making sure -- i have been there many times. it is, in my opinion, the best of all presidential libraries.

you can see it out in the distance. it is really beautiful and well designed. i urge viewers to go visit sometime. there are also special features. there is a museum and a exhibit. host: what is the disney museum? guest: they also had one on american baseball, which was fantastic. the disney museum, a lot of memorabilia and displays, cartoons and costumes from the disney company, over many years. mickey mouse and various movies

and they set up a special area. they were on display for about a year. i was there for the baseball exhibit and it was terrific. also doing ancient, archaeological digs, ancient egyptian statuary and jewelry, things like that. now they are planning on a world war ii exhibit for next year. they do a good job of keeping the story fresh and devising new ways to attract people to the library. host: actor ronald reagan -- dedicating the opening -- let's get back to the phone calls. republican line with craig shirley. good morning.

caller: good morning. i just called in. i heard he is a historian and he is pretty spot on with his history. i appreciate that. that last reply on the election results, he is going to have to be eating those words. he did not listen to this age by president trump. he went through a list of things that he said were facts. they had to be at least 20 of them and he reminded everybody that those people who said those things weren't facts had to eat their words each time come in a spectacular way. it would be pretty obvious. i do not think it will be long when he will be eating those

words on the election. guest: first of all, i love those tears from my hometown. he referred to eating words several times, but i do not know which words he was referring to. i would be happy to eat my words if i am proven wrong. i do not see all of donald trump's speech. i did see snippets on c-span of him talking about the election in 2020. if i was advising him, i would advise him to move on and focus on the future. it is ok to talk about the vaccine and the successes of your administration, but do not keep wallowing in the election of 2020. we have had contested elections

before but not one that was overturned. his people are his people. they are energized. they need to hear more about what he would do if he was in office now or what he would do -- to alleviate their concerns and their pain. she needs to look to the future. host: katrina is next. good morning. caller: thank you very much for allowing us to speak freely. our speech has been centered tremendously over the last few years. the worst in history. i would like to address the speech about what he stated.

he contradicted himself in saying that there was no election fraud and we should not speak about it. he needs to get his ducks in a row because we, the people want truth. we deserve that. we, the people, as he stated in his first statement and contradicted himself. we want these audits. we want truth and transparency. we have been ignored and we want the truth. we want good things to be done for the people. this has to do with everyone. i am a mother of six with 13 grandchildren and i am tired of sitting here, listening to all this political, bloated rhetoric that every mainstream channel has on it.

they are mimicking each other and nobody wants to look at the real situation. i like your speech is that you have been doing and i follow your readings and writings, however, if you really want to be for the people and you want more people to listen, please speak the truth. we all know what the truth is, and i know that you know what the truth is. my last message, all of you need to be leading the pale horse. if you have not read that book, you are missing out. host: thank you for that call from vermont. guest: i would say, so if you're colors are a little juiced up this morning. i do not know what she was referring to as far as eking the truth.

i did say that i think joe biden did win legitimately. nobody has presented proof that the election was fraudulently stolen. this has never happened in all the years of the republic. especially for conservatives, i am not in the business of being a political advisor. but i would advise conservatives and republicans to suck it up. teddy roosevelt said -- i would advise the republican party to set their face towards the future and tell the american people what they are going to do to make the future better for all americans and stop this

debate over the election. it is over with and it is pointless to keep talking about it. host: good morning, kevin. caller: good morning. i am actually in arkansas now. thank you for taking my call. i want to go on and state that i am a liberal, bleeding heart democrat and i think that ronald reagan was the last great president of the u.s. the reason he was a great president was that he could pivot on important issues, mainly on issues related to the soviet union. he came in vowing to destroy the soviet union and came to a deal with the soviet union to dismantle large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. that is what a great president does is that they can adapt in these situations, but one of the things i wanted to ask you

about, i have a comment before asking my question, but i am a historian myself. there is a long history. the reactionary right was opposed to the alliance with the soviet union. there is a lot of continuity to the present day from the 20th century reactionary rights. today, our contemporary republican party has been taken over by the reactionary right. when it comes to former president trump, who is not really an intelligent person, given his public statements, if we go off of his public statements, he does not strike me as someone very intelligent. one thing he has been very effective in doing is turning the republican party into the

party of white grievance, which is very concerning to me because white people in this country, for the most part, control the wealth. they control the power positions, and when i look around my arkansas community, they have everything that they need. they own their homes, their golf carts and guns. why is the reactionary right of the republican party becoming the party of white grievance? host: thank you for the call. guest: i do not know where to start. you should drop the phrase -- we do not look backwards. we look for words.

we are always challenging the assumptions of corporations, always challenging the assumptions of government. we champion the individual. establishing this independent republic. at the end of the revolution, one of the framers wrote a letter, thomas payne. he wrote, the revolution is -- the war goes on. it is important for us to keep challenging government because that will make for better individuals. as far as -- i think he is reacting to a bunch of newspaper

clippings and tv shows. the vast majority of republicans wake up in the morning and think about racial issues. they want to get along with everybody. because the republican party is the party of the individual, that means that they treat everyone as individuals, not because of their skin color. that is the ideal that i grew up with, as a republican, and as a conservative in the 1960's and 1970's. reagan was the ultimate individualist. one thing that struck me in reviewing speeches is he did have the best speechwriting department in the history of the white house. that is saying a lot.

reagan had probably the best group of speechwriters ever assembled. how many times in his speech he spoke about the individual. how many times he spoke about political -- no joke. speechwriting, you go back to the history with lyndon johnson and dwight d. eisenhower. most presidents do not talk that way. reagan spoke that way and spoke differently. every one of the speeches for this individual was in education. reagan wanted to bring -- he wanted to build up the american defenses.

