talk about the former president's influence on the gop and the direction of the party living -- leading into the midterm elections. join the conversation with your text, tweets -- texts, tweets and calls. >> we must ask when in god's name will we do what needs to be done to change the amount of carnage that goes on in this country? to state the obvious, i am sick and tired. president biden -- host: president biden, once again calling for action in -- on gun legislation in the wake of the shooting in uvalde, texas. this morning, we want to hear from gun owners, only. his compromise on gun safety

possible? if you live in the eastern central part of the country, dial in at (202) 748-8000. mountain pacific, (202) 748-8001 . we will get to your calls in a minute. a group of bipartisan senators is being led by the democratic congressman from attica, chris murphy, appointed by chuck schumer, to lead negotiations. the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, has appointed john cornyn to be the lead for the republicans. let's listen to senator murphy outside of the capital, with gun advocates and other democratic numbers of congress. >> we will do two things. first, we will extend a hand of partnership to those students -- those who have been sitting on the sidelines, those who have

chosen to side with the gun lobby and we will offer them a seat at the table. today, we will be engaged in bipartisan conversations to try to find a path forward to make our streets safer, to make our school safer. and our goal and our hope and our belief is that we can find that common ground and that we will be facilitated in finding that common ground by a popular uprising of citizens. who are going to make clear if you don't do the right thing here, you aren't coming back here. but, if we don't succeed, if we don't succeed, we are having boats. we are putting people on the records. one way or the other, we will have a debate here. we are going to force people to tell america which side they are on. right? so, we are going to work our

tails off to try to get that compromise. but we are not going away. we are not being silent. and let me just say this for i turn this over to my brain colleagues. i know this is a moment where a lot of people feel -- folks feel this moment of deja vu and we have been here over and over and over again. i'm looking at my friends from sandy hook and i don't know how they get up and go back to work. i know the great social change movements in this country, the one thing you read about in the history books, they don't succeed in a year or two years. they often take time. sometimes they take a decade or more. sometimes they get met with these huge obstacles and setbacks. but they are so confident in the righteousness of their cause. they are so confident the status quo will finally break that they never, ever give up and we are

never, ever giving up. host: democratic senator from connecticut, chris murphy, who is the lead negotiator for any compromise bill with democrats and republicans on the hill. this morning, we are talking to gun owners only. according to the trace.org, there are nearly 82 million adult americans in this country who own a gun. if you are one of them, we want to hear. are you willing to compromise? if not, why not? and if so, how? where do you see common ground. emily cochran and katie edmonton report -- edmonson report that members worked quickly to reach a deal on modest steps to limit access to guns. they agreed to spend the memorial day recess examining a number of proposals, including ways to incentivize states to pass so-called red flag laws,

aimed at taking firearms away from potentially dangerous people and expanding criminal background checks for gun buyers. the wall street journal, also reporting on yesterday's meeting on capitol hill, lawmakers opened talks on possible gun bills and they report that along with mr. murphy, who you just heard from, along with fellow democratic senators joe manchin of west virginia, martin heinrich of new mexico, kyrsten sinema of arizona and martin blumenthal held a meeting for 25 minutes. the republicans that were there were senators pat toomey of pennsylvania, lindsey graham of south carolina, susan collins of maine and bill cassidy of louisiana. those are the senators, a possible bipartisan group who can reach some carmen -- common ground. republicans would need 10

republicans -- 10 votes to overcome a filibuster. mike from ohio, let's hear from you. mike, go ahead. mike, are you there in jackson, ohio? caller: yes. my question is what is being proposed that is actually going to realistically reduce gun violence? we heard about universal background checks. but the problem -- are you here? host: we are listening. you said universal background checks, you are hearing about that. but the problem is what? caller: the problem is that it doesn't work without a universal registration. and if you check with the fbi and ask how many crimes have actually been solved with registered guns, the answer is

almost none. it simply doesn't happen. the guns are bought by somebody else. the atf has been illegally violating the federal law on keeping databases on american gun owners. they literally cannot be trusted with that kind of information because the only real value in a database is having a list of everybody who has a gun. and we see in california and new york and other places where they use this to go in and confiscate gun as -- guns as the reason why you don't want to do that. but that is the major thing the gun banners want to get accomplished. we don't trust the federal government with that kind of information because people have demonstrated the propensity to violate it. host: what about red flag laws?

would you be in support of that? it would allow state and local officials to confiscate a gun if that person has exhibited violent behavior toward family members or friends, etc.. caller: if you look at the way those laws are written, what happens typically is you see in divorce decrees that one of the most common complaints is that my husband used violence against me. but when it goes to trial, you find out he didn't. that is exactly what will happen with the red flag laws. you have no due process, you go in and sees somebody's guns. if somebody is legitimately threatening someone, that person should go in for a mental health check.

they have to go get a lawyer typically to get there -- their guns back despite there is no crime. that is a civil rights violation. host: when did you start owning guns? what age? caller: i was about 25, 26, something like that. host: would you support raising the age when you can buy a gun? right now in some states, it is 18. in wyoming, a gun friendly state, it is 21. would you be in support of raising it to 21? caller: how old do you have to be to join the military? that is the age for most people. i would not support that. host: you have to be 20 want to drink alcohol.

-- 21 to drink alcohol. caller: the age you can join the military, that's the standard right there. host: mike in jackson ohio, he mentioned universal background checks. it would expand background checks to would-be purchasers on the internet and at gun shows and give the fbi more time to investigate gun buyers flagged by the background check system. that passed the house. it has not passed the senate. as we said, john cornyn is in talks with the democrats over possible legislation. he was on the floor this week and here is what he had to say. >> i can't fathom the pain of seeing an empty bed where your child slept the night before. knowing we can't turn back the clock to prevent this tragedy from occurring, the obvious question is how do we prevent something like this from

happening again? at this point, law enforcement is still investigating. and piecing together the full story. in the coming days, i expect we will have better information about the shooter and his background and the circumstances that led to this senseless, brutal act. once it does, i am eager to see whether there are any gaps that may have done something to make this attack less likely. that may have prevented this attack from taking place. in the past, i have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to prevent senseless tragedies occurring through things like the mental health and safe communities act. in the summerlin springs shooting, his criminal convictions were not uploaded by the air force into the background check. he was able to go to a local

sporting goods store and buy weapons by lying and buying. i'm convinced that working with senator murphy and all of our colleagues, we were able to get 70 or more sponsors on that bill because it actually addressed a real gap in the system. it would actually give us some hope that we could save lives in the future. i'm not interested in making a political statement. i'm not interested in the same old tired talking points. i'm interested in what we can do to make the terrible events that occurred in uvalde less likely in the future. and now, we don't know everything we need to know. once we do, i expect there will be an informed debate about the reforms we can make and i look forward to participating in those discussions. host: texas senator john cornyn, he was in uvalde the day before,

after the school shooting there. we are asking gun owners only to call in and tell us what you think about possible compromise in congress on gun legislation. steve from ridgeway, pennsylvania, what do you think? caller: i don't understand the wording of the question and how you post something like that. nobody that i know -- everybody i know is a gun owner, just about. nobody compromises on gun ty. if you are looking for -- to figure out a different tactic for gun control, say it. don't try to dillydally around it. there is no compromise on gun safety. there is compromise on possible gun laws and background checks.

perhaps if law enforcement people had done things differently leading up to this, where this young man had gone around and shot bb guns, how is that not on the radar? how he see -- how is he not already in the criminal justice system? if you were there, he would never be able to purchase these guns, any kind of a gun. one of the rifles he bought was an extremely expensive rifle. where does a kid with no job get a couple of thousand dollars to walk into a gun store and buy something like this? there are just so many unanswered questions. we have our media and all they want to do is put on sad faces and interview people and get an emotional story and it is

heartbreaking. the people down there, they are going through something that nobody should ever go through. is it going to happen again? more than likely. we have society and mental health issues going on in this country that nobody seems to ever want to address. and i don't think that senators get together and talk about bipartisan stuff, they are just thumping their chest and playing politics like they always do. host: before you go, are you open to red flag laws? you talked about the shooter down there exhibiting behavior that should have raised flags. would you be open to red flag laws, where in this case, if there was a red flag law in place, they could go to homes and confiscate any guns, etc.?

host: i think that it is a possibility. there is always the loss of unintended consequences. just like the first caller said, if somebody makes a report, an indicative report of someone and they could possibly take somebody's guns for no reason whatsoever. you have to have a lot of trust in the government to go into that sort of situation. personally, i don't have that much trust in our government. host: i want to show glenn kessler, he reports red flag or extreme risk laws that allow police to take firearms away from people who exhibit concerning behavior have been passed in 19 states and the

district of columbia, according to gun safety which advocates for gun control laws. at least 16,008 hundred 57 extreme risk petitions were filed. florida, which passes -- passed the law after the marjory stoneman douglas shooting in 2018 has used it 6000 times since then. new york's red flag laws were not drawn against peyton gendron. he said he intended to commit murder suicide and was taken to the hospital. police chose not to seek a red flag order because he did not name a specific target. the government has a signed -- has signed an executive order to strengthen the law. we will go to stephen anaheim, california. steve, it is your turn. caller: good morning, greta. host: good morning. caller: let me see if i can be articulate. i will tell you a story.

when i was young, i was holding guns since i was 13 to 12 years old. these were handed down to me from past relatives. we move out to california and i had kids. i got rid of all of my guns because i didn't want to be on the news, kid got into somebody's gun and got shot. recently, since my kids are grown up, i decided to repurchase my hunting rifles and went into one of these gun stores. i've been through background checks and all this other stuff. i figured it wouldn't be a problem to buy a gun. i get in there and the regulations have changed. i'm old enough to remember why -- when you had a two week waiting period. it was made so you wouldn't commit suicide with a gun. you would have to wait two weeks. i have to have a cable bill, i have to have a test.

i have all these regulations i have to go through just to buy a simple gun. i'm not talking about and ar-15. i'm talking about a hunting rifle. i can't get the rifle because they don't have them in the store. they have the ar's and all the other guns i don't want. trying to get through this stuff is a nightmare. i can actually understand why there are so many illegal gun sales, because of all of these stupid laws. you cannot stop stupid or criminals or people who are crazy. it's just the way it is. i want to leave you with this thought. ok? i don't know what has happened to the bill where if they want to stop violence or stuff like that, bring resources to these people so they have something to do. here is the thought i want to leave you with. all a man wants is something to love. if you can't have something to

love, he wants something to hope for. if you can't have something to love or hope for, he wants something to do. thank you very much. host: steve, is there any area where you would compromise, based on what you just said? what would you like to see happen? caller: no, i would not compromise. we have every law or restriction you could possibly have in california. it is crazy. host: you mentioned discussed with ar-15's. would you limit access to those? caller: they are not ar-15. they are guns that look like ar-15's. most of the bullets they sell, or like 9mm. you can't get a 36 or a 33 because they don't make the bullets anymore. that's your problem. it is a fashion deal. let's go out and buy the stupid

gun. host: steve, we lost you. you're breaking up. we will have to move on. steve in anaheim, california. steve mentioned two weeks you would have to wait to receive a gun. and he said it was to prevent suicide. from the new york times, what is it about the u.s. that produces such gun violence? most shootings in america never appear in national headlines. the majority of gun deaths in 2021 were suicide. nearly half were homicides that occurred outside of mass shootings. there are more typical acts of violence on streets and in homes and most involve handguns. mass shootings were response offer less than 2% of last year's gun deaths. stricter gun laws could reduce the more common gun deaths. it comes down to the same problem.

