thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, are free mobile video app c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband support c-span along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning on "washington journal," the guest talks about commercial efforts to address the continued rise in gun violence.

but later david corn talks about the upcoming january 6 committee hearings and other political news of the day. be sure to join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪ host: in the aftermath of the buffalo mass shooting in may, yesterday, a slate of new gun safety laws were signed, including raising from 18 to 21 the age required to by rifles, including semi automatic firearms, the type used in buffalo and uvalde, texas. it is just the seven state to do so. there is pressure on president biden and a move in the senate to make 21 the national standard. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." tuesday, june 7, 2022. we will start our program asking

you, do you support raising the age from 18 to 21 for some firearms? if you support that, the line is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. and for gun owners, your line is (202) 748-8002. we welcome your comment by text. it is (202) 748-8003. tell us your name, where you are texting from. we are on facebook, twitter, and instagram. actually, that piece of the legislation is also in the house measure that is going before the rules committee today, the protecting our children act that passed in house judiciary committee last week. before the rules committee today, we expect a debate tomorrow and thursday in the u.s. house, which you can follow on c-span. here is the headline on the package of laws passed by the

u.s. legislature -- by the new york legislature. new york institute gun bans in the wake of the buffalo shooting. a sweeping amount of gun legislation signed. the age was changed to purchase rifles like they are 15, confiscate magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and restrict civilian purchases of bullet resistant armor. one requires social media to respond to potential threats. another law mandates micro stamping for handguns, a theoretical gun tracking technology. we are focusing on the age limit, which again is in just seven states has been raised to 21. do you support a federal move to make that standard? 21 would be the minimum age required to buy a rifle, a long gun as it is called, or a semi

automatic firearm. (202) 748-8000 if you support that. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose. again, for gun owners, (202) 748-8002. this is the associated press and their interactive map and a look at the states across the country and where they stand in terms of the age to purchase all kinds of firearms. for example, in texas, you have to be 18 to purchase a handgun or long gun and there is no restriction on the possession, whereas in washington state, you go to washington state and their laws are to purchase a handgun, 21, long gun, 21, for a semi-automatic, you could have that in your possession for 21. 18 for long gun or semi-automatic. it is being proposed by the president, being discussed incident negotiations over there gun measure.

as we set, part of the protecting our children act, which will come before the u.s. house for debate and vote this week. here in particular is what president biden said last week in his comments about gun safety legislation and raising the age limit. [video clip] >> uvalde, the shooter was 17 when he asked his sister to buy him an assault weapon, knowing he would be denied because he was too young to purchase one himself. she refused. but as soon as he turned 18, he purchased two assault weapons himself because in texas you can be 18 years old and buy an assault rifle even though you cannot buy a pistol in texas until you are 21. we cannot ban assault weapons as we should, we must at least raise the age to be able to purchase one to 21. look. i know some folks will say 18-year-olds can serve in the military and fire those weapons,

but that is with training and supervision by the best trained experts in the world. don't tell me raising the age will make a difference. enough. host: do you support or oppose raising the age from 18 to 21? (202) 748-8000 if you support. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose. here is the opinion of "the washington post" this morning. there headline, common sense on guns, congress should raise the minimum age for purchasing rifles. they write six of the nine deadliest shootings in the united states since 2018 were committed by people 21 or younger, a shift from earlier decades when most mass casualty tutors were men in their 20's, 30's, or 40's. florida, washington, vermont, california, illinois, and hawaii have increased the minimum purchase age for long guns to 21. they write that florida acted after a 19-year-old gunman

killed 17 and wounded 17 more in parkland marjorie marjory stoneman douglas high school. one would have hoped he would be calling for congress to follow suit, particularly since he was critical of washington inaction when he signed the law and was running for senate. "if you look at the federal government, nothing seems to have happened there. you elect people and expect them to represent you. now states should decide the matter." let's hear from our first caller from new york and in new york city, good morning. ann in new york city. good morning. you are on the air. caller: yes. the gun laws should be changed to 20 one. i can't understand why an 18-year-old will need that kind of power. this is not going to change

until their own children get gunned down and maybe they will think about it because this is absolutely ridiculous. people losing their babies. but when it happens to one of theirs, i think the law will change then. host: to will, who is a gun owner in atlanta, georgia. good morning, will. caller: good morning, sir. appreciate you taking my call. i am a gun owner just because i am a sovereign american citizen. we are a nation of priests. we are independent under god with the power of life and death. i was in the army in 1968, came up in an army family, so it was my duty. i got out when i realized we were being mercenaries because the roman catholic cia had killed our president to put us back in vietnam six weeks out. the problem is the corrupt government. the constitution is slain by 18