he wanted people to see america as serious about the environment and the cold war. he did all those things. and at the end, he signed the treaty with gorbachev to reduce the nuclear stockpile. on the soviet side and the american side. both sides were drawing their missiles from western and eastern europe. it was all verified, but he forced the issue by first building up arms. that is exactly what he said during the campaign. he called for elimination of the

salt treaties and the beginning of the stark treaties, which he implemented successfully. host: our last color is from illinois. good morning. caller: i do not think much of ronald reagan. all he cares about is money, he and his wife. the republican party is now leading the u.s. into revolution. they hate the black people, brown people, anybody who is not white. all they care about is the white people. they want to make this country a white country. they despise all other races, apparently, and they cannot fathom the idea of another race taking over america and being in charge. host: thank you for the call.

your response? guest: my first response is to laugh. it is like she is reading a script. they are not open at all to debating things. they are completely closed. there is no discussing with someone like that. this is what is happening in america. we have become so polarized over the last 30 to 40 years, that there is no overlap between the two parties at all. they used to be overlap, but it changed. eight years later -- those are the beginnings come the first stories of the increased polarization. prior to that time, civil rights

legislation which lyndon johnson proposed, it was passed by republican senators. not democratic senators. states rights -- they were against more discrimination and for barriers. not just from the south either. from other states around the country. it was the democratic party, unfortunately. they finally came around to the republican position and the republican position has pretty much been the same as it has been since the days of abraham lincoln when the party was first founded in 1856. the republican is for the individual.

the campaign slogan in 1956 was freemen, free soil, free money. that is pretty much the sentiment today is that all men and women, the individuals, they are free. it is the only way to move forward and for the party to survive. host: a bacon biographer and longtime friend joining us from virginia. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you very much. host: this is a column this morning inside the washington post by our next guest. there is a long, bumpy road ahead. we will be talking about that with columnist from the washington post.

later, jade harmon and her book on national security. it is titled insanity defense. you are listening to washington journal. we will be back in a moment. we hope that you stay with us. >> c-span landmark cases explores the constitutional drama between significant supreme court decisions. watch baguette again, tried for petty crimes was denied a court-appointed lawyer. under the sixth amendment, they must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one, or the opportunity to defend themselves. watch that in my case is on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app.

>> monday night on the communicators, chief security officer of huawei technologies usa on security concerns in the u.s. >> what is necessary and what is possible to make for greater security, greater assurance and privacy globally. we need to think outside the box and not go with the same stuff that is not working. accountability and transparency are key. germany is doing important things to make sure that they had good visibility and strong requirements. the senator was on a recent show and said the recent attacks are like a wake-up call, but america falls back to sleep. congress has not exercised their

oversight. they need to be requirements and objectives, funding, authorities, and heads need to roll. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back chief correspondent and columnist for the washington post. thank you for being with us. guest: always a pleasure. host: let's talk about the news regarding infrastructure and that statement from the white house. where do things stand right now? guest: it is a little confusing because the president said one thing on thursday, that she would not sign the infrastructure bill, but that was the only bill that came to him. he is wanting to make the democratic pass it -- package

working its way through, and that set off alarm bells with republicans, especially with the negotiating team. there was a lot of blowback that they heard in the subsequent 48 hours or next several hours and the republicans wanted in some way or the other for the president to walk back some of what he said on thursday. that is what we saw on saturday afternoon. he said what he had said on thursday and his words had upset republicans, and he wanted to make clear that he was not issuing a veto threat on the infrastructure bill and that he would do everything in his power to try to advance that bill to get past with the other package

that is in the works. host: you are scrambling, trying to update your piece in the washington post. let me share two points from your column and further elaborate. willingness to seek a cross party agreement, just to get a deal, it's as much about him and his presidency. he pledged to restore some unity and bipartisanship and now had delivered, or had he? guest: we could see from the effort that he put into this that he was serious about trying to do a bipartisan compromise on infrastructure. infrastructure is one of those issues that has enjoyed support across party lines for many years. but it ultimately means is a lot

of money going into a lot of congressional districts and states. lawmakers are happy to have money coming into their constituencies. he set off with the idea of trying to do this because nobody has been able to do it in recent years. he negotiated principally with a republican from west virginia and before he left for his long trip to europe, he basically pulled the plug on those because they were too far apart in the amount of new money that she was prepared to put into an infrastructure package. what happened was that this group of senators picked up the challenge. this is the same group that had negotiated and put forward the

$900 billion package that was approved by congress before president trump left office. they decided to try on this, but there were a lot of democrats who have been getting quite nervous about the extended nature of negotiations. they wanted president biden to say no, we are never going to get there. the republicans will hold out and eventually we will run out of time to get everything done that we need to do. they were basically urging him not to wait, to forge ahead with the democratic program, but the president stuck with it and the negotiators stuck with it. there were difficulties and the bipartisan agreement has some question marks around it, questioning what it will really be like, but they were able to

reach an agreement. they announced -- the president met with them on thursday and signed off on it. it was an indication that he was serious about what he wanted to do to prove that it was possible in this very divided country to still do something across party lines. that is where we were on thursday when he came out with negotiators to announce that they had a deal. host: it is unusual for the president to come to that venue, but he did so, including in the photograph in your piece. the head line, a bipartisan deal, angry reaction and the long road ahead for the biden agenda. you also write about how to pay for all of this. among the most difficult issues,

was how to pay for the package. for democrats, the red lines included no new taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 a year. they ruled out any increase in the gasoline tax and no fees or taxes on electric vehicles. there was one big red line which original proposals would have gone after. they are drawing considerable scrutiny. how do you pay for it? guest: that will still be the big question, whether there is a way that everyone can agree to pay for it. they will spend $40 billion to improve irs efforts to recoup money that the irs is owed. they believe that will net them