monday -- more guns equals more gun deaths. whether a gang shooting, a suicide in wyoming or a school shooting in texas. lester, let's hear from you. go ahead. caller: hello. how are you? host: good morning. caller: i am the son of a world war ii hero. and they took away guns. jewish people didn't have protection and many thousands and thousands of people were killed. my dad landed on normandy beach. the reason i believe in gun rights and i have owned guns, i worked my way up to hunting and fishing. i have five of the second

amendment, we have the right to carry. this red flag -- i feel a person has a right to hold a gun. these people who are committing suicide and stuff like that, they weren't raised around guns. my situation is my parents told me if you wanted to have a gun, you need to be around us. if you kill somebody, you will get the electric chair or whatever. when that is in your head, you don't think about doing stuff

that to anybody. -- bad to anybody. we grew up in a town in oregon where if anybody had a problem with anybody, we didn't pull a gun or anything like that. fist fighting was the way of getting our tempers over with. if a child is put down, i think parents need to be watching out for that. i worked in the school district for years and years and years. i feel that a child should -- if i catch them in a fight, i

would say you guys need to break it up. or whatever to get over the situation or talk to the principal or teacher. it is a situation with this gun think where our children are not taught we can go to prison for it. host: more calls coming up with gun owners only this morning. i also want to let you know what is happening in houston, texas today. the national rifle association is gathering their and they will hear from -- there and they will hear from former president trump, texas governor greg abbott will not be there in person. he is going to have a recorded message to those gathering in houston. ted cruz is also expected to

attend. we will have coverage of that on c-span today at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. it goes until 6:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch it here on c-span, on our website, c-span.org or you can get the video app and listen to what the former president and lawmakers have to say. mike in west virginia. mike, gun owners only, what do you say about gun legislation? caller: ok. i'm 76 years of age. i spent four years in the service. i used an m-16 in the service. i know what that gun can do. it's made for one thing. to kill people. the bullet it shoots, the 556 millimeter, it explodes on contact because of the velocity. you have these ar-15's, which anybody can buy, but shoots the same bullet.

it destroys the game if you are hunting. it is made for one thing. to kill people. when i got out of the service, i bought three guns. i got out of the service in march 10 -- on march 10, 1969. i bought a rifle and a shotgun to hunt with and i bought a handgun to keep in my house for protection. i think there are some possible things that can be uncompromising. i would like to see the age go up to 21 for any type of a gun. in most of the states, 18 years of age, you can buy in ar-15. in some of the states, you can buy a handgun at 18. i think that age can be moved up to 21 for any type of a gun. i think the red flag issue could possibly work. one thing i would like to see is two things, if you give me a second.

i would love to see, when you buy a gun, you have to fill out this form. it is an alcohol, tobacco, firearms form and it has some questions on it. you do a background check that goes to the fbi. you get approved or denied for the purchase. i think that forum needs to be built up stronger with a lot more questions dealing with mental issues and dealing with what you did, any types of felonies or different types of things. i think it needs to be a little bit stronger so that everything you are saying is true. i think that would help some. however, the gun shows, they don't do none of this. i went to a gun show and i never bought a gun at a gun show. i went to see what they were like.

you can walk in there with $5,000, walk-in in, by any gun you want, no background check, no registration, nothing. walk out with a gun. i think bill clinton did a good job in 1994 of getting that 10 year moratorium on assault rifles. that would be the thing we need to do if possible. i don't think it is possible right now. i think it will be within a year or so that we can get an assault rifle moratorium. host: mike, it sounds like you are for expanding background checks, making them apply to internet sales and these gun shows. caller: absolutely. like i said, i own three guns. i bought them in 1969. i'm 76. i have not used them for years. i went to the gun show and i couldn't believe it. i walked in to see what it was like. i couldn't believe people walk in and do that. that is where the strongest

portion of it is. we need to do something to get assault rifles out. host: let's pick up on that point. from washington post, glenn kessler reports the assault weapons ban in 1994, president bill clinton signed it into law, banning large capacity magazines, those that can hold more than 10 rounds. it was in place for 10 years until congress let it lapse. it was riddled with loopholes, such as allowing copycat weapons to be sold, limiting its effectiveness. the band became more -- the ban became more effective during the end of its 10 year period. it says that president biden claimed mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. he appears to be relying on a study of data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019.

that report found an assault weapons ban would have prevented -- the data used in the study has come under attack by some analysts. meanwhile, a research professor at columbia university studied high fatality shootings involving six or more people for rampage nation. he said compared with the 10 year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37%. and the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43%. but after the band last in 2004 -- ban left in 2004, the numbers rose sharply. a 230 9% increase in deaths. -- 239% increase in deaths. dave, let's hear from you. caller: short story, no compromise, not now and not

ever. our system of government, we hear about the three branches. the founders put the repository of force in the executive branch and the people. the legislative and judicial branch don't have any repository force. let's talk about these mass shootings. the question is are they really naturally occurring or is somebody behind these shootings? is someone manipulating mentally challenged people to do this? host: who would that be that would do that? caller: who did the las vegas shooting? i'm glad you asked. in my opinion, anyone who wants to entertain the subject to discuss it should know who raised $73 billion -- made $73 billion off the las vegas shooting. it was a democratic owner. host: ri, dave in new york. he said no compromise -- alright, david new york, he said

no compromise. president biden said it is not absolute. listen to what he had to say. >> as chairman of the jewish there -- judiciary committee and vice president, it has been my career working for common sense gun reforms. as a senator and vice president. they clearly will not prevent every tragedy, but we know certain ones will have significant impact and have no negative impact on the second amendment. the second amendment is not absolute. when it was passed, you couldn't own a canon. you couldn't own certain kinds of weapons. it -- there has always been limitations. host: president biden on the second amendment. we are talking with gun owners only. there is a report that there are nearly 82 million adult americans who own guns in the

united states. if you go to the traced out or, which is dedicated to following this debate, you will find other numbers as well. here is one for you. 693 is the number of mass shooting incidents in the united states in 2021, when defined as four or more people shot. 2021's total is 13.4 percent higher than 2020. the shootings claim 702 lives and injured 2844 people. bronson in pueblo, colorado. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, america. i'm a disabled veteran who served during the vietnam war. i have a bachelors in the school of social work. the problem i see is 35

senators. 50% of republican senators are against gun control. the nra is able to fund campaigns of 35 senators that run every six years. 35 senators. they are funded by the nra. they are funded by gun manufacturers. they are funded by gun shooting galleries. my solution -- i have a solution. pump up the senators to equal the number of representatives -- bump up the senators to equal

the number of representatives, which is approximately 435 that way, they won't be able to fund these republican senators. host: and you are a gun owner? caller: yes. host: ok. what kind of gun? caller: i have a son in california that loves assault weapons. he doesn't have my phone number anymore. it's totally crazy to own assault weapons. some of these people are planning to overthrow the government with their assault weapons. host: bronson mentioned senators who oppose gun control legislation. there is a section in the new york times on where senate republicans stand on gun

legislation. the new york times reported -- reached out to all 50 republicans in the senate. in the paper this morning, they listed senators who are opposed or leaning no. you can also see their nra rating and how much funding they have received over the years from the nra. comparing john barrasso, $27,000. roy blunt served in the house for many terms before he went to the senate. his career funding is $4.6 million with an a rating. karen, hi, karen. caller: good morning. my first point is why should gun owners compromise? when these things happen, the first thing they do is go after

legal gun owners. but, no. i don't think they should pass anymore gun laws. number one. number two, they have to define what an assault weapon is. they throw that term out and say all these weapons are assault weapons. he did not have an assault weapon. an assault weapon is a fully automatic pistol or rifle and he did not have that. and ar-15 is not considered an assault weapon. first of all, you have to define what that is. secondly, gun laws, the gun laws they have now aren't working. have you looked in chicago? have you looked at los angeles? everybody will say ok, everybody turn in their guns. everybody turn in their guns. we will -- do you think the cartel or gang members will turn in their guns? no, they are not going to. the run reason -- one reason i say gun laws don't work is you

have a lock where you are not supposed to bring guns on school property. the shooter did not care about that law. the other thing i want to know is why don't they look up the schools and say hey, lock down your schools? have resource person there with a weapon. let the teachers arm themselves. if the teacher had a gun, that would have been the end of the shooting, maybe. host: how about raising the age? just that, an 18-year-old, when you turn 18, being able to buy a gun, what about raising the age to at least 21 for maturity reasons, etc.? would you be open to that? caller: i don't have a problem with that. right now, you have to be 21 to purchase a pistol. for the rifles, you don't. you have the ar-15.

i asked my husband who is more into this than i am and he is like well -- i don't think he would have a problem with it either, especially when all these shooters seem to be on the younger side. when these things happen, we need to focus on mental health. obviously they have a mental health problem. no normal person walks into a school or an office or walmart and starts shooting people. there is something wrong. and maybe they need to -- the government is all big on making all these committees and department. why don't they have one to legitimately study all of the shootings and find out what the underlying cause is. the democrats want to take away our guns and the republicans are saying no, you can't do that. we have to defend or protect the second amendment. somewhere, there has to be some kind of compromise.

i don't know what that is. but i believe it is more of a mental health thing. the first thing the democrats want to do is take away everybody's guns. that's the way i feel about it. host: i want to read this for you and others, it is an opinion piece in the new york times, a guest essay. gun reform could say 15,000 lives. we can achieve them. this piece, written today by nicholas kristof, a former times opinion columnist. he was a candidate for the democratic nomination of governor of oregon this year. i want to read a piece about the age as you were talking about. for example, consider the minimum age to buy or possess a gun. the suspect in the texas and buffalo shootings were only 18. that's not a surprise. americans ages 18 to 20 account for 4% of the population but 17% of those known to have omitted a murder. in wyoming, one of the most pro-gun states in america, the

minimum age to buy a gun is 21. -- if we say teenagers can't buy a beer, isn't it worth having a conversation about whether they should be able to buy an ar-15 style rifle? one study found that 17% of all firearms offenders obtained guns legally but would not have been able to do so if their state required handgun purchases to be 21. let's hear from david in washington. our first hour for gun owners, only. when did you first buy a gun? caller: my first possession was when i was 13. my father bought a firearm for me. i am 66 now. host: and you still own guns?