forms of the world elect, with a capital e, which means chosen by god. the priest sodomized demon possessed satanists want to enslave us and exterminate us and say that out loud in the weekly liturgy in the synagogue of satan. host: supporting the change in age, the line is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose that, (202) 748-8001. for gun owners, (202) 748-8002. talking about raising the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons. here is a report from "the new york times" on discussions in the new york senate on gun legislation. senate gun talks focus on narrow changes. they write that with those discussions reaching a critical stage, mr. cornyn is putting a familiar role, the conservative republican in a room of

centrists who can make or break an agreement. ed has both sides depressing to some degree of which it will be. he was handpicked by mitch mcconnell. it needs the far-reaching gun control measures that president biden and top democrats are seeking are off the table from the start. the times writes quoting john cornyn that "it has to be incremental," he said in an interview, quickly dismissing mr. biden's steps for passing the senate, such as renewing the federal ban on assault weapons, limiting high-capacity magazines, or raising the age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 21 to 18. let's hear from ray in elizabeth city, north carolina. go ahead. caller: hello. hi. yes, thank you very much for taking my call. now, they can change the age limit. they can also pass laws, new laws.

but that is not going to change the hearts and minds of people who have made decisions. that is what needs to be done. for the change in minds and hearts of individuals, to push reports of good deeds to enforce the laws already on the books. and focus on that. host: matt up next, fort myers, florida, on our gun owners line. hey there, matt. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i don't support raising the age from 18 to 21. i feel like if pistols and rifles are both raised up to 21,

we should raise the voting age to 21, the draft to 21. i don't feel like we should be punishing people who we apparently consider adults by taking away their rights, whether they be any single person out there, single mother. i don't know why they should have their rights taken away to defend themselves, be it in chicago or baltimore or fort myers, florida. because they already cannot own pistols. so we are going to take away rifles to defend themselves in their home too. host: your state we pointed out after the parkland shooting at 2018, the legislature passed any governor signed a measure, including raising the age for the purchase of rifles including semi-automatic weapons to 21. do you think that has affected the freedoms of those who want to buy firearms in the state of

florida? caller: yeah. i think you very much could. honestly, it is a mistake the legislature did that. right now, trying to make -- desantis is trying to make it open carry and they will try to reverse that through the legislature as far as a rifle at the age of 21. host: thanks for the call. ralph is also a gun owner in kentucky. go ahead. caller: yes. you know, we are talking about guns and this and that. what happened to teaching kids in school the pledge of allegiance, morals, and values? when i went to school, it reinforced in me values and morals. you know what i'm saying? do unto others what you would have done to you. you know what i'm saying?

i am a legal gun owner. i don't use my weapons for nefarious purposes. but these children, it seems to be nowadays it is all about me, me, me, me, and i, i, i. they don't stop to think what in the world is going on in my life. no. that is all they are concerned about, not what is going on in anyone else's life. it is wrong. so many of these kids are so-called mentally ill. they have more kids on pharmaceuticals now than there ever had been before. i know you, sir. you did not grow up on pharmaceuticals. you were taught values just like i was. not only by my parents, but they were reinforced in the schools, weren't they? you tell me. host: is there any legal responsibility? do you think there is more of a legal responsibility?

does it help to raise the age to 21? the young man or woman is further into adulthood and possibly furthermore emotionally, psychologically, and socially developed. do you agree to that? caller: yes, some. but you can also go -- yeah. you can also go at 18 and die for your country. didn't the ninth circuit supreme court already rule that someone tried to change that law to 21 and it was unconstitutional? host: thanks for your call this morning. this is the opinion of the actor and potential candidate in texas, matthew mcconaughey, in "usa today" on the gun control issue in particular. there is a difference between gun control and gun

responsibility is the headline to his peace in "usa today." he writes in "usa today," "i am a father to a kindergarten student and a teacher. i believe responsible law-abiding americans have the second amendment right by our founders to bear arms. we have a cultural opposition to take steps to slowing down senseless killing of our children. the debate about gun control has delivered nothing but status quo. it is time we talk about gun responsibility. there is a difference between control and responsibility. the first is a mandate that can infringe on our rights. the second is a duty that will preserve it. there is no constitutional barrier to gun responsibility. keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people is not only the responsible thing to do , it is also the best way to protect the second amendment. we can do both. depraved actions of violence as the rippon of choice -- as the