$100 billion. i think people are already questioning whether that will produce the revenue that they need. as they have to fill in the details -- right now this is a framework and over the next few weeks, they will be turning this into legislative language. there will be a lot more negotiating ahead to get it into the language that is acceptable for legislation and to persuade people to support it. to get this package through the senate will require 10 republicans under the assumption that all 50 democrats support eight. they have to climb that hill and in the house, one big question is whether the liberals in the house will stick with this and agree to do this, particularly if they are not 100% sure that

the bigger package that will be passed in the senate under terms of reconciliation, rage can do it with only 50 votes and the vice president breaking the tie -- the liberals in the house have some skepticism about this. there is a big balancing act that will have to go on. speaker pelosi was very outspoken and she said there is not going to be any infrastructure without the other bill. she has got issues on her side because she does not have much of a majority to work with. it is always balking on a tight rope. host: for republicans call guest: --

call guest: -- i expect both to go to the house, where i will work with speaker pelosi on the path forward after senate action. i am confident that congress will get both to my desk so i can's -- i can sign each bill promptly. this is what was said after his meeting with the president. christ one of the big surprises i had come to washington -- we get along really well. my colleagues in the senate -- we work together and it has been years and years. people have been talking about the infrastructure needs of our country. this group came together and actually got a job done. we have the president behind us

and this group year, but we are going to keep working together. america works. this and it works and we can work together. host: you could hear the president yesterday and senator romney. what is your overall assessment? guest: senator romney was one of those who was quite upset over what the president said after they had all been there together. it was a couple hours later that the president made the comment that he would not sign the infrastructure must he the reconciliation bill as well. the republican senators on the negotiating team were quite upset and pressing the white house for some action. one of the people they talked to was the senator, releasing the

statement that it was written in a carefully vague language. it was a first effort but not an incredibly successful effort to dissuade -- persuade republicans that the senator was still on board. her view was that there was not a big problem. she said, we still have work to do and this is a negotiation that takes compromise, and i think we will get there. i got the impression that the problem was much bigger. there was still pressure being applied to the white house.

it arrived sometime after 4:00 yesterday afternoon. that has settled things down among negotiators, but we will have to see how this goes down more broadly, particularly with other democrats, who continue to have skepticism about negotiations with republicans. caller: good morning. how are you doing this beautiful sunday morning? host: we are great. caller: i want to say something. i want to thank c-span for being honest, open, and showing the wonderful valley in the state of ohio for donald trump. thank you from the bottom of my heart.

the first comment is on joe biden backtracking on this infrastructure do you. i was totally shocked. he comes out and does the dance in front of the biased media, comes out and says, we have a deal and two hours later, i'm going to veto it. how can anyone take this person who occupies deceit at the white house cac? guest: what we saw was that there was an action, a reaction and a reaction from the white house. he realized that what he had done, whether deliberately or accidentally in the use of language, they recognized that the bipartisan deal was in

jeopardy and after a day of back and forth, they released a statement. it is unusual to see this kind of thing happen. most white houses unwilling to acknowledge that they made any kind of mistake or that they mishandled a negotiation, but this is obviously very important for the president to say, i worked to get this bipartisan agreement and i will do everything that i can to get it passed, but what we are dealing with are the delicacy of negotiations going on within the democratic party, that the president is the head of. he has to try to manage all of that. frankly, this has a long road ahead. there will be a lot of work that

has to be done on the fine print of things. we do not have the fine print of the bipartisan agreement, nor do we have anything approaching fine print of what this consented -- reconciliation package will look like. senator bernie sanders is the chair of the committee. he is talking about a package in the neighborhood of $6 trillion. it is unlikely that senator joe manchin or some others in the democratic caucus in the senate will go for something that is that large. there is work to be done on the democratic side and work to be done to make sure that they have the necessary votes to get the bipartisan bill through in the senate. what we have seen is a president who very much wanted this

agreement. when it looked like it was in jeopardy, he was prepared to say, i made a mistake or i did not mean to say it the way it might have sounded. host: more information on what the administration is calling on the the biden administration and its approach to infrastructure. our next caller is from topeka, kansas. caller: i really do respect you. you are a longtime reporter. i think she would address this. do you really think the republican party might split? given the fact -- if there was an election tomorrow, president -- trump would get about 50

million votes. senator marshall -- my question is, like lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. i wonder about the republican and democratic parties. there might be a number of democrats who might vote for a moderate republican. i wanted to get your take on this. guest: it is a very good question. i would be interested to hear frank's view on this as well. the party is in a fragile situation right now, particularly the republican party. what we have seen, since president trump left office is that there is this tension within the coalition. many traditional republicans, symbolized by liz cheney at this

point -- they want the president to basically disappear. they do not want the former president to have a future in the role of the republican party party because she thinks he is a destructive force. as we saw last night, there are a lot of people who are still devoted to the former president and many republican leaders, lawmakers recognize that, at least in the near future, in 2022 and 2024, it is unlikely that republicans can be successful unless they have both parts of the party pulling together. they need the trump voters, and they need the people who are unhappy with trump and wish he would go away. i do not think the party at this point is going to split, in part because neither part of that party would have critical mass. taking your point about the romney party, if we call it that

, would be able to attract a lot of democratic votes, i think that is questionable at this point. that depends in part on what happens with the democratic party and whether democrats are perceived as more of a far-left and therefore driving some moderates and conservatives out of the democratic party. you could argue we now have four parties. we have two parties within the republican party. we have in some ways two parties in the democratic party, although because of president biden i think the democrats are more united. he is more able to unite the democrats then -- than -- and the republicans' divisions are more serious. we are in a volatile period politically because of the

divisions and the differences within each party's coalition. host: from staten island, new york, stan is next. caller: i want to acknowledge dan balz as one of the excellent reporters. he is open, honest, and gives a fair, objective analysis. i appreciate it. where is the republican party going to be going in the next few years? i really am curious about that. i am getting frustrated. in the last 30 years, can we identify a true leader in this country? again, thank you so much. open, honest, and very objective, and you provide a wealth of information. you and c-span are blessings. guest: thank you.