caller: yes. i still own guns. i have recently -- there is a reason why. i had a 50 caliber and i gave it to a friend for hunting. you can transfer those without issues. to be honest, i would require a back -- a background check for it. i'm college educated with a lot of statistical knowledge. when sandy hook occurred, --

politics others the dickens out of me. i hear democrats and republicans but the question is where are the numbers and what works? i looked at the u.s. and i did see differences. but i also saw that the states with the highest number of firearms that were found at fire scenes were transported from out-of-state into states with higher regulation requirements. illinois, california is down but particularly in the northeast. coming from the south to the northeast, they called it the iron corridor. that makes good sense because of the weakness of firearm regulation, it is easy to

transport. that is not where i changed my mind and put my head down and said my god, why didn't i notice -- no this? i could see the firearm death rates and up that time, there were 2300% -- they were 2300% higher in fire homicides and 3600% higher in all other methods of highest -- homicides. according to david hemingway, who i don't know if you know, he is part of the harvard and business part of this study, he said there seems to be some sort of relationship with a high

percentage of homicide in this nation, it seems to blend over into other methods as well. and you can't correlate. it seems to repeat itself over and over again. i started wondering what are they doing in the developed world that is different from ourselves. they require licensing. in that process, many don't require background checks for the purchasing. they require the background check when you get your license. they require theoretical and actual use of that in training. plus, the background check usually requires mental health

as well as criminal. in israel, they deal with addiction as well. host: i will pick up on what you're saying and show some numbers. the united states, compared to other countries. from the new york times, the number of mass murders in developed countries, 101 in the united states between -- developed countries in 1998 to 2018. it depends on how you define mass shootings. the reporting from nicholas kristof, he says the truth is we are not going to ban guns in the united states anymore than we ban alcohol, knives or any other weapon that can be deadly.

bites of gun control versus the second movement -- amendment has created a stalemate as we lose 45,000 lives to gun violence. that is 123 every day japan typically uses -- loses a single digit number of people to gun murder in a year. we lost twice that in a single school in texas. we don't ban cars. we do work to make vehicle safer. auto safety is a boring, non-politicized endeavor that is driven by engineers that have enabled us to live with dangerous objects and reduce the auto fertility rate -- auto fatality rate. in kansas, good morning. caller: there needs to be some

change of loss. when you go from one state to the next, they are different. i'm an nra member, lifetime. sometimes i really wish i wasn't because they want to make guns a lot easier to access in many ways. there needs to be more of a nationwide -- more of a background check. it is too easy for so many people. in texas, everybody owns a gun. there needs to be a better check. i have a concealed carry permit. and for concealed carry permit, they have a lot more checking of your past history. it's too easy to get guns. thank host: you.

ok -- caller: thank you. host: ok, the knees. mark, what do you think? caller: a few of your callers have stolen my thunder. to add a couple of things, a lot of numbers have been thrown around this morning. the one number i haven't heard is the number of times that crime has actually been thwarted with the use of the gun. that's the number you don't hear very much. that number approaches about a half million times a year in the united states. the democratic party has been calling for gun control since the 1800s, immediately following the civil war. they have a history of calling for gun control. right after the civil war, they didn't like the fact that blacks were arming themselves against the clan. and the democratic party did not like that because the clan was

there street team. -- their street team. they have always wanted to see weapons -- seize weapons from citizens. they had a buyback in australia 13 or 14 years ago. if you want to see what america would look like if the democrats got their way when it comes to seizing guns, look at what happened in australia last year when they were isolating and locking up. they wanted to do that here but they wouldn't dare because their citizens are armed. there is a reason we have the secker -- second amendment. it starts with congress shall not. that is what people don't realize. it is not the governments job to grant rights of people being able to own guns.

the second amendment limits the governments power of people being able to own a gun. i'd also like to say one more thing before i hang up. i'd like to add that when it comes to mass shootings, we have mass shootings every week in this country. we have high schools and inner-city places like chicago, detroit, dozens of kids every week are injured, injured or killed with handguns. the fact is that rifles only account for 3% of so-called mass shootings that go on. thank you. host: we will go to troy in west virginia. the morning. gun owners only on the washington journal in our first hour. share your thoughts with us. caller: hi, greta. how are you? host: good morning. caller: the first thing i want to say is that the caller that

was just on before is a very smart man. but some of the callers need to do definitely educate themselves . that way, they can have an educated opinion and not just an opinion, especially when it comes to something like this. one of the things i want to say is hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment. ok? people need to understand what is and what isn't an assault weapon. there is no such thing as an assault weapon. the next thing i want to say is people need to understand how firearms are purchased as well. you have to fill out a 44 73 h. they have all of the information on it. we do have 4473's. you are asked a lot of questions on those forms and yes,

people can why on there or not answer something correctly. that will happen -- lie on their or not answer something correctly, that will happen. when you go to a gun show, you must fill out a 4473 and that must be approved before you can take the firearm. the biggest thing i can say is people need to educate themselves before they start having these wild, crazy opinions on how you can purchase a firearm and what is supposedly an assault weapon. it burns meat when i hear people say that. -- burns me when i hear people say that. i am former military and police. it is really upsetting to hear these people get on here and just blurt out whatever they hear, go on the internet, everyone has access, to find out this information and they should. host: from what we have talked about this morning, is there

anything you heard that you would be open to? caller: as far as what? gun control? host: raising the age of when you are allowed to purchase a gun, red flag laws, anything? caller: i don't think they need to raise the age. in our society right now, it has gotten to the point where we have gotten away from the family structure. things have changed so much and you have kids out here who are not being supervised. they are not being talked to. they are not being educated. nothing. this is the result of that. i don't know whether or not -- from what i understand, the shooter's mother was not in his life for different reasons. we -- where are the fathers?

you have got to find a way to bring the fathers back into the family structure. otherwise, this type of stuff will repeat itself over and over again. host: ok. troy in west virginia. in response to what happened in buffalo, new york, the senate, led by democrats put on the floor a domestic terrorism bill. here is the washington times joseph clark. senate republicans blocked the final passage of a measure to create domestic terrorism unit within the fbi, department of homeland security and the justice department. the house recently it passed the house. on a near party line vote. 223-203. it was part of the democrats new push against domestic terrorism in the wake of the mass shooting at the grocery store in new york. listen to senator rand paul, a republican of kentucky on why he opposed this bill. >> today, we will have a bill

before us, a stinson lee titled and a stem sibley -- host and civilly -- ostensibly titled and most in sibley -- ostensibly -- i have met our nation policeman. i have visited with policeman across kentucky to our -- in our big cities and small. i have not met one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of racial rage. what i have met are proud policeman who care about protecting our society and care about their fellow officers. i have not met one policeman who would not defend their partner, black, white, jewish, christian, muslim, i don't see the kind of

insulting rage the democrats have for our police. host: senator rand paul on the senate floor when they debated the domestic terrorism bill. it was blocked by republicans this week. laura, when did you first own a gun? caller: i purchased my first gun around the age of 30. host: why? caller: primarily for self-defense. if anybody broke into my home and had a gun, i would be a serious -- at a serious disadvantage, especially as a woman since i don't have the strength a man has. i think a gun is a great equalizer. and i think that because the current administration, biden and his folks are demonizing one sector or one group of people within our society, especially whites, i think that what that does is it enrages people.

i think that, truthfully in my opinion, the buffalo incident is a direct of biden demonizing white people. it gets them angry. it makes people angry when you are singled out and called a white supremacist and a racist and you are this and that. host: just to be clear, you are not justifying what happened in buffalo because of that. caller: know, there is no justification for harming another individual. i am a libertarian. i think you have the right to live your life and choose and make your choices. do no harm to others. when i applied for my guns, i had my background check. even when i got my first gun, i had to fill out paperwork and they did a background check on me. i was approved and i got my guns. i think if you're going to raise the age limit to 21, you need to do that for voting and also

serving in the military. i personally don't think many 18-year-olds are qualified to vote. i don't think they have enough history our understanding of our government. i think that the younger caller: what i a lot of people do not know is our history. when the american revolution occurred, britain tried to disarm the american citizens. they tried to take our guns. had they succeeded, we would have never won the american revolution. now, with this administration being so anti-police, people are on their own. if you have an incident at your home and you are calling the police, it could be an hour or two before they show up. if they even do anything, a lot of them are not willing to do anything because they have been demonized. that is up to citizens to defend ourselves. remember, citizens of america, governments do not like it when the american people are free.

host: we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we turn our attention to the durham special counsel investigation into alleged -- between the trump campaign and russia. we talk with washington times white house reporter jeff moore talk about that. later, charlie sykes, details the primary season so far. former president trump's influence on the party, the direction of republicans heading into the midterm election this fall. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday on q&a, journalist elizabeth becker, winner of the 2022 goldsmith book prize tells

the story of three women who reported on the vietnam war, during a time when covering war was a male nominated profession. >> there was no embedding leg we have now. there was no military censorship. it was the first and last uncensored american war. the boston telegraph -- it was, for women, a gift because it was only because of this lack of codification, this openness that women could get through what had been the biggest barrier. you are not allowed on the field. >> elizabeth becker with her book "you do not along here." you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app.

>> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a conference in -- conversation about ulysses grant, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the 18th president's birth. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures of history, university of alabama professor leslie gordon on the reconstruction era south, the causes for the civil war, the legacy of confederate statues. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span two. find the full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jeff moore doc is here, he is with the washington times

reporter. here to talk about the durham investigation. let's begin with, what is this investigation, who is the special clout -- special counsel leading it? guest: the former u.s. attorney in connecticut, the top federal prosecutor in that state. he has a reputation for doing big cases, heated cases where he looked into the mafia in connecticut. he has worked with the fbi in a lot of investigations he has a lot of expense. former attorney general william barr appointed him. we had the three year anniversary of this probe this month. what is interesting about this probe, he has gone -- it has gone on longer than the special counsel mueller procured we have seen less people indicted, far less activity out of the durham pro. guest: what was he told to do?