weapons of choice are ripping families apart and shredding the fabric of our society. we have an epidemic of industry and in mass shootings, of parents burying children, of inaction, saving the unnecessary loss of lives is not a partisan issue. it is for matthew mcconaughey. in particular on the issue of raising the age, he writes this. he has a number of points and suggestions for gun measures. he writes this in particular. unless you are in the military, you should be 21 years or older to purchase an assault rifle. i am not talking but a 12 gauge shotgun or rubber action hunting rifles. i am talking about the weapon of choice for mass murderers, ar-15 style rifles. the killer in my hometown of uvalde purchased two of these semi-automatic rifles two days after his birthday, days before he killed 19 students and two teachers. he obeyed the law. had the lopp and different,

perhaps i would not be writing this today. host: back to texas. sharon, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a retired teacher. talk to-year-olds to 12th graders -- taught two-year-olds to 12th graders. if you google the difference between a woman's brain at a man's brain, a woman's brain matures at 21 and a man's brain matures at 25. the reason they have 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds in the army is their brains are so viable to change them at that time and there is no teacher that wants to end up picking up a gun and kill someone if they

are a truly dedicated teacher. they became a teacher because they love kids and wanted to help them and they did not want to end up having to kill somebody. the fort hood incident where they slaughtered so many people and it was one of the psychiatrist's that worked there -- psychiatrists that worked there, the reason they were able to slaughter so many people is soldiers are not allowed to walk around the base with a gun. under supervision, like you said. that is one of the reasons for that. this cannot continue. my husband fought in vietnam and he had the first ar-15 rifle, which did not do as much damage as the ones nowadays. and he said, you can just hold the gun at the person and it

literally the body in t where the topwo -- two where the top body fell over. they did not want to show the pictures because it is a mess. a whole list where you could not tell -- a whole mess where you could not tell anything with what was done to those kids. something has got to be done. and these people in this country have got to stand up. i have my gun because if i am ever robbed in my house, i want to be able to defend myself. but no one needs an ar-15 to do that. my 12 gauge will do that. the 12 gauge you have to refill. if they took that into a skill, they might kill one or two kids, but that would be it. you have to vote against people

who are voting for the guns at this age. host: all right, sharon. thanks for your comments. she talked about her opposition to arming teachers in schools, some of what has been talked about. this is the "washington times." there headline, democrats soften opposition to fortify school security, writing the democrats are warming to including school security measures in a cup provides gun bill viewing the concession as potential keys to clinching a deal with republicans. senator chris murphy talks on the topic, saying nothing should be left off the table when looking at ways to prevent mass shootings. "willing to vote for some things that make me bow uncomfortable if republicans will vote to tighten the nations firearms," he said. that included putting more money toward bolstering security in america's schools. the gop proposals are still in the formative stages. one proposal floated is to streamline the approval process for military veterans to serve

as school safety officers. supporting the idea of raising the age from 18 to 21 is nelson in san diego. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am on the wikipedia page of the charleston shooter. he had just turned 21. but having said that, i am for raising it to 21. now that i know that, i would raise it higher. the el paso shooter who believed in the white replacement conspiracy theory, he was 18. same with the buffalo shooter. same with the synagogue shooter. i don't know how old the other shooter was. they were racially motivated,

but people are calling and saying if people went to church more and everything, but the synagogue shooter went to the same denomination i was in, presbyterian church. the atlanta spa shooter was a reformed baptist, which i am more inclined to. that is my theological belief, southern baptist. i have seen this white replacement conspiracy theory pushed by evangelical and reformed christians, like the guy you had on your show for three hours, eric. he has mary hopkins from england on his show saying white people will have to move from state to state in america. you can check that on his podcast. other evangelicals are pushing white people are being persecuted, white people are being racially discriminated against. that is very common and evangelical circles. the church has been a problem in

this and not the answer in this. i just wanted to say that. host: one of the elements the house is working on would be raising the age for purchasing semi automatic weapons from 18 to 21 years old. other pieces of that legislation include outlawing high-capacity magazines and bump stops for personal use. it would have regulations on storing firearms and subject ghost gun purchases to background check requirements. again, that measure is coming up in the rules committee, coming up today i believe on the house floor this week. the senate is working on its own measure behind closed doors. at last week's judiciary committee hearing, compass men denver ship, republican from north carolina, said this about the age limit issue. [video clip] >> the majority guidance says these laws, speaking of bands