that is kind of you. at this point, republicans are totally focused on 2022 and winning back control of the house and if possible to win control of the senate. as a result of that, they are trying to put to the side the questions of the future of donald trump, what role he will play in the future, and can they prosper if he is front and center within the party. that is a debate they would like not to have in 2022 and one of the reasons that liz cheney was driven out of the number three position in the house republican conference, because she was continuing to talk about donald trump and with the house leaders want to talk about is joe biden and democratic positions and everything but donald trump. they want to rally as much of

the republican party as they can. this is a debate deferred in some ways until 2024. a lot of this depends on what the former president decides to do, whether he decides to run again in 2024. i think it is premature for anybody to really know, including him, no matter what his thinking and intentions are at this point. there is a lot of time and a lot of things that can happen between now and the thing -- time he would have to make a decision about running. presidential nominating battles are where parties defined themselves and where candidates help redefine a political party. we will have to wait until after the midterms to see what the status of the republican party is at that point and then to see what the field of potential candidates begins to look like. will everybody stand back and

wait for president trump to decide what he is going to do? will some people begin to do active campaigning that needs to be done to be prepared to run? that will obviously be a fascinating period and a significant period in the future of the republican party. for now, republicans are going to try to do everything they can to win in 2022 and then assess what they think of themselves as a party, what they think of their strengths and weaknesses. host: we appreciate the viewer's comment, which is why we always enjoy having you on our program. (202) 748-8001 for republicans and (202) 748-8000 for democrats. i want to go back to something that was posted overnight on the washington post website must the caller talking about the state of the republican party. here are some key republican

leaders, including kevin mccarthy in the house and mitch mcconnell in the senate. [video clip] >> former president trump's actions proceeded the riot -- proceeding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. >> if the president was the party's nominee, would you support him? >> absolutely. >> the president bears responsibility for wednesday? attack -- for wednesday's attack on congress. >> you know why we won that? president trump worked on all these races. >> the president's language and rhetoric often goes too far. yesterday, his lingwood and rhetoric crossed a line. it was reckless. >> the millions of people who went to battle, fighting alongside president trump, and they are terrified, and they want him to go away. let me tell you this now.

donald j. trump and going anywhere. >> what the president did on january 6 to me was inexcusable. he should not have done it. >> do you want him to continue to be the public leader and face of the republican party? >> i think he will be because he has a high approval among republicans and we as a party have to focus on the policies and ideals that in the 2020 election do quite well. >> what it comes to accountability, the president needs to understand his actions were the problem, not the solution. i am not worried about the next election. i am worried about getting through the next 14 days. to the republican party, if you want to win and stop a socialist agenda, we need to work with president trump. we cannot do it without him. host: that courtesy of the washington post. guest: what we have seen is the reality that republican leaders,

no matter what they thought or what president trump did on january 6 at that rally and beforehand in continuing to claim falsely that this was a stone election, they were appalled by that. many of them were appalled by that, but those comments came at a moment when congress was moving in the direction or beginning to take up or had taken up the second impeachment of president trump. senators like senator mcconnell, who voted to acquit the president, wanted to stake out some distance with the president over what he had done on january 6 and before. those words were spoken at a particular moment in our history and the context has to be considered. what those second set of comments indicates is

recognition that, as senator portman indicated, that president trump continues to have a stronghold on the republican party base. when senator mcconnell says if he is the nominee i will vote for him, that is what the senate republican leader is always going to say. he is not going to say i would not support the nominee of our party. if voters and republican primaries decide they want donald trump as the republican nominee again, very few of these elected officials will say i am not going to support him. there may be a few like senator romney who did not support him in 2016 but they are in the minority. we talked about this earlier. there is a tension now and a recognition on the part of leaders like senator mcconnell

that come up while president trump can be a destructive force in the country at large, the support he enjoys within the republican party has to be respected by them and recognized by them. they have to maneuver through that and around that. that is not going to be easy. host: which leads to the house select committee on the events of january 6 after the deal between democrats and republicans collapsed. here is a speaker nancy pelosi, addressing that issue last week. [video clip] >> it is imperative we seek the truth of what happened. we believe a bipartisan commission would be the west -- best way to proceed, to establish an independent, 9/11 commission. unfortunately, despite the expressed support of seven gop senators, mitch mcconnell asked republican senators to do him a personal favor and vote against

the commission. the republican senators did him a personal favor rather than honoring their patriotic duty to protect and defend. for the past four weeks, there's been attempts from outside groups, from leaders across the country, to persuade the senate to pass the commission. tomorrow will be four weeks since the commission failed in the senate. i asked leading up to today, is there a chance for it to pass? we gave it so much time. not soon. not likely. maybe someday. in the meantime, i'm hopeful that could still happen at some point. this morning with great solemnity and sadness i am announcing the house will be

establishing a select committee on the january 6 insurrection. again, january 6 was one of the darkest days in our nation's history. it is imperative that we establish the truth of that day and ensure that an attack of that kind cannot happen and that we root out the causes of it all. host: that from house speaker nancy pelosi. were there missteps on both sides? initially, speaker pelosi wanted a majority of democrats before acquiescing to a bipartisan committee of an equal number of democrats and republicans and bill negotiations fell through. guest: i would say there were missteps. i thought the ultimate agreement they came to was a formation of an independent commission made a reasonable amount of sense. i had a conversation with the

two chairs of the 9/11 commission on the day of the impeachment votes in the senate and they were at that point -- this is lee hamilton and tom kane. they believed in independent commission was vital to get to the truth of this and a commission that would have two leaders who were in essence above reproach in terms of partisanship, that they have a staff that was equally chosen to represent democrats and republicans but to have members who were not going to approach this in a partisan way. they felt they needed subpoena power to be able to really do their work. their argument was you need as much time as you need.