host: to look into the fbi and other u.s. intelligence agencies handle the investigation into president trump's alleged ties to russia ahead of the 2016 election. he has pretty wide variety where he can look into whatever pops up. in 2019 to 2019 -- 2020, he was going overseas, following investigations, tips where they lead. we have seen some indictments that have come out of him. we do not know if more is coming out. what he has been doing is looking at how largely the fbi, but also the cia and other agencies, what they did when they were apprised of the allegations there might collusion between the trump campaign and russia. host: how has he gone about this investigation? how would you characterize it? guest: methodically. he has been methodical in the case that he has built against

michael sussman. as i said earlier, we have approached the three year mark. in that period, we have had three indictments. that has drawn a lot of criticism from both sides. you have conservatives and trump allies wondering what he is doing, why hasn't he caught bigger fish than the people he has indicted? why haven't we learned more about with the clinton campaign was doing to spread anti-trump information? why haven't we learned more about what the fbi did with that information? at the same time, you have liberals and those opposed to trump saying, what is he doing? he has only indicted three people, most of them are pretty low profile. is this just a hunt against people who opposed president trump ahead of the 2016 election, and is this a political witchhunt? the sussman case is going to be the verdict on that. if sussman -- if durham does not

get a guilty plea here, i think you will see calls from those on the left to merrick garland shut this probe down. guest: here is your headline in today's washington times. defense rests without sussman taking witness stand. who is michael sussman? guest: michael sussman was a private attorney with perkins q. week, the law firm that was doing the legal work for the clinton campaign ahead of the 2016 election. he was one of the top lawyers for the clinton campaign, him and mark -- mark elias. what durham has alleged is, in 2016, september 2016, weeks away from that presidential election, michael sussman went to the fbi and told fbi top lawyer james baker that he was not representing a client. he was not doing this on behalf of any client when he brought anti-trump allegations, linking president trump to a russian

back. since then, those claims have been debunked thoroughly. the fbi looked into it and concluded they were meritless, special counsel robert moeller concluded it was meritless. when he was testifying before congress, moeller was asked about the alpha bank allegations. he said as far as he knew, there was no evidence to back these allegations up. host: he goes to -- michael sussman goes to this fbi agent, says he has this evidence, but says he is not representing a client. what does the fbi agent do with that information? guest: it was the fbi's top lawyer, james baker. he had a personal relationship with sussman. that raises an interesting question. james baker is not an agent. he is not an investigator. he is not -- he talked about this when he was on the stand, trained to ask michael sussman questions. he did not know how to handle a tip when it was brought into

him. he was there to advise the fbi on legal matters. with privacy rights and issues like that. he is not somebody you would think he would bring a tip like this to. james baker, the first thing he does is pass it along to fbi agents and top fbi officials. host: when james baker was asked, if you had known that michael sussman was representing the hillary clinton campaign, what would you have done? what did he say? guest: he said he would not have taken the meeting, he said he would've passed them along to the agent. at that point, the fbi had opened an investigation into hillary clinton's use of a private imo server. that investigation -- he would've passed this information onto those agents. those agents would've added it to their own clinton investigation. they were the ones who -- with

experience with the clinton campaign, the trump campaign. he would've passed it along to those agents. they would not have taken the meeting. that goes to the point that durham is trying to make, that sussman has lied -- he is a lessening -- alleging he has lied, the fbi used taxpayer resources, taxpayer money to launch this investigation into allegations that were completely false. host: did the hillary clinton campaign know that michael sussman was going to do this? guest: that is at the center of this trial. durham has alleged in an indictment that this was part of a joint enter by the clinton campaign, they spurred him to go on and meet with the fbi. we have had several witnesses from the clinton campaign testified that the last thing they wanted to do was go to the fbi. they felt the fbi had been unfair to them. robbie wu who was clinton's former campaign chairman, said

that the two to three worst a's of the campaign were caused by the fbi and jim call me reopening the server investigation, not anything donald trump had done. they said the last thing. the other thing they had pointed out, they fear they hadn't gone to the fbi, they would have shut it down. the clinton campaign would have preferred going to the media with these allegations, they thought the media would have give them favorable treatment. if the fbi hadn't concluded the stuff was false, that would have been the end of these this allegations paid one of the big bombshells we have had in this trial, while he was on the stand, robbie luke testified that hillary clinton herself approved taking to the alpha bank allegations to the media, even though they didn't know if it was true at that time. host: what is michael sussman's defense? guest: he did not lie. his ties to the clinton campaign

were well known to the fbi, well known to the fbi at large. and that it wasn't. . the fbi has an ongoing investigation into trump's ties to russia, this was another extension to it. it was wrapped up. host: this is one indictment. what are the other two indictments? guest: we have had him indict kevin klein's men who pleaded guilty in august of 2020 per he is a low level fbi lawyer, when he -- what he pleaded guilty to was doctoring evidence to justify the surveillance of a trump campaign associate carter page. the fbi was submitting information to the pfizer court to wiretap carter page. one of the things you need to do, pfizer court is a court that approves wiretap and surveillance for people deemed to be a security threat to the

united states. it is a secret court. it is not late -- like the federal court in d.c., where we can see the proceedings. we do not know what is going on in the pfizer court. the subject of the wiretap corporation does not have subject to argue, the court has to rely on exculpatory information. what kevin kleinsmith pleaded guilty to, part of the scope of tory information was that carter page had been working as a confidential source for the cia. he changed the document to say that carter page was not a source for the cia, which raises questions to carter pages credibility. what it does, it raises questions about it. had he been a source, it would have shown the government found him credible, the cia would have done their due diligence on carter page and found the allegations against him were not true. kevin kleinsmith pleaded guilty, got probation and low license

suspended for a year. that guilty plea has generated criticism from both sides, because as i said earlier, you have wanted republican to go higher up in the fbi than this low-level lawyer who got probation and is now back practicing law. democrats thought this was a waste of time, he is a low-level guy, why is durham hassling him? host: when he pleaded guilty, what did he say? guest: he said his motivation, at that time, he believed the information was -- saying he was a source was wrong, that is why he changed it. when he said that, a lot of people had called for maybe reviewing the case, calling for the judge not to accept his guilty plea. the federal judge down here did not seem like he had in issue with that guilty plea. it stood. host: last indictment, then we

will get to calls. guest: e court in checo was a key source for the steel dossier. ditching go was a russian analyst working for the brookings institute, he provided a lot of the material for the steel dossier, which have -- the claims have either been debunked or not proven at this point. the steel dossier is important, the fbi used it as part, not entirely, to secure the wiretap on carter page. what durham alleges, he exaggerated, falsified or completely made up some of the allegations, including the most salacious one in the steel dossier, which alleges that president trump had liaison with russian prostitutes in a moscow hotel. what durham is saying, that information came from a clinton pr executive who was a big part of hillary clinton's 2008

campaign, and had close ties with the clinton's. he was the virginia chairman of bill clinton's campaign in 1992 and 1996. durham is alleging that he has passed along a lot of this information. he has denied that, but durham is alleging he passed that information along to him and he put into the report. he is charged with lying to the fbi, durham says he did not reveal the source of where his information was to the fbi. the other thing he allegedly lied to the fbi about, was he said the president of the russian-american chamber of commerce was a key source for a lot of the anti-trump hurt he came up with. sir jay malan says he never spoke to him, he reached out to him, he emailed him called them, he never returned those calls.

host: we will turn to calls. steve in maryland, democratic color. good morning. go ahead. caller: it is hard to sue american institutions from the fbi, to the cia, down the list we go. what it leads to, some of our foreign politicians, such as the clinton's, we are not going to do anything for the clinton's, now are we? we are not going to put them in jail. no, we are not. i hope when the time comes, i get the same type of justice that seems -- i think they call people who have lots of money, if you have lots of money, you can make wonderful things happen. in the judicial system. host: let's pick up on your point, will the special counsel go after the clinton's? guest:

we haven't seen the an appetite. that is what republicans want, what they are hoping for. we have not seen it. to give durham credit, with the sussman case, a guy that is tied to the clinton campaign, we did get a lot of inner workings and bombshells about the clinton campaign and their effort to put unverified, antitrust allegations that were untrue out there for us consumption by the voters. host: was it picked up by the media? guest: yes. slate magazine ran an article about it a couple of weeks after the clinton campaign had disclosed it. one of the issues that has come up in the sussman trial is that sussman and a tech executive named ronnie joffe, who had task internet researchers to tie trump associates to russia had been trying to get eric little out, a pulitzer prize national

security correspondent for the new york times, to write the story. durham alleges lithgow had held onto the story, it was not published at the timetable they wanted. that is what spurred sussman to go to the fbi. host: billy in crockett, texas. independent. caller: good morning. i would like to say the clinton's arc great people. i look at people like former president trump, he is the guy running on a lot of misinformation and telling lies to the people. he has statements in the media that are following him. trying to attack president clinton and hillary, she did a great job when she was running for president and when he was the president. it was the people that were anti-america in america, a lot of the people who did not like black people or other people who didn't have money, they went against president clinton. i want to say that president

clinton and hillary were great people, just like our president we got now. joe biden is a great man. host: let's go to paul in arizona. democratic caller. caller: good morning. the most used word i hear from this settlement is alleged. nearly every time he mentioned somebody or something, some accusation is alleged. i have been reading over the testimony, the building aspect where you say that sussman lied. he says you did not lie. one of durham's own paralegals says that the billing was correct, he did not build the clinton campaign for some of the things durham is alleging. at first, that he did. it comes out in the testimony that they actually did not, he billed the proper authorities

when he was doing the investigation. alleged seems to be everything. durham doesn't have anything but allegations. host: let's take your point. guest: what we have seen so far in this trial is that michael sussman billed the clinton campaign for three hours on the day he met with james baker of the fbi. that bill says for confidential server issue, that is what the alpha bank allegation was, that trump organization internet servers were communicating -- allegedly communicating with alpha bank. now, we know they are not. that is what the clinton campaign, that is in his billing where he met with joffrey, he referred to it as a confidential project or server issue on the billing. that is what we have on the billing. he met with james baker for an hour. the bill is for three hours.

it does not specify fbi, that is something defense attorneys have seized upon. when he has met with the fbi and billed the client, usually in the billing record, there is something for the fbi. this does not say that. i think that is when we have closing arguments down the road in a couple of minutes, that is something the defense attorneys are going to seize upon. one other point i would like to make that i think is interesting, i think to some degree, this austral was -- bolsters durham's case, prosecutors found a staples store receipt for flash drives that cost $12 that he expensed to the clinton campaign. what defense attorneys are saying, he bought a bunch of flash drives. he expensed two to the clinton campaign. he game -- gave james baker two flash drives with allegations on

them. i view it a lot of ways, staples received two be stronger evidence than the billing statement that durham has entered into evidence. host: closing remarks are today, then what? guest: after closing remarks, it goes to a jury. it will be interesting to see how long the jury takes. judge cooper has to be somewhere because it is memorial day weekend. he has to leave at 2:30. closing arguments are going to take an hour and a half for each side. we start at 9:00, take breaks, i do not know how much time the jury is going to have to deliberate. yesterday, judge cooper said the jury could deliberate after he leaves. that doesn't make sense to me. if they have a question, they need to consult with them, he is not available. at the same time, i do not know which side that helps to have errors deliberate all over the memorial day weekend. you've got three days of them sitting around after hearing

closing arguments. i am sure a lot of these jurors have memorial day plans. d.c. is a hyper-partisan, political town. they are not supposed to consume media. news outlets are talking about it. it is out there. it is going to be hard for them to go three days this week and without seeing media, having to put down the newspaper. host: kelly ann, florida, republican. caller: i am not a republican. i called on the independent line. i have things to say. i have to ask, why c-span is using a right wing extremist radical like the washington times to give this story, and not have a counterbalance to a

more moderate side? all roads with trump lead to putin. third thing is, if anyone wants to dig in deeper, they can read the actual mueller report, and see there were ties with trump's campaign to russia, and [indiscernible] host: we will talk about that last point. guest: that was an independent call. i want to defend my paper. i didn't appreciate my comments at the beginning. our paper has always been fair. we had a caller earlier not like the fact i was using the word alleged, that points to the fairness of our paper and how we have covered this. i do not think her criticism of my paper was fair. i wanted to make that defense. host: she made the point, all

roads from trump lead to russia, look at the mueller report. guest: the mueller report has found ties between trump and russia, but concluded that there was no evidence that president trump or his campaign come spire with russia -- conspire with russia to influence the 2016 election at all. host: what happens next with the durham probe? has he indicated where he will go next with it, or the person he is investigating? guest: we do not know. one of the things that has plagued the molar investigation, there were constant leaks. some were true, some were not. this investigation has been leak proof. we have had three years of people trying to figure out what is going on with it. even president trump himself was complaining about the investigation. it is interesting how trump

handled this investigation towards the end of his presidency and last year, he issued a statement asking if durham was an alive person, he hadn't seen activity on the probe. with these two indictments with sussman and jango, he is singing durham's praises, calling him an amazing investigator. where he is going to go, we do not know. he is facing issues. a lot of these alleged crimes, a lot of the possible misconduct he is looking at happened in 2016. we are hitting the statute of limitation for a lot of this. if you look at the carter page fisa, there is a lot of misconduct surrounding that. the final two the justice department inspector general faulted, if durham wants to bring charges, i do not know if he does or does not, the first statute of limitations was that -- was passed in april. the second was in june. the clock is ticking on that.