and some states on semi-automatic rifles being banned to 18 to 20-year-olds, these laws have been challenged in the federal courts. they referenced two cases and did not think anything else about it. i decided to read them. in the jones case, from the ninth circuit, one of the most liberal circuits in the country, it just came down last month and set california's ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles violates the constitution. it goes through this long analysis of the history of the secondment and said those rights to self-defense at the core of the second amendment that 18 to 20-year-old are covered by that right. they say just like virtually every other. in fact, i think every other right in the bill of rights applies to 18 to 20-year-olds. and there is another case, a case from the fourth circuit from where i come from. it was vacated after being issued but it wasn't analysis of

the federal ban on sales of handguns to 18 to 20-year-olds. and this came to the same conclusion, that the second amendment applies. even the sitting judge says here the majority has done careful research and has a simple persuasive evidence that young adults aged 18 to 20 had secondment rights at the time the amendment was ratified. so when we undertake to do something, in the words of the young lady from texas, isn't it incumbent on the house judiciary committee to consider, to evaluate what the constitution allows congress to do consistent with the supreme law of the land? host: we are asking you about raising that age limit from 18 to 21. if you support that, from 18 to 21, the line to call if you support as (202) 748-8000. and if you oppose, (202) 748-8001.

a couple of comments on social media. some tweets here. tony says, i support raising the age to buy rifles but not a federal law setting the age. i don't think the federal government has the power or wisdom to regulate every detail of life. this one says, do the gutless people know that ar-15 is the best gun for home defense? it is a pleasure to shoot, small recoil, ideal for children to defend their household. host: in pennsylvania, go ahead, rick. caller: yes. i am definitely against raising into 21. if we can train our people in the military at age 18 to use these weapons, it should be the same for everybody. the president disagrees with that. i really don't care what he has to say because he can't do anything any help except exec and a privilege. in new york, if you noticed in

her blog, she tried to pass that they will confiscate magazines over 10 rounds. you know what i have to say to her? please come and try and take mine. you know, i mean, that is not violence. i have a right to own these. if they want to change laws to try to take this away from us -- there is over 20,000 gun laws today. have any of these stopped any of these kids or criminals? no. it is against us law-abiding citizens. thank you for taking my call. host: ok. thanks. we go to sandusky, ohio. carol is on the line. caller: yes. i support it to 21. i support that they don't even have them. you only need them in

war. you should have to take a test. you need to take a driver's test. you need insurance. they should have to have insurance if they have to have them, but i don't think they should be allowed at all. thank you. host: all right. it is pj up next, a gun owner in vicksburg, mississippi. welcome. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i want to say i am split on it because, to be honest, my view is that just raising the gun age to 21 is unconstitutional. if they want to do that to 18-year-olds, they need to raise the majority level to 21. make it all or nothing. unfortunately, i don't think some in congress would like losing the 18 age voters. the other thing i would also say i disagree with, the nra on one thing, where they say it takes a

good person with a gun to stop a bad person. what it takes is a person with a brain to stop a bad person. good day. host: darby, pennsylvania come up next. renee supports changing the law. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. i support older -- 21, raising the age limit. this should be an all-out ban on assault weapons. this is military grade. america is a wild wild west. we have too many guns. a lot of these guns are bought by legitimate owners but end up in illegal hands because they make their own purchases and resell the guns. too many in america. all of these kids are dying and nobody cares in the end. in america, kids are expendable. you got a target on your back.

i grew up with candy cigarettes. these guns are like candy cigarettes. i am almost 70. walking around buying candy cigarettes, pretending we were smoking at 2, 4, 5, and 7. it took 40 years for them to stop selling cigarettes to kids saying it is hazardous to their your health. assault weapons have no need when you have all these other guns you can have in this country. it is ridiculous. we have more dog gun guns than any of these other countries. we have more results of gun violence. you want to stop gun violence. we don't ever want to address the real problems. we want to mess around with conciliatory. we have to fix things. you have to come together and fix things. that is the ultimate result. host: thanks for watching, renee, and calling in. here is some of what is ahead on

the c-span networks, some of the events we are covering. coming up after this program 10:00 eastern on c-span, it will be treasury secretary janet yellen before the senate finance committee talking about the president past 2023 budget proposal and certainly about inflation and other economic issues. live on c-span, our free mobile app, and c-span.org. on c-span3, it will be a hearing on domestic hate crimes and violent extremist threats, including testimony from a former u.s. attorney and former fbi special agent. the senate judiciary committee live on c-span3. it is also primary day across the country in seven states. and number of key primaries to watch. roll call is doing that with the headlines. seven questions about tuesday's primaries in seven states. nominees will be picked in california, iowa, mississippi, montana, new jersey, new mexico, and south dakota. and just one of their questions here, who fills nunez's seat?