you should not set time limits. the agreement ultimately was defeated in the senate and did have a time limit. that was one difference. mr. hamilton and mr. kaine were insistent that an independent commission was the best and only way you could get to the truth. when that failed, speaker pelosi decided to take this other route. we will see whether -- what kind of cooperation there is on this, what kind of leadership it will have, what the membership looks like. it would begin with grave doubts among republicans and hostility among republicans because republicans, as we saw in the senate, see this primarily as something that will be used as a weapon by democrats in 2022 against them. they do not want the 2022

election to have anything to do with what happened during donald trump's presidency. the idea that we are going to have a select committee in many ways guarantees that issue gets front and center. having said that, i think there is still a lot to be learned about what happened on january 6. there is a lot to be learned about the role of the president and the people around him. just many questions that have not been answered. an independent commission would have been best situated. i do not know we will ever get to that point. the speaker held out hope that someday there might be an independent commission. the 9/11 commission was not appointed until 2002, so we are in a shorter timeframe here. everything is so much more partisan that getting to that independent commission, even some time out in the future, is

not likely. host: we are talking with dan balz, chief correspondent at his column available at washingtonpost.com. bernie is joining us from kentucky. caller: i was just curious. i watched the video you just showed from the washington post showing rob portman, lindsey graham, and the people who were against what the president did, president trump did on january 6. i was watching that that morning on january 6 with pedro. it all kind of started with mo brooks. he was getting the crowd juiced up and then rudy came out at the president.

they said they were against what he did and should have done some thing different, but later on, 14 days later or however many weeks, they came out and said the opposite. i am wondering about polls. do these people in congress send out polls to constituents to find out what they think so they can decide what they think now? again, you all are the professionals. in all my political knowledge -- all my political knowledge probably comes from watching the west wing. host: thank you for the call. guest: they do do polling. i do not know that they needed to in that period we are talking about because i think it has been clear through the trump presidency that he enjoys overwhelming support among rank republicans. that has been consistent through all polling from the time he was elected until the time he left office.

in that period, they recognized the hold he had on the republican party. that was one of the reasons they did not go ahead the senate and you only had a handful of republicans who voted to convict him in the second impeachment trial. they know where the republican base stands and what the republican base thinks about president trump. as i said earlier, they were expressing personal disgust at what they saw in the president's actions and speeches and behavior on january 6 and before and terms of challenging the election results. they were on the one hand expressing a kind of personal disgust and on the other they were acknowledging lyrical reality. one thing we know about most lawmakers is they are risk-averse.

whenever they go after somebody as powerful as the president of the united states and give comments like that you can be pretty sure they are going to timber it at some point to make sure they are not permanently on the bad side of the president and particularly his supporters. host: john from plymouth, ohio, you are next. please go caller: ahead, john. i just -- first of all, i was surprised the capital was so easy to get into that day. i was surprised that happened. i thought was defended better than it was. one of the reasons people storm the capital -- storm the capitol was because they thought the election was stolen.

they felt things were not done correct, and they were not. how badly we do not know, but that is one reason. the other reason is people in america think the republican party -- they are too much alike. there are some republicans on tv talking a good show of defend the united states, but there are so many of them that backdoor deals that are just not taking care of america first. there is no reason why we can't take care of our own country first and we still have plenty of resources to help the rest of the world, it seems. host: let me go back to his first point because we have had -- have not had a chance to talk to since january 6. you have been a longtime observer of politics in washington history. as you saw the events unfold,

what was going through your mind? guest: i think my reactions were no different than most people, which was it was a horrifying thing to watch. we have never seen anything like this. we have never seen the capitol of the united states storms by a mob, an angry mob. with flagpoles and bear spray and all kinds of weaponry to break into the capitol of the united states to register their anger over the state of the election and in an effort to block what was the last step in certifying the results of the 2020 election. i watched it as everybody else did. i was not at the capitol at the

time. i watched it on television. i watched parts of the president's speech and what happened in the capitol. it was one of those terrible moments, as everybody has said. democrats and republicans alike have described it as one of the darkest days in the history of the country, and i think i wrote that on that day, that it would be remembered as one of the dark days in the history of the republic. watching that, i think everybody had a reaction. when the caller says these are people who were angry over the result of the election or their belief that in some way or another there were irregularities in the election, we have a process in this country for allowing people to vote, getting as many people as possible to vote, for tallying those votes, for examining votes

if there are questions about them, for certifying those votes . and for presidential electors to cast their votes and for those votes than to be certified and alternately ratified in the united states congress. that was the process that was underway on january 6. the answer to people having questions about an election is not to resort to violence and try to take over the capitol and stop the process. that is not what happens in a democracy. i think that is why that day continues to be remembered as such a terrible day the history of the country. it is notable that once the capitol was secured that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were insistent that they come back and finish the process of concluding the election count

, that they did not want anything to have happened that day that would delay this indefinitely, so they came back in the middle the night and finished up. that was a testament to the commitment to the dip -- democratic process as opposed to what we saw happen in the capitol earlier that day. host: we would go -- will go to robert in north carolina. good morning. >> i enjoy your speaker this morning. i think he is very informative. i have two questions. one came up since we have gone into the riots at the capitol. do you think the lawmakers that were hiding under their desk crying, scared for their lives,

will they think about that the next time they want to go to war with another country? could you explain the difference between having to have 60 votes for the current negotiations on infrastructure and then they can pass the other part just with 50 votes? have a good morning. host: robert, thank you. guest: i do not know how many of them were crying under their desks, frankly. i think people were fearful, as i think most human beings would be in a situation like that, where a mob has stormed the capitol and there is limited security. the capitol did a terrific job, reinforced by law enforcement. the capitol police are not informed -- repaired in and of themselves to defend against what we saw on that day.

i think it is understandable that many people were fearful about what might happen to them. they were not armed. they were not trained soldiers. whether that would affect the decision about whether to send people to war, i do not know. i do not know the answer to that. as to your second point, the rules of the senate allow for filibusters. a filibuster can basically stop action on a piece of legislation unless there is a vote to shut off the filibuster. it used to take, many years ago, 67 votes, to shut it off. sometime ago, that was changed so that 60 votes -- with 60 votes a filibuster could be ended and you would move than to consider the piece of legislation. most legislation comes to the floor under those rules.

there is a specific set of rules that allow certain spending measures to come to the floor under this process known as reconciliation. not everything qualifies to be considered under reconciliation. you may recall that, in the discussion about the stimulus package passed at the beginning of the biden administration, there was a proposal and that originally for a $15 an hour minimum wage. the senate parliamentarian ruled that could not be considered under the terms of reconciliation, so that was taken out of the package. when you get approval from the parliamentarian on a package of items under terms of reconciliation, then it can pass with a simple majority.