it is the end of june if he wants to do something about that. host: maryland, democratic caller. caller: my question is, it sounds to me like the majority of this investigation, as well as the indictments, with the exception of the legal conflicts or challenges with the fbi, the investigations and indictment are surrounding misinformation put into the campaign against the trump campaign. it's not misinformation, what was the trump campaign and presidency? i do not mean that to be flippant, but what are we doing here if we are investigating misinformation, are there equal or more

opportunities to investigate misinformation on both sides? i am confused as to what we are chasing here. guest: what we are chasing here is whether or not people committed a crime in their effort to get misinformation out there. did they deceive the fbi when they were getting this false information about alpha bank out there? to what lengths were they going to get there -- this out here, and were there any laws violated to get this out to the public? host: are there any other names a part of this investigation? guest: one of the names is jake sullivan. jake sullivan was the top foreign advisor for the clinton campaign. he is the top national security advisor for the biden administration. he has been in the crosshairs of conservatives for a while, especially after afghanistan and

the withdrawal there. what has come out in this trial and before the sussman trial, he had put out a statement saying to the effect that it is only a matter of time before the fbi starts looking into the trump alpha bank allegations. he put out a statement, i believe it was on halloween before the election in 2016, promoting the alpha bank allegations. there is a lot of of people in conservative media who want room to take a look at jake sullivan's role in promoting this allegation, the fact it was debunked. we will see. if durham does decide to go down that road, it is going to be interesting. that is going to be the closest durham gets to the biden white house and is going to ramp up pressure from the white house on attorney general merrick garland shut this down.

the other point i want to make, garland can -- merrick garland can fire john durham, but he has to do so and -- in writing and specify the specific cause. it is weird being a special counsel, you report to the justice department, and you do not. you do not really report to the justice department, but if merrick garland wants to to explain steps or know why he is approving a warrant or subpoena, you have to explain that to him. there is oversight. you are sort of on your own, but there is justice department oversight. guest: host: what about the steel dossier? guest: i do not know if we have learned much more than we did before. we knew a lot of this stuff was under verified. we are several years out of its use for the fbi, these claims have still not been verified. we know more about how some of

the unverified claims and allegations that have been disproven have ended up in the steel dossier, we will learn more about that in the dick cheney go case, which goes to trial in october. the sussman case issue went into the inner workings of the clinton campaign. we have had two clinton officials testify, their testimony was interesting. dichenko seems like it was trying to give steel what it wanted. falsified this allegation on his own. he did not have ties to the clinton campaign. he did not work with the fbi. this is the trial for anybody who wants dylan more about the fbi and the clinton pam --

campaign. host: the michael sussman case, closing remarks today. there could be a verdict today or next week. steve in richmond, maine. republican. caller: hello. i have a question about the jury instructions. i was following the trial via the robert, i think his name is, he has been reading the transcripts. it sounds like the instructions to the jury includes a way to give the jury a way out, where they can say that he didn't knowingly do it. you have any comments on that? what the -- guest: judge cooper told him not to consider a text message sussman sent after the fbi alerted james baker, saying he was not meeting with him on

behalf of any client. that does hurt the prosecution's case. it makes it harder, because now, the jurors have to do -- have to rely on what baker says sussman told him in that meeting. nobody else was in the meeting, james baker is not an investigator. he did not take notes. it has his word versus michael sussman's word. that is going to be a problem for the prosecution. host: are you covering the verdict? guest: yes, i will be covering closing arguments later today. host: will you be tweeting about it? the twitter for jeff is @jeff mordock. we appreciate the conversation with our viewers this morning. host: thanks, i appreciate it. when we come back we will go into open form. later on, we talk with charlie

sites, the editor at large of bulwark, he will talk about the primary season so far, former president trump's influence on the republican party, and where the party stands heading into the midterm elections. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, new york times national political correspondent alexander burns and jonathan martin we count the 2020 election with their book open quote -- their book. 9:15, -- watch book tv every sunday on c-span two, find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at dv.org -- book

tv.org. >> after months of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. starting june 9, tune in as committee numbers question key witnesses about what transpired, and why, during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning thursday, june 9 on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, new york

times national political correspondent alexander burns and jonathan martin recount the 2020 election their book "this will not pass: trump, biden, and the battle for america's future." at 9:15, cheryl chumley talks about her book "lockdown" where she talks about how democrats have used the pandemic to strip americans of their liberties. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two, or online at tv. org -- book tv.org. the up-to-date in the latest publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus the seller list, as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your

podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are in open forum, any public policy issue on your mind until 9:00 eastern time. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text, include your first name, city and state to caller:. you can post your -- at c-spanwj. we begin with the school shooting yesterday on capitol hill, the education secretary was testifying about his budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

this is what he had to say for two lawmakers at the top of his remarks. >> if i didn't tell you how ashamed i am that we have a country -- as a country are becoming desensitized to the murder of children. i would be failing you as a secretary of education if i didn't use this platform to say that students and teachers and school leaders are scared. after columbine, after sandy hook, after parkland, after each of these and many other massacres, we as educators did our best to look parents in the eyes and assure them that we will do everything to protect their babies. after each of these massacres, we have held staff training, active drills, have numbered our

windows for easier access to law enforcement. we have improved online early detection screening tools, secured our entrances and perimeters. that is no match for what we are up against. that was no match for irma garcia, eva mireles, and the 19 other beautiful souls. this is not enough. unless you are going to the funeral of a child, you will never know. we can do better, we must do better. host: the education secretary's testimony on capitol hill. he appeared virtually before lawmakers. we are in open form, public policy issues that concern you. patty in connecticut, independent. caller: i have been following this durham case. there is a lot of guilty people in here. the head of the fbi, the head of

the cia, doj, the fbi people that work there, you have got that page and stroke, passing along these lies. put obama's name up there. he was told about it from the cia what hillary was doing. this woman, it is time for her to go to jail. host:host: they key. north carolina, democratic caller. caller: i have got things i would like to say about the gun issue. the first thing, i do not know why the united states, if they are going by the constitution, would not allow this gun shoots

30 rounds. when they wrote the constitution , it was a top loading weapon. it takes at least 30 seconds between loads to shoot a top loading weapon. that is the first thing. the next thing, they insist on having them, they should make these idiots have insurance, just like you do a car. have an insurance policy to cover the expenses the american people have to cover after all of these idiots do this dirty work. host: joining us this morning to talk about the national rifle association houston is laura mcgaw he, an investigative reporter with the dallas morning news in houston this morning. why are they gathering in houston? guest: this is their annual convention, the meeting in houston was planned prior to the shooting in uvalde.

there have been calls for it to be canceled, the mayor of the town said, given the contracts, he could not do that. we are planning to see a lot protesters today as the convention kicks off, as well as for president trump will be speaking. host: how many people are they expecting to attend the conference? guest: it is in a massive convention hall, so a lot. the nra has probably less than 5 million members, they are not all going to be here. the annual convention is a popular gathering for them, where they get updates on legislation, they vote on leadership, they hear speakers in person, including the former president, as well as texas speakers. host: you mentioned former president is speaking. who else will be in person, and who will have recorded remarks and why? guest: we are scheduled to see senator ted cruz today.

he is supposed to be in person. there have been several cancellations, senator john cornyn from texas and dan crenshaw canceled, both of them said it wasn't due to the shooting in texas, they had prior engagements. just yesterday, we found out that governor greg abbott will not the attending in person. he will be heading back to uvalde today. he will be releasing prerecorded video remarks. host: the former president, what has he set about speaking at the nra today? guest: he has stuck to his scheduled speech. he hasn't said there was any doubt in his mind he would come into town and speak. interestingly, there will not be guns allowed at his particular speech. funds are allowed at the convention more generally, but when he speaks, they will sweep the location and not allow firearms and other weapons such as knives.

host: do you know why? guest: they did this when the former vice president came to speak at a convention. it is not without precedence. the secret service says they need to ensure there are no security threats to the former president. host: talk about the influence of the national rifle association compared to other gun rights groups. where does it stand today? guest: someone argued the nra's prominence is dwindling. obviously, listeners have been familiar with scandals internally at the organization over the last several years. anchors see allegations, mismanagement -- bankruptcy allegations, this management. they attempted to move the organization to take her -- to texas to avoid bankruptcy, that did not works.

the membership has wendell in the past few years. there is still probably just under 5 million members in the country. it is a large organization. politically, their donations to republican candidates remain high. their ratings system, a b, c, d, f, is very important for republican candidates. they place a lot of importance on that ratings system. while we have seen the scandals and some of their prominence dwindled in recent years, they remain powerful, especially in host: states like texas. host:host: you can follow her on twitter or @dallasnews. we will have coverage of the nra convention today, starting at

3:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. you can follow our website, c-span.org, or get our free video app on your mobile device, called c-span now. 3:00 p.m. eastern time. we are in open form, work. republican. go ahead. caller: comments, one on the sussman trial. there are two things about the sussman trial that have come out that will prove -- one, the information sent to the fbi was false when the fbi agent's look. they didn't think they should take it seriously, so they kept going back and forth with the people who had passed it to them. they were not told it was brought in by sussman, they were told that it came from a

different part of the fbi. it was not ever meant to be taken seriously. it was definitely false from the beginning. also, the campaign manager for hillary clinton at the time, he testified that he knew it was false, and she had put up the information, not only -- he said, it is not true. she said, put it out anyways. that was by her order, according to them. those two things came out of the trial, regardless to whether sussman is convicted or not. a lot of people calling on the guns. they are mentioning things like, you should have a license, you should be investigated, you should this, you should that, you should have insurance. these things are all

unconstitutional. these are infringements. they should think about that right enshrined. you cannot infringe upon it. if you want to make unsafe, do some things like that, you have to come up with an idea that is not an infringement. that is all i have. host: caller: marietta, democratic caller. i am calling about the second amendment. i think congress needs to get its act together and do some of the amendment to the constitution on the second amendment. you have a right to bear arms. arms does not necessarily mean a

gun. and involves bombs. it involves biological weapons. i think congress needs to get in there and decide they are going to amend the constitution so people understand the meaning of the second amendment. host: bob, arlington, texas. caller: i haven't heard anything about biden going to the border while he is down here. i haven't had a report about that. it looks like he could take up that issue where he goes. host: the president and first lady are planning to travel to uvalde on sunday to meet with the families. caller: right. the migrants will still be there on sunday, they will be there forever. the second thing is about his granddaughter, navy joan robert. biden -- she is three years old,

he has sent her to biden hello because his -- biden hell. i think biden probably wanted his son to suggest that -- host: i am going to move on. gregory, republican. caller: i have a couple issues i would like to discuss. the first one is about the murder of these children at this school. it was no event that happened. what i am suggesting, democrats and republicans should be able -- hello? yes. they should be able to have a poster with their faces on it, just like they showed those children to let the public know

who is the real child killers. they are not imposing any laws to where we can save our children. post them up, let them know, these are the real baby killers. the second thing i would like to say, trump is a real russian. trump has been a russian from the beginning. that is my comment. host: eric and breckenridge, michigan. caller: my heart goes to the people in uvalde. when is he going to get to the border and secure our border? that is breaking the law. my words. in the next 10 years, there will be sad -- something bad happened in the united states because of the border. in charge of that open border,

when that day comes, that is right. host: north conway, new hampshire, independent. caller: catherine. yes. hi. my comment has to do with student college loan debts. it might be good. why does getting a bachelor of arts degree take four years? if college students no what they want for their majors and could immediately declare and enroll in a three year ba degree program, they could do that. if they did not know what their major would be, they could get there ba in a four year program. the cost of three years of borrowing would be less than four years of borrowing.

three years of college loan debts is less than four years of college loan debts. i think it might help. host: jim, pensacola, florida. independent. we are in open forum. caller: a question and statement. the purpose for the second amendment is for the public to protect against a corrupt government. it doesn't mention about militias, if that is the case, wouldn't every insert have its own militia? it would be a formal thing, they have weapons of war, they would be controlled. individuals could have a right to self-defense, may a handgun. weapons of war in the hands of children, 18 to 21, where they have no control over their impulses, that seems insane. i do not see why common sense doesn't control the situation. if i'm correct about the militia thing.

host: timothy and washington, d.c., democratic caller. caller: just like the last caller, i think the 18-year-old owning an ar-15 is a little bit much. i do not think what happened in texas, he could gravitate to the impact of killing children. i think lawmakers has an easy job. raise the age and do a background check. i think we are more about party. i live in d.c., aca lot of politicians in pubs all over the city. it is more about policy than the people. i have one other question. it was about police brutality. if you work at home depot and a manager comes and say, how many people come in late?

they cannot tell them, i am not going to tell you that. why can't we come to police officers and say, how many people complain? how many people is being yanked out of their cars? i heard lawmakers say this. when they hand down a law that says, you can get anywhere between two and 10 years of prison, the black skit two years, -- the black skit two years, -- the blacks get two years, it is a double standard. in d.c., you see the laws they put out for the country. the whole world is watching. host: timothy made the point of raising the age of when you are allowed to purchase a handgun across the country, from 18 to 21. there is the universal background check issue, the hill newspaper this week's poll found

support for background checks on gun sales. background checks going into a gun store, they want to expand that universal background checks to the internet and gun shows. 88% said they would agree with that. isabella in pennsylvania, republican, welcome. go ahead. caller: thank you, greta. i wish our politicians would quit the overreach. there is so much overreach. we should remember kent state, waco, texas, ruby ridge, when there was so much government overreach. they went in and massacred people that we have no idea why. host: from what you have heard today, i think you are talking about gun legislation. from what you have heard today, what would be overreach in your

mind? caller: i believe children should not be owning guns. there have been so many childhood suicides. that is another issue, a lot of children are committing suicide in schools today. i believe sometimes the government seems to overstep their boundaries when it comes to dealing with a lot of childhood mental illness, a lot of times, that is where it begins, is when they are children. host: frank in fort lauderdale, florida. republican. caller: good morning. i would like to point out the connection between the violent acts of abortion and how that has influenced our violent culture. i think there is a connection. i met mother teresa once, she said a couple of things about this. she said, if you allow parents

to kill their children, how can you tell people not to commit other crimes? she also said something, if the unborn baby is not safe in the womb, where can they be safe? there truly is a connection there. when you allow parents to do that, that is a violent act. that truly influences our culture for the worst. host: frank in fort lauderdale, florida, republican. more of your calls this morning. we are in open forum until 9:15 eastern time, then we talked to charlie sykes, editor and chief of the bulwark of the primary season. rayhey, ray, are you there? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: i will put you on hold.

i want you to hold for a few minutes. the house is coming in for a pro forma session. they will gavel in an gavel out. we will go there and come back out. >> the house will be in order, the chair lays before the house of communication and the speaker. >> may 27, 20 22. i hereby appoint the honorable donner -- donald fire jr., signed nancy pelosi, speaker of the house represented of. >> the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend ross gordon. -- russ gordon. >> let us pray.

god of creation, we do praise you for this beauty of this world, for its astonishing diversity among plants and animals and people who together called this place home. we pray for your gracious providence to encourage us in being responsible caretakers of all that you have made, to respect the delicate nature of the earth. and to preserve this wondrous world for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. and most especially pray this day for those families who have recently lost their children and loved ones, due to gun violence. bring them a good measure of your comfort and your peace. as we begin this memorial weekend, help us, o god, to do so humbly, grateful for the utmost sacrifice made by those in uniform in all fields of conflict, lives given so we may enjoy the fruits of life and liberty. we pray for those families who still feel their loss. may their supreme offering

inspire this nation and its leaders to strive for ways that lead to greater unity, justice, freedom and peace. amen. >> thank you. section 11 a of house resolution 188, is approved. the chair will now leave the house on the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> under clause five d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation from the gentleman of new york, mr. delgado, the number of the house is 428. the chair lays before the house of communication. >> the honorable, the speaker house of representatives,

permission granted in clause two h of rule two of the u.s. house of representatives, the court receives the following message on may 25, 2022, at 1:17 p.m. that the senate passed senate 2932, senate 3825, senate 3820 six. that the senate passed without amendment hr 730 five, hr 767, hr 1170, hr 1298. hr 1444. hr 2324, hr 3579, hr 3613, hr 4168. signed sincerely, cheryl l johnson. >> the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bills. >> senate 2533, an act to improve services furnished by

the department of veterans affairs and by their purchases. >> pursuance of section 11 b of house bill 188, the house stands adjourned until tuesday, may 31, 2022. host: the house of representatives out of washington. the senate finished up votes yesterday. they are also going to be off next week. we are back here in open form, your -- forum, your thoughts on what policy issue. ray in texas, independent, thanks for holding. are you there? caller: yes. yes i am. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: yes. my comment is that you just had a lady call in and she said that under the second amendment, she had talked about having

biological weapons and bombs and things like that. you can't have that stuff. the atf overseas that. that is already illegal. we don't need any more laws censoring that. in texas, you have to go to a background check already to buy firearms, to get a concealed carry license. it is part of the law here. only the criminals are not going to obey that law. they are definitely still going to find a gun someplace out there and use it in a crime. they are trying to punish the honest citizens for what the criminals are doing. that is my comment on that. host: alright, ray. we will go to margaret in texas.

caller: kerrville. it is about 265 miles west of san antonio. i want to talk about the second amendment. i taught at a university for many years and taught a lot of u.s. history. most people don't seem to understand why we have the second amendment and what it really means. they should think back to what this country was when it was first born. it wasn't even really a nation. it was an area of small farmers. how did those small farmers feed their families? they all had guns in their houses. they hunted deer, possum, whatever they could get to feed their families. to begin with, we have that. secondly, being a newly formed country, we have no standing

army whatsoever. if there was going to be any attack from england, france or any other country or if it came from the south, we had no army to defend ourselves. so, we had this idea of everyone , all of these farmers having a gun and they would be called to serve and they would bring their rifle with them. none of our freedoms are unlimited. freedom of speech has limitations. way back then, people had rifles. they could not have a canon. that would not be allowed. they couldn't and we didn't have all of these terrible weapons, war weapons that we have today. and people should go back, really, and read their history and think about it and analyze why the's -- why we have what we

have within the constitution. host: all right, margaret. matt in ohio, democratic caller. caller: hi. am i on? host: yes, you are. good morning. caller: hi. i am teacher myself. and some folks have talked about arming teachers as a way to combat this gun violence. those who claim that arch teachers. they know if they were, there is too much going on in the classroom to be able to have that as an effective way. what we have to do and this is across both parties is look at the data. we are the only country that experiences this. and we have tried loosening up gun control. and this is what has happened to us. i think we owe it to those who have lost their lives to try something else. i see a lot of examples of widespread gun violence. i say very -- i see very few who

use their weapons to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. if we were swinging to a government going after people, i don't see a time of that. also, it seems like we owe it to those and try something. host: dennis in clinton, alabama , your turn. caller: thank you. i hope you all are having a happy friday today. i have a big concern. i have a problem with children that were 19 or so children that were shot. it is happening quite often. that is a lot of children. do you know how many children die every day of fentanyl that the democrats are not even trying to stop to come across a border -- the border? if you made a list, a and b, a although ones who got shot by

guns and be are the kids -- b are the kids who got killed by fentanyl and illegal drugs coming up, why don't they care about that? they don't care. they are not doing anything. they are turning their back to it. obama and the fast and furious were selling guns to the cartel. and they killed so many people. can't you all wake up and open your eyes? host: there have been hearings on capitol hill about the opioid and fentanyl epidemic in this country. you can find them on our website if you are interested in that debate and what lawmakers are saying, you can go to c-span.org. arthur in hallandale, california, independent. caller: good morning. i am 74 years old and i think it is time we draw a line between the nra and political

contributions and what they consider the death of these children as simply collateral damage to their profit. -- profit margin. this is a sad commentary but it is an old, old story. the republican party is in fact the tool of the nra and they get lots and lots of money for their political campaigns. that is why we don't have any change in gun laws in this country. the same guns that are going over to war are being sold here. they are also selling to the police department and the things they can't using war are not being directly used in war today , in order to pack the pocketbooks of politicians who are in fact voting in their way. this in ra convention this

weekend is just a blatant snub to the american people and to the savage niece of guns and the sadness of the parents and relatives of youngsters who were killed. host: in silver spring, maryland -- jim in silver spring, maryland, democratic caller. caller: yes, my name is jim. am i speaking? host: yes you are. your turn. caller: i wanted to ask people to step back and look at guns as important tools for police and military purposes. we have had tools, but they are dangerous. dynamite was introduced and helped us to build our railroad. it turned out that at first we didn't realize the social

implications of its danger. but we made laws that if you bought dynamite to build a railroad or to blow up rocks on your farm and somebody stole it, you were liable for the damage that that person could do because you were the dangerous person who bought it. i think that if we just made laws that said if you buy a gun, it is registered permanently in your name and if you give it away or throw it away and somebody irresponsible gets it, they -- their victims can come back and sue you. then, everybody would have gun insurance. we have car insurance, we have dynamite insurance, we have all kinds of insurance. and the insurance companies would make sure that no dangerous people got an insurance policy.