conway, republican leader in the status ugly, is heavily favored to win -- republican leader, is heavily favored to win. she faces democrat lauren hubbard. the special election is happening the same day as primaries for the next congress, but neither conway or hubbard is running. gop stronghold will look different in of ember as reliable for public areas have been parceled out -- different in november as reliable republican areas have been parceled out. we will talk about election day as we can throughout the program. asking you this morning about the proposals to raise the gun purchasing age for firearms come along firearms, and semi-automatic weapons. it is the law and seven states across the country and now a move to make it a federal law. (202) 748-8000 if you support

that. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose. and for gun owners, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from jeremy in silver spring, maryland. caller: hey, what is going on? i am a first time caller. i guess i am really going to ask the question, if we are going to raise the age to 21 for gun ownership, wouldn't we also have to stop incriminating young teenagers, 14, 13-year-olds as adults for the crimes they commit because their brains are not fully developed? wouldn't we also have to stop voting at 18? why is it that we are allowed to sign contracts to take out loans, receive credit cards at 18 if you are not able to fully understand and contextualize everything anyways? why are we then not looking at those other subtexts?

why are you allowed to drive a car and run people over at 16? carjackings are on the rise. teenagers are doing outrageous things. but, you know, we are not talking about that. we are letting five and six-year-olds change their gender and take puberty blockers. what are we going to talk about an all-around age and not just talking about restricting gun ownership? let's also remember -- but yeah, that's it. host: we will go to keep up next supports changing the law. go ahead, newark,.ohio ohio. caller: i just don't think they should change the law.

any law-abiding citizen, if they want a gun, they can be able to permit any committal that wants to buy an illegal gun will buy one. you cannot change it from 14 to 10 because every pistol has 14 shells. the other day on that shooting that happened, if the police would have done what they were supposed to and took the kid out instead of waiting all these other people to go in there and take the kid out, if they would have gone ahead and take in the kid out before he went in that school, there would not have been all of these children that these families lost their children and the two teachers would have still been alive. the children -- the families would have still had their children. i think this actually came up more and more after this last

assault came up. so i think on that part, the police was at fault for that. so you can't actually blame the assault rifle for that. because it was the police's fault for that happening. host: i think it has also come up, certainly in the case of the uvalde shooter and the buffalo shooter, the uvalde shooter just bought a firearms at his 18th birthday. i believe the buffalo shooter as well had recently purchased those firearms and was also young. i think he was 19, the buffalo shooter. that is why the age is being focused on quite a bit here. caller: but wasn't the police around before he went into wherever? and decided he was going to shoot these people.

host: you make some good points. i appreciate that. let's hear from fred in michigan, gun owner's line. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i appreciate you taking my call. first thing, we need to define what an assault weapon is. assault weapons are already illegal in this country. if we are only speaking constitutionally, i believe that a citizen should be allowed to own any weapon that our military does. however, we need some common sense, both from the far right and from the far left. nobody would want somebody coming over to their house with a loaded apache helicopter. nobody would want somebody coming down there street with a fully loaded abrams tank. so our military and weaponry has evolved to the point where there

are instances the military needs weaponry that the private citizens don't. so we have to get beyond the absolute nth degree of the constitution. now, when 9/11 happened, we did not eliminate air flights. we hardened the cockpits. i think that is exactly what we need to do with schools. if this nation put out a call for ex military, retired law enforcement, i guarantee you you could get two or three fully trained, disciplined, no mental illness in their background people to help protect the schools. we need to change the hearts. you can take every gun off the face of this nation and people with wrong hearts would still find ways to kill people. we have to get rid of some of

these violent video games where they think killing and shooting is just a game and the people pop back up to life, which they don't. but we need some common sense. more and more people getting diagnosed young and put on these drugs and things like this. and then we wonder. we wonder why we have these issues. we have had faith totally taken out of the classrooms. god totally taken out of society. men trying to be women. women trying to be men. children tried to be adults. adults claiming to still be children. and we wonder why as a society we have some degenerate problems. host: some comments on twitter. we are also doing this as a poll on twitter. here is where things stand so far. our question for you this morning, support or oppose raising the age from 18 to 21? supporting, nearly 72%. 28% opposing. in florida, democrat on the