you cannot do this all the time. you cannot do this multiple times generally in a session. the parliamentarian has a considerable amount of power to determine what can and cannot be in that. i think that will be part of the negotiations that we will be seeing over the next few months as we await what the budget -- budgeteers come up with an terms of this democratic package. host: our last call is from california, kathryn. the morning. catherine? caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. appreciate your opportunity for all of us to come out and speak. i have been listening to you, so very knowledgeable and have expertise in so many areas. i am sitting here in southern california, which we are a democratic state.

we do not even have the opportunity to vote for the other side anymore. i have been to the capitol with my children. i was shocked it was not more secure. however, president donald trump did not incite it. he used words of peacefulness and of just showing our role of what we felt. i do not believe at all that he incited it. the word insurrection did not come about. i believe there have been many investigations on that day with our government. there have been a lot of people that have been researched and brought to trial, ongoing. i do not know why we have to spend our tax dollars with pelosi when i believe her role -- they were warned at the beginning that there may be, in

the internet, different things. fbi, cia. there may be some people that would riot. however, it was not instituted by our president because of the way his words and demeanor and everything. the other thing i was going to share that i would hope you can bring up and respond to is the days of all the american people having access to accurate information with facebook, twitter, and google and cnn, msnbc, and hatred for president trump to the point where they are censoring him. now he's is going to be censored until 2024 on facebook. many people are not getting the fact that his accomplishments are astounding for all the people of all walks of life and of all callers.

host: we will leave it there. a lot on the table in our remaining minute. guest: what i would say is there's obviously a different view of the president's role on that day and in the days before. i do not think you can take that speech in isolation. you can look at different aspects of that speech and come to the conclusion you want about whether he did or did not incite what happened come about the rally was set for january 6, which was not an accident. the days and weeks heading into that included constant statements by the president and efforts on his part to get states to change the vote. his call to the secretary of state in georgia basically asking him to find enough votes to overturn biden's victory in

that state. there were a lot of things that went into that. in terms of the information flow , we are a fractured society at this point. there is a range -- there are a range of places to get information, some more reliable than others. there is a tremendous amount of disinformation that goes out. a lot of is on social media. i think that has made it much more difficult for this country to have any sense of common purpose or common view. it is unfortunate that we have gotten to this point and i do not see an easy way out of this. president biden said in his inaugural speech he would like to try to unify the country. that is obviously proving difficult. we will see whether he is able to be successful in his term as

president. the issue of information is people tend to be selective about where they get it and tends to try to get information from sources where they already know they agree. that is not healthy for our democracy. host: i wanted to get your reaction to the passing of former senator mike ravel. back in the 1970's am a he read about 4100 pages of the pentagon papers. more recently, running for the democratic presidential nomination in 2008, losing to barack obama. your thoughts about his passing? guest: it is a sad moment. he had heard he was in decline. i guess the news of this is not a total surprise. he was a maverick politician and senator and demonstrated that in the congress and later on in terms of his campaign for

president. my sin but these are with his family. -- sympathies are with his family. host: mike gravel passing away at the age of 91. dan balz of the washington post, thank you as always for being with us. guest: thank you. host: promoted that jane harman was going to be joining us. her newest book is called "insanity defense: why our failure to confront hard national security problems makes us less safe." we are unable to connect with her, so we hope to reschedule. we are going to go back to a question we posed of the first hour, which is the issue of guns and whether you think there need to be more regulation of guns in this country. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure about the number to call is (202) 748-8002 . who are and listening to c-span

-- you are watching and listening to c-span's washington journal, our final half hour coming up in just a moment. >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, journalists and law professors compare the definitions of free speech and print -- in france and the united states and explore whether france's model would work in the u.s. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern of the presidency, a discussion with a washington post columnist and the white house historical association president, exploring the american story. watch american history tv today on c-span3. >> in his latest book, the role

drinking has played throughout history. >> alcohol makes it harder to lie. it is harder to make up a lie. more surprising, it makes us better at detecting lies. humans are not -- when we are focusing consciously on detecting lies, we do not do a good job of it. if we relax and take in a variety of cues, we do a better job. in the same way that when we meet, we shake hands to show we are not holding a weapon in our right hand. cultures use intoxicants at treating meetings or business meeting, anything were potentially hostile people need to figure out how to cooperate, as a kind of cognitive armament. >> you can also listen to q&a as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

>> washington journal continues. host: the issue of gun regulations -- are more restrictions necessary? this is a survey. key facts about americans and guns, with 40% of americans saying gun violence is a serious problem. let's look at the homicide rate through this year and the increase in the number of cities, including in portland, oregon, up 82% so far this year. in tucson, arizona, it is up. in los angeles, 35% higher. in philadelphia, 28% higher. this from the president last wednesday. the white house calling for more restrictions and more regulations when it comes to firearms in america. [video clip] >> i have been at this a long time. there are things we know that work to reduce gun violence and violent crimes and things that

we do not know about. things we know about, background checks for purchasing firearms are important. a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. no one needs to have a weapon that can fire up to 100 rounds, unless you think the deer are wearing kevlar vests or something. immunity policing and programs to keep neighborhoods safe and keep folks out of trouble. these efforts work and save lives. over time, these policies are gutted and underfunded. in our conversation today, we talked about our strategy to supercharge what works while we continue to push congress to act on sensible gun violence legislation. host: that from the president last wednesday. tell us your thoughts on whether you think there need to be more regulation. we are dividing our phone lines. from the nra website, there is

this opinion piece, meet biden's gun control team. while running for president, joe biden said repeatedly he would act as a check on radicals and his party. when he became president, he quickly invited those radicals to serve alongside him in his cabinet, despite the rhetoric of inclusion, writes the nra there is not a single person on biden's team can -- protecting the secondment meant. -- amendment -- second amendment. caller: i agree there are no further regulations needed to control guns. i look at it as a colossal failure of our school and education system to educate people on the fact that guns are a very harmful thing and need to

be handled with extreme care. so there is that and there is also -- i think honestly it is a bit of a -- it is cowardice to say we want more gun control. i just can't see that as a solution to the problem that we are facing with guns in the hands of people who are just so deranged that they want to take the life of other people. that is why i think more laws about gun control are not the solution. host: thanks for the call. terry has this on our facebook page, saying come up no, just enforce the ones we already have. stop the no bail and letting criminals out of jail the same day.