it would cost them too much money. host: judy in arlington, massachusetts. we are in open forum for a couple more minutes. caller: thank you. i appreciate being on here. i want to respond to the man who was talking about the difference between abortion and gun control. i feel -- because someone human -- woman -- some woman gave birth to a mentally ill man who shot his grandmother first before he shot those beautiful young children. i think that is not a good relationship. the other thing is there was a man, the father of one of the children who had a baseball cap on with a gun in between. a lot of this is looking for politicians to do the work but it is us who need to take a look

at everything that is going on around us. host: pamela in arizona, queen creek, arizona. democratic caller. caller: my heart and soul goes out to those families who lost their loved ones there. in texas. people keep talking about mental illness. what about people and hatred hearted people, even in people as young as 18 and possibly younger who are just evil and do evil things. mental illness has nothing to do with a lot of that. thank you so much. we will take a short break -- host: we will take a short break. when we come back, charlie sykes will join us. he is the editor at the bulwark. he will discuss president trump's influence on the republican party and the direction of it heading into the midterm elections. ♪

>> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing's with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists and industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find out about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcast. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act 1964 presidential campaign and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's

secretaries knew, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people signed to kennedy the day he died. >> yes, sir. >> if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise i won't go anywhere. i will stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> after months of

investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. starting june 9, tune in as committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage, beginning thursday, june 9 on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. host: charlie sykes is with us this morning, founder and editor at large of the bulwark, a news and opinion website. he is the author of how the right lost its mind. esther sykes, you wrote after the school shooting at the texas elementary school that this is a time for grief and also for incandescent anger. what did you mean? guest: we have been here over

and over and over again. i'm still haunted by what happened at sandy hook and the lack of response to that. how do we not react with anger when we watch the slaughter of innocent people? and the recognition as a country that we are not serious about this? we can have a sober debate about what needs to be done about guns. but the reality is we are so upset with picking sides in our culture wars that we are willing to say thoughts and prayers when we have dead children we are not willing to actually do anything about it. and so, no one is going to say that they find the death of children to be acceptable and yet, as a country, we have accepted it. as we watch this, i am shocked, horrified, i'm a father. i'm a grandfather.

it is very difficult to imagine what it is like to lose a child under the circumstances. the more we learn, the more tragic it gets. and to watch the political posturing and the same arguments over and over again, the same sound bites, the same talking points, it is frustrating. and so, this many years after columbine, after the nation pledged never again, we have seen it again and again and again. and the reality is it will happen again because nothing will change unless we make a change. inaction is a choice. host: what was your reaction to the republican leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, appointing john cornyn, a republican senator from texas to be part of bipartisan talks in the hopes of bringing legislation forward? guest: i would like to see

bipartisan talks. i would like to see bipartisan registration. there are reasonable compromises here that would be supported by the vast majority of americans. americans are very divided on whether or not we should have stricter or looser gun control but there is an overwhelming consensus on a variety of issues including background checks. limitation on the size of magazines. raising the age for the possession of guns. red flag laws, we have seen republican governors signed these red flag laws. we have seen them signed them into law. there are things that, if we deal with this in good faith, we could come up with incremental reforms. my problem with this, of course, is that we have seen this over and over and over again. i think it would be naive to think that this time is going to be any different. i saw one analysis that said it

takes americans three days to get over there shock and grief over these school shootings and then we go back to normal. i think that is likely to happen again. host: what do you think about the national rifle association holding its convention days after the shooting, in houston, texas? guest: this is what the nra does. remember after the shooting in colorado, there was discussion about whether they should postpone their convention that year and they don't do it. the question is what is the nra's response going to be? are they going to sit back and go we need to rethink these positions? this is shocking, this is horrifying, how can we come together in good eighth and come up with things that will keep americans safe? i think what we have seen over the years is the nra has become absolutist, refusing to go along

with virtually any of the measures that might make a difference. i'm not so naive to think there will be a law that is a magic wand under the circumstances. what you see with the nra is that they have become a culture warrior. they have encouraged treating guns as a fetish. i am old enough to remember when the nra was into gun safety. when they would have emphasized the need to be serious and sober as most gun owners are. most gun owners are very serious. they are safe, they are concerned about safety. and yet we have this culture where we have politicians posing for christmas cards with weapons of mass destruction, treating them like a fetish. i think the nra has gotten deeply into all of that. so, again, i think it will be interesting to see what the folks at the nra say, what they do.

if you are looking for any sense of shame or any sense of rethinking, i think that's not going to happen. host: what about what the former president might say? he will be speaking at that convention today. guest: we will have to see what the president says. what the former president says about this. donald trump -- over the years, he has gone back and forth about this particular issue that he is -- but he is all in with the nra and the nra is all in with donald trump. if the past is any indication, one of the things we learned is that you never apologize, never admit you were wrong and never backed away in trumpism. i am going to be interested to see whether they continue to talk about -- part of this is the ground hung date nature of this. it is the same old, same old.

let's armed teachers, we need more good guys with guns. one of the things we are learning on almost an hourly basis in texas is that the good guys with guns narrative has taken quite a beating. there were lots of good guys with guns, but they were not able to stop the massacre of the innocent. i expect to hear the same talking points over and over and over again. host: what's pivot to the primary season, charlie sykes. what is your take away from the georgia primary results? guest: there are two. this is still donald trump's party. i think it would be naive to think donald trump doesn't have an iron grip on his base. what happened is significant. it showed his endorsement is no longer a golden ticket. and republicans who defy him on the big lie are not automatically committing political suicide.

i was struck by the margins in this case. you had governor brian kemp lead by more than 50 points. brad raffensperger, who was republican in a meet number one in trump's and given up for dead by everyone i spoke to not only won easily but avoided a runoff. this was a bright red line that donald trump, himself had drawn. he made this his number one priority. this was his obsession. the big lie. he has been demanding that politicians not only believe the big lie but take action. and in georgia, you had a really stark choice for republican voters. and even though donald trump drew the redline, the republican voters in georgia stampeded across the line. you can read double much into it. but it was not nothing.

it is significant. it is also significant that you see republican governors now be increasingly emboldened in standing up to trump. trumps endorsed candidates were defeated in idaho and nebraska for governor. then mike pence came in in georgia, opening even wider with trump. chris christie, governor larry hogan from maryland are now more willing and now more emboldened to stand up to trump, particularly on the issue of the big lie. host: mike pence endorsed brian kemp and campaign for him. what does that say about his influence? guest: i don't know what it says about his influence. by the time mike pence showed up, it was obvious brian kemp was going to win and win easily. so, he was betting on a horse that was several lengths ahead. on the other hand, i think what you are seeing is that mike

pence is -- pence's willingness to separate himself from donald trump is growing. i think it is very clear, he has been very tentative about it. but he has said that trump was wrong in thinking he could overturn the election on january 6. he has been somewhat critical. but this was, really, i think one of the most traumatic steps he took. i also think that the odds of mike pence winning the republican nomination in this current environment are slim. they might be slim and none. but it is interesting that somebody like pence would have chosen this particular race to make it very, very clear that he is off the trump train. host: let's hear from phil in capitol heights, maryland. good morning and questions for charlie sykes. caller: good morning, is that

me? host: it's -- yes. caller: it's bill. i will make my point quick. our country was founded on two things. religious freedom and right to bear arms. i think if you look at our atmosphere and landscape now, we are probably not the most religious country in the world but we are founded on the melting pot phenomena and it is very questionable now as we look at things in our landscape if we are truly a melting pot. i know for a fact if we look at it, there is a lot of hate in our atmosphere and we point fingers at each other. i think if we can step out of ourselves, speaking to not only the -- our political leaders, but even as citizens, if we step out of ourselves and try to look at each other from their perspective, maybe we can have a

conversation that is sound and legitimate, that is reasonable. there is to double much hatred in the atmosphere. -- there is too much hatred in the atmosphere. guest: i agree with that. i think it is dangerous and it will be more dangerous over time. not only are we not talking with one another but debates are becoming increasingly shrill and much >> the other side hates ame, they want to take away your religious freedom. the problem is as we ramp up the anger and there are people out there who have made it their agenda to make us angry at one another, to divide us. at a time when we have the culture wars and the other divisions in a country is

heavily armed as we are, the danger is real. we ought to open our eyes to that. that's why the conflation of culture wars signaling with guns is dangerous. we are having this conversation a few days after 19 children were gunned down in texas. that's just a few days after we had nearly a dozen people murdered in buffalo. a young man it with a gun specifically targeted african-americans because he was a believer in the great replacement theory. one thing that conservatives use to understand was ideas have consequences. that was one of the works of the 20th century. toxic ideas can have fatal consequences. we are reeling back from the

consequences of this heated debate and saying maybe we should tone things down. maybe we ought to push back against these racist conspiracy theories. maybe we ought not demonize one other. i don't see that happening. we live in very dangerous times. host: south carolina? caller: thank you for taking my call. let me say, i am an 82-year-old christian. i know that some of what i'm thinking it can be interpreted different from what i mean. so far, nothing has worked. we are fighting fire with water. maybe those who are in position to do so, maybe they should fight fire with fire.

look at some of the tactics that were used against abortion clinics. why not use some of those tactics against gun distributors? i think the wrong children are paying for this wrong thing. these warlike weapons have no place. they should be banned totally. i come from a long line of gunowners. i grew up in a family who were hunters. nobody ever killed anybody. i had guns around since i was two years old. host: her point? guest: to her point about gun ownership, there are a lot of hunters with guns.

the vast majority of them will not commit crimes with guns. my experience is with most gunowners, they are serious about the responsibility. i think it's important not to craft solutions to this or responses that target law-abiding gun owners. i do think weapons of war, people need to understand what an ar-15 will do to the body of a child. i was reading some people talking about how we need to see pictures to shock america. i understand why we don't, it would be too horrible. i don't think we could take it. understand that these are weapons that are not the necessary tools for hunting. you talk to military people,

they are horrified to see weapons of war in the hands of teenagers. this is something we absolutely need to address. until we address it, we won't can handle it. even though republicans will cast themselves as the party of law & order, antiterrorism, they balked at an antiterrorism bill yesterday. the reality is right now with these millions of powerful weapons on the streets, our police are outgunned. part of the story out of texas which gets worse all the time about the delay of the police going in, the police who were heavily armed themselves were being extremely cautious about other people who were heavily armed. when you have heavily armed

individuals wearing body armor, it's not enough to have good guys with a gun. even police officers will feel at a disadvantage. that is something we have to deal with. host: let's talk about the messaging of democrats and the president heading into the midterms. you've heard them refer to republicans as maga republicans. what are they trying to do? guest: i think with their trying to do is put donald trump back on the ballot. they understand that the headwinds are stiff for democrats. the one thing that -- one problem they have is donald trump who still remains somewhat politically toxic. they are talking about that, they are referring to what the republican party has been.

has become. if you look at the primary elections, many of his candidates have been defeated. most of the candidates that are running, the don't have his endorsement, are still pretending to be trump. a lot of the debates are between them. if this is what the arctic -- party has become, if they embrace these policies, they need to own that. i think that is the strategy behind it. the democrats need to hone their message a little bit more, go after those most extreme elements. the reality is with the economy and inflation, republicans have an advantage on a lot of issues. host: how about the january 6 investigation and how that could

play out. you had the republican leader along with jim jordan writing an opinion piece in the wall street journal. guest: that's disingenuous. it goes back to the flip-flop of kevin mccarthy who for five minutes understood exactly what it happened and the gravity of the assault. kevin mccarthy is disingenuous. i don't know that the committee have that much of an impact on the midterm elections. i'm not sure that matters. at some point, people need to do

their duty. we need to find out the truth. we did -- the to treat this with the seriousness it deserves. i have been impressed by the work of the committee. the amount of information that they have been able to gather. my default setting is to assume i'm going to be disappointed. i think republicans made a mistake. a big mistake by not going along with the commission. i think that should've been a moment were both parties came together and said if we can agree on one thing, it is that the peaceful transfer of power is central to the american system -- the constitutional system. remember what it was like on january 7 when you had republicans who understood this, who were willing to hold people

accountable, including trump. mitch mcconnell gave a speech. to watch them pretend there is nothing to see is unfortunate. i think it's tragic. that is what will have long-term consequences. you don't have a functioning democracy if the losers of elections refuse to acknowledge the validity of the election. that is a real existential threat to our system of government. host: we will go now to arkansas. caller: good morning. you covered so many different conversations while i was

listening, i don't believe i can cover all of them. the only thing that's made america strong over the years is every household has a gun. you could figure out what an army is going to do, you can't figure out what a family will do protecting his family. instead of worrying about the guns, worry about the cause of the people. you've got to go back to the mind of a man who pulled the trigger, not the gun. the gun is only a tool. if you want to stop mass shootings, figure out why the man is doing it, not the gun. you talk about mass killings. what do they do about the guy who ran through the parade? are they going to ban cars? you have to figure out what is causing it, not the equipment he uses.

guest: you're referring to a car that took place in wisconsin, that's a few miles from where i am right now. with all due respect, that is the tired argument i've heard over and over again. the reality is these mass shootings are so much worse because of the tool. and ar-15 that can murder 19 children in minutes is not the same as a hammer. could we acknowledge that? look around the world. the shootings are not taking place in places like britain. there been mass shootings in new zealand and france. in those countries, they dealt with it. they have said this is not acceptable. what can we do to stop it? look around the world. i am a strong believer in american exceptionalism. this is a dark part of american

exceptionalism. we are exceptional in the frequency of these mass shootings. there are people who are evil, who are mentally ill, who are twisted all over the planet. only in the united states do they have access to these weapons of war on a weekly basis. we have this conversation, how did this happen? to the point is the only it made america great is guns, that is simply not true. a lot of other things made america great. american greatness should be able to stand up against the massacre of children in our society. that is a challenge to american greatness, it is not the collateral part of it. host: bruce is in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to first tell you, i'm

very proud of you. i know that as a conservative you are taking an independent stance. that is patriotic. forget about party affiliation. you are the traditional conservative that i knew from the rest since the last decades. in any case, i do want to thank you for standing up for sanity in this country. i also want to mention in listening to c-span, i see how powerful the talking points are. they are just repeated without thought. there is no defense against that. what i would like to introduce to you is the idea that this about marketing, this is about the people who are the arms dealers around the world. this is not arising from the

second amendment. this is descending on america with black-market arms dealing in the money behind it. what i am about is we see mass shootings against innocents, beyond belief. this is an irrational development. the globe is stunned by it. host: i'm going to jump in. guest: he's right. on my podcast, i'm going to have an author who is written about the role of the gun industry and pushing these narratives. i am not an expert in all of this. it is globally shocking that this is happening in this country. can i address something the previous caller said it? he wanted to focus on the people who are wielding the gun.

when there are efforts to focus on who has those guns, those are also blocked by the nra and the modern republican party. republicans used to be willing to engage with gun control in the past. this is a relatively recent phenomenon. there are red flag laws that say if somebody looks like they're going to be a danger to themselves or others, you can get a court order to allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns. one of those laws was signed under a republican governor in florida. universal background checks are supported by more than 80% of americans. that focuses on who is getting their hands on the gun. how do we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers? when those bills are up, the same people who say there is nothing that can be done about

guns also say there's nothing they can be done about the men who are wielding those guns. spare me some of these talking points. host: rockville, maryland, lee is watching. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm enjoying the show. i think i would like to get your opinion on this, the democrats are going to retain the senate in the next midterm election. mainly because they are nominating very good candidates. look at ohio they nominated ryan. i think they've got a good chance to flip that seat. the not -- republicans of nominated a turkey. vance said he didn't want to take sides in the ukraine russia

war, that he didn't care who won the war. then his handlers got on him and told him it was a completely ignorant thing to say. i think the democrats in pennsylvania and ohio are nominating very good candidates. the democrats are going to retain the senate. what do you think? guest: i think it's going to be hard to retain the house or senate given the overall environment. one of the big questions that i don't know the answer to is how much of the rules of politics changed? i was thinking about 2010, an overwhelming republican landslide. republicans blew their chances to take the senate back because they nominated terrible candidates in places like delaware and nevada.

remember i am not a witch? you have republicans nominating shall we say flawed candidates, the possibility of a former disgraced governor in missouri, herschel walker in georgia, j.d. vance in ohio, they be dr. oz in pennsylvania. the republicans might pay a price for this by nominating candidates that are just too embarrassing, just too bizarre. i don't know. given the polarization and the politics, the incredible pull of partisan loyalty, we will have to see. in a country that elected donald trump, anything is possible. we have to assume the odds are against the democrats in both the house and senate.

host: john in oregon,. caller: one of the things you been hitting on is good faith. i've been thinking about what's been happening. i think faith and what is sacred, the gun is not sacred. people's lives are sacred. that's what gets lost in the political part of it. politics is not necessarily about power. it's got to be about public service. and the common good. working on things, i agree with you about the nra. they've gotten away from gun safety. they have conflated in their marketing the sacred second

amendment. one religious leader said the second amendment did not come down from mount zion with moses. the final thing is, i used to work in a sporting goods store when i was very young. there was one time where i was in the gun area. one of the things we were told never to do is to have the gun and ammunition together on the counter the customer. i remember one time i had a customer come in, he pulled out an ar-15 that we were still selling. can i have some ammunition? he started to pointed around with the amp emission. -- ammunition.

i knew what could happen. what is sacred? life. not guns. guest: that's a very interesting point. i was thinking about a candidate for governor in georgia running last week, he held a rally. the big slogans behind her were jesus, guns, babies. this conflation of guns with god i think is dangerous. caller makes a great point. what is sacred? if we are a pro-life culture, there's a lot going on here. can you be pro-life and be indifferent to the slaughter of children? is the second amendment important? it is in the bill of rights. does it mean that we regard guns

as sacred and the same way that re-regard human life as sacred? the most important issue is pro-life, is saving the lives of children. why would that be the number one issue for them if they believe gun ownership is sacred. i consider myself pro-life. one of the shocks we've seen over the last few years is the way in which the abortion issue has become separated from all of these other issues involving human life and human dignity and how we encourage people to make the right choices, how we nurture children. there is a real contradiction there at the moment. host: tina? go ahead. caller: i just have something on my mind like a question. when people go in and push it --

purchase these weapons, it's like the people who are selling them, when this young man purchased all the stuff, didn't they think what do you need all this for? there's nothing going on here in texas. then he purchases ammunition. is there something that a local owner or store that sells these weapons makes a call in and says i just sold this and i think something is going on. wouldn't that be the beginning of the end? guest: i don't know the beginning of the end. we have millions of these guns. should we have a sense of responsibility? in a community that had a sense

of responsibility, somebody would've been looking out for this. somebody might've been willing to raise the lead -- red flag. when someone is behaving in a way that appears to be dangerous, let's do something about it. let separate that person from the guns until we can figure out whether or not they pose a threat. in all of these cases, you have to ask the question, was there a mother or father, was there a neighbor or somebody else who knew was going on? this is why you want to have background checks, to make sure they don't come in contact with and by these weapons. i would make this one other point. you have to be 21 to buy a beer in this country. yet we allow 18-year-olds to come in and by ar-15's.

is it unreasonable to raise the age of purchasing guns. there are a lot of common sense things we used to do in the past that were not considered violations of laws. just the size of the magazine it, does anybody need that much emission? if the size of magazines were limited, would it make a difference? it wouldn't stop everything, it might make a difference. because of the stranglehold over the republican party, this is not likely to happen. caller: hello. can you hear me?

hold on a minute. can you hear me now? i've got a comment. if you don't have a gun, how could that person die? somebody is keeping money rolling on. somewhere, this needs to stop. it's a talking point to say guns aren't killing people. i want to make sure people get out and vote for those people to be out. too many of our people are getting killed. with guns.

host: i will have you jump in. guest: the point, of coy's -- course, these guns are not irrelevant. if you been some of these guns, the killers would still find a way to do this. you can commit mass horrific acts only with some of these guns. you could kill somebody with a knife, you could kill somebody with a revolver. let's be honest about it. the worst mass shootings always involve specific kinds of guns. i think it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest the actual nature of these guns does not matter.

let's be honest about that. if you are opposed to any restriction on it, then explain why it is in people's interest to have the pleasure of ration of these weapons. host: charlie sykes, we appreciate the conversation this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: we will be back tomorrow. we take you now to annapolis. president biden will speak at the commencement ceremony this morning. live coverage is right here on c-span. you can get our free mobile video app or

>> ♪

♪

♪

♪

>> a live picture from the navy marine corps memorial stadium, annapolis, maryland, where shortly, president biden will give the commencement address to the u.s. naval academy graduation. this is live coverage on c-span. ♪

♪

♪

♪ >> awaiting the start of the u.s. naval academy graduation and -- ceremony. president biden will hand out diplomas shortly. live coverage, right here on c-span. a reminder, some of our other programming coming up. former president trump and senator cruz are expected to give remarks at the national rifle association leadership forum. available online or our website, c-span.org.

>> [indiscernible] >> ♪

♪

♪

[applause]

>> [indiscernible]

>> [applause]

>> the u.s. naval academy graduation and commissioning ceremony, happening this morning at the navy marine corps memorial stadium in annapolis, maryland. live coverage of the ceremony. president biden will be addressing this year's graduates, handing out diplomas. it is expected to get underway, we understand the president has arrived we expect it to start shortly on c-span. >> [indistinct conversations]

>> [applause] >> [indistinct conversations] ♪ >> ladies and