from albuquerque, new mexico. more regulations needed? caller: yes. 51 years ago, i started working with a law firm. one of the things i was taught at that law firm was everybody has the right to bear arms but there are certain people in this country who should not have the right to bear any kind of weapons of any kind. most crimes are committed because of motive and opportunity. i think if you look at your records you will see when there is a three day waiting period to buying guns there is a lot less killings. host: on facebook, a lot of you weighing in on the issue regulations. yes, make owning a gun like getting your drivers license. training, test, proof of insurance, and registration. stephen is joining us from gainesville, florida.

caller: thank you for having me on. i had an army-navy surplus store and license to sell weapons. i was very careful about making sure everyone i sold firearms to put their drivers license down. we looked through the florida department of law enforcement did the background check. no firearm ever left me. my problem was they were not registered by our law-enforcement agency. it is not so much the firearm. it is violence. look at all the police shootings on tv, where it is nothing but guns and shooting people in revenge and hate. bring back happy days. i am serious. our schools.

we have a governor in florida that has taken money from our public schools and put into private institutions so they have popped up like you would not believe. you get people being taught ideologies instead of altogether at the public schools, black, white, brown. it does not matter. that is where you get a real education, when you mix it up with people about not segregate yourself from people. i graduated. we had one last kid coming to school with us. i first 14 years of life was on a military base. when he got out of the navy, we moved to jacksonville. the first question the fifth-grade, where is all the black kids and brown kids? i just felt out of place. university of florida. they get there quota of blocks

by the football and basketball team. there is no equal access. you want to stop crime, it is called education. once you get the opportunity to serve your country -- i'm disgusted with america right now. you can always tell an american -- an american in a crowd in a foreign country because we are the fat ones. we have everything in this country. host: the brady organization put together by -- this is from the brady website, saying that 97% of americans want expanded background checks, gun violence costing the country about $229 billion every year. every 16 hours, a woman is shot dead by her current or former -- former partner. joanne joining us from kingsport, tennessee. caller: can you hear me? host: we sure can.

caller: i do not believe we need any more regulation. they need to enforce the ones they have and let the american people have the right to defend their selves against criminals. we do not need regulations. we need the media to quit spewing and agitated state between our country -- this hate between our country. no one hates anyone in this country. i am not a racist. i have been called a racist. they have called the republican party everything but white people. do not think it is right the media keeps stirring up a between the people. it is not guns killing. it is people with hatred in their heart for the other race. host: david kaman is the president's nominee to head up the atf, facing resistance from

republicans. [video clip] >> president biden announced his administration would attempt to combat the alarming rise of violent crime unfolding in our cities across our country. by making it harder for law-abiding americans to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. today, our colleagues on the judiciary committee voted on the nomination of the person the president and tends to lead the effort. david chipman was tapped to be the director of the bureau of alcohol tobacco, firearms, and explosives. if he is confirmed, this nominee would bring to the job a dangerous and unprecedented hostility to the second amendment. we know it from his record as an anti-got extremist and reputation he earned among atf

veterans as an activist and rabbit partisan -- rabid partisan. these are the wrong would've patients to encourage at the helm of an agency charged with firearms enforcement. then again, it should also go without saying that responsible gun owners do not cause surges in violent crime. they actually prevent them. host: the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, and some of your comments. this is from william miller on our twitter page, saying i started school in 1959. there were never shootings until machine guns showed up. machine guns do not belong on our streets. the fox news noise clowns -- guns kill people. bail is not the issue. caller: i'm not exactly sure how

the government has the audacity to try to regulate a right when the second amendment says it should not be infringed. there was a text message earlier that owning a gun is like a drivers license. a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. the government can take away -- suspend your right to drive, but it clearly says the second amendment, shall not be infringed. so any kind of regulation should absolutely not -- we do not need any more and less would be much better. host: this is a text message from a viewer in arkansas. gun violence? i have never seen a violent gun but plenty of violent people who were stopped by a person with a gun. do not take our ability to protect ourselves and our family away.

the new york times is taking a look at mass shootings in this country. it is a partial list, available online. you can see from the new york times, in san jose, california come up nine people were killed. in orange california, four people were killed. in chicago on january 9, five people were killed. in atlanta, georgia come on march 16, there were eight deaths. on april 28 in tune, north carolina, four killed in a mass shooting. we will go to lumberton, texas. caller: good morning. host: if you turn the volume down, we will hear you better. caller: just a moment, please. host: ready to go? caller: yeah. yes. i live in texas and our laws

have been pretty loose and has put fear to people who want to go to shop in our markets. now our governor is opening the gate for anybody to carry a gun anywhere, anytime. it should be noted that businesses will suffer from this because any people are afraid to go to walmart because of what has happened there. and now in texas we have two guys with two guns going in and having some kind of a commotion going and several people could be killed. i do not know what the answer is, but i know the legislation coming out of texas is not going to help our problem. host: thank you for the call. sue has this, it xmas it. she is from new jersey. although we cannot prevent every tragedy, perhaps smarter rather

than more legislation is needed. a federal database, illegal gun turn in programs regularly conducted by law enforcement. back to the debate we heard from the senate republican leader. here is durbin responding to leader mcconnell's comments. [video clip] >> could not help but listen to the republican leader as he came to the floor and talked about david chipman, a man who will be brought to the floor. he was considered today. 11 democrats and one republican, split along party lines on his boat, as expected. senator schumer can still bring his nomination to the floor. it is no surprise that the republicans opposed him. let's put it in context for a moment. how many times have you heard a gun debate and heard someone say we do not need any new laws, we

just need to enforce the laws we have? do not dream up some new law that is going to burden someone who is an innocent, law-abiding gun owner. enforce the laws we have. so what agency do we look to when it comes to enforcement? certainly the department of justice. where do they turn? to atf. that is the agency that is supposed to keep an eye on how guns are being sold. let's take a look at the leader of the agency under president trump. i would like to give you his name or her name, but i cannot because there was no leader. in four years, president trump never nominated any single person to head the agency. was it an oversight? far from it. those who are on the side of increased gun rights at the expense of safety do not want

anyone to lead this agency. they want to this agency to go away. david chipman, a man with over 20 years of experience in the field who worked for this law enforcement agency and risked his life in doing so, has been unaided by president biden to head the agency. the republicans cannot stand the idea. host: that from senator dick durbin of illinois. joey has this tweet. when you show all the mass shootings and that was not all since the new year -- why can't everyone see we have a problem? the gun violence archives looks at gun deaths in this country through shootings and suicides. so far this year, there have been just over 21,000 gun deaths in this country. 9000 -- almost 10,000 as a result of a homicide. 11,007 hundred 48 as a result of suicide. michael from maryland, you are

next. how are you? caller: reasonably well. i just watched a special report on radicalization of the republican party. i got up earlier this morning. it explains quite a bit of what we are discussing this morning and gun control happens to be one of the issues. we need more gun control. host: we will go to britain. this program is carried live on the bbc parliament channel on sunday afternoon. caller: good morning, steve. i was born in the u.s., though i have spent most of my years in the u.k.. my viewpoint on guns is perhaps different than most of your listeners and viewers. i think the genie is already out of the bottle in relation to regular and guns. what would be a good idea as regulating ammo.

if you can regulate by some sort of law that you are only able to purchase x amount of ammo for 12 months, people are less likely to waste ammo and less likely to try to use guns for nefarious purpose. i think that might be a good way of bridging the gap between the second amendment and the desperate need in the u.s. for there to be some form of regulation. i am not sure how that would spin, but that might be a good idea. i was wondering if i could have your own thoughts on that. host: we will leave it there. thanks for phoning in and thanks for watching. president biden outlining more plans on his anti-crime legislation. [video clip] >> the last time we had data on this issue of who was purchasing guns was more than 20 years ago.

5% of gun dealers, in the study we did, showed that 90% of illegal guns were found at crime scenes sold by 5% of gun dealers. so 90% of guns found at crime scenes. these merchants of death are breaking the law for profit. they are selling guns that are killing innocent people. it is wrong. we are going to crack down on those dealers and the violent criminals they knowingly arm. the justice department is issuing -- going to issue an annual report on gun trafficking so we can update data. the department is announcing a major crackdown to stem the flow of guns used to commit violent crimes. it is zero-tolerance for gun dealers who willfully violate laws and regulations. zero-tolerance. if you willfully sell a gun to

someone who is prohibited from possessing it, if you willfully fail to run a background check, if you willfully falsify a record, failed to cooperate with a tracing request, my message is this. we will find you and seek your license to sell guns. we will mixture -- make sure you cannot sell death and mayhem on our streets. it is an outrage. it has to end and we will end it. host: this is the headline. is biden targeting lawbreaking gun dealers? excess restriction and a national gun registration were guaranteed with the far-left and for control. defunding law enforcement and standing down orders in key loose cities and like magic radicals have the narrative. sandy is joining us. caller: i do not think we need

any more gun laws. they are not being enforced, the ones that we have. they are getting rid of the police, so of course there is going to be more crime. that is what they want. how many years at the democrats said we are not after your guns? and then bingo night and says we are after your guns. -- biden says we are after your guns. guns are not just for sport and people breaking into your home and trying to kill you. it is for a tyrannical government. they are letting people out of prison, committing crimes no bail, just letting them loose to kill more people, and they are worried about crime? they are not worried about crime. they are worried about people having guns to protect themselves against -- like we are really after the government? really? we are not radicals that guy

said. republicans are law-abiding and believe in the constitution and democrats believe in communism and putting all republicans in jail. thank you. host: from the new york times, this is the headline. residents wonder if they're building could be next. a makeshift memorial is being set up outside that destroyed condominium in florida and which 156 residents are still missing and many presumed dead. we will take one more call but first a reminder that jane harman, who we had scheduled to have on this program during the final 45 minutes of the program her book is titled "insanity defense: why our failure to confront hard national security problems makes us less safe." she is a former democratic member of the house of representatives, serving for 17 years, and former ranking member of the house intelligence

committee. we hope to reschedule her at another time. howard, you get the last word on this from pennsylvania. caller: less regulation. the biggest problem i haven't heard yet from anybody is the problem. the problem is the media and the politicians. when we let people go down main street, philadelphia, new york saying shoot the pigs, fry them like bacon, burning down portland, kenosha and all of this stuff, how do you feel the -- they will take all of this? host: thanks for your call. all of our coverage is available online anytime at c-span.org and be sure to check out book tv on c-span2 this sunday in american history tv on c-span3. we are back tomorrow morning at

7:00 a.m. eastern time with the washington journal. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> c-span unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with committee centers to enable wi-fi enabled -- so students can get what they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a

public service. along with these television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> in his latest book, edward looks at the role drinking has made throughout history. >> alcohol makes it harder to live for instance. you paralyze the prefrontal cortex and also, it makes us better at detecting lies. so humans are not when were -- when we are focusing consciously on detecting lies we did not do a good job at it. what if we take in a variety of cues, we do a better job. in the same way when we meet we shake hands to show we are not holding a weapon, cultures use intoxicants at treating meetings or business meetings, anything where you are -- where

potentially hostile people need to figure out how to cooperate as a cognitive disarmament. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." ♪ >> next, defense secretary lloyd austin tells the house armed services committee he supports removing the prosecution of sexual assaults from the military chain of command after reading the final report from an independent review commission. also testifying, of the joint chiefs of staff chair, the chief military leaders were on capitol hill to talk about the president's 2022 budget. ut four hours.