committee, judiciary committee, which approved the legislation the house will take up this week,. florida has changed its age of purchase for semi automatic weapons from 18 it's when he won. -- 18 to 21. [video clip] >> look at what is in this bill. raising the age from 18 to 21 for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle, let's also acknowledge in america you cannot buy a handgun unless you are 21. that somehow has not been brought up-to-date. you also cannot buy a drink or tobacco but you can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle, which by the way every time someone said to this meeting and says nothing we do here will prevent this, actually, if we had a law that said you have to be 21 to buy, these two ar-15s would not have been purchased. florida, my own florida, raised

the age to buy a gun to 21. it is a really important step. we can take it. host: some comments social media this morning. cynthia tweets this this morning. as a person put it out, the military does not allow an 18-year-old to handle a weapon without first being trained by the best in the world and second having a reason to shoot. from california, the government did not have a problem drafting 18-year-olds during the war. i was 21 and did not see any difference in maturity while there. only 21-year-olds for next draft? i think not. somebody can buy a car and should be able to buy a firearm madness. jerry is in martin cumberland, on our support line -- martin, maryland, and our support line. go ahead. you have to mute your volume. mute the tv. in maryland, mute your volume

and go ahead with your comment. caller: this is about the response for the ones that are not responsible. and forgetting the kids, they are the ones getting killed. we should not teach them how to go to school and be locked up. we don't live in russia. they should be able to enjoy school and recess. all of these think they are so great, let them have them. but if they think they need to have that protection, take them out of the house with them, take them out to take them away -- out, take them away. 21 is old enough. i have never seen so much adults, these politicians that think they know so much. the kids are doing the suffering. they are getting locked up.

they cannot play, go, enjoy school. teachers have no business carrying guns to protect them. going to hospitals now. does that mean nurses are supposed to carry guns instead of take care of people? this is stupid. the ones who are responsible will know better and don't do that, but the ones that are not responsible are the ones we are talking about. host: jerry from north dakota, thanks for that. we will go to our line for gun owners, (202) 748-8002. spokane, washington, alexandra, you are on. caller: hi. thank you. i am also split. however, i think in common sense what we can do is raise the age to 21. when you are in the military, you are 18, but you have

extensive training before you handle those weapons and then you handle them in war. we should not be letting weapons of war be handed out to anybody less than 21. most of the people who have done the mass shootings have been younger. it is just crazy. they can buy a different kind of gun. they can get a rifle if they want to go hunting. but military grade weapons should be held off until the general population, so people who are not in the military, they need to be 21. the guy who was complaining about drivers and all those other things, each of those circumstances there is training that happens that has to be checked off before they can get their drivers license. i think raising the age to 21 or making sure everybody takes gun

safety and response ability plus before they can purchase a firearm. that's it. host: thanks for the call, alexandra. this is from politico this morning. gop senators surprisingly bullish on prospects for a bipartisan gun deal. they are weighing whether to cut a bipartisan deal on gun safety as bipartisan negotiations pick up momentum in the senate. senator john cornyn of texas briefed republican leaders on monday afternoon on the state of the talks, first with leader mitch mcconnell. the outlines of what he discussed with a handful of other senators over last week's recess, according to people familiar with the meeting. he then met with senators chris murphy and kyrsten sinema of arizona for two hours monday evening to continue those negotiations. senator cornyn yesterday before that was on the senate floor talking about the state of the negotiations. [video clip] >> if we reach an agreement,

law-abiding gun owners will not be impacted at all. our conversations are ongoing and indeed all 100 senators will be part of that conversation. but these are the broad parameters of the things i am interested in addressing. we are not talking about banning a category of weapons across the board, a ban for certain high-capacity magazines, or changing the background check system by adding additional disqualifying items. if we are going to act serious about finding common ground and building consensus, those sorts of things will stand no chance of passing the senate. instead, we are talking about common sense targeted reforms responsive to the tragedies in uvalde and elsewhere that i believe will save lives. strengthening mental health,

bolstering school security, keeping guns out of the hands of people who are already legally prohibited from having them. i think a lot of our colleagues could get behind those provisions like they did with the bill. we came up with a targeted bill to address specific circumstances. i hope we can do so again. i will not settle on inadequate or downright harmful legislation for the sake of doing something. that is not productive for anyone. that is one of the things i hear the most, people saying do something. well, we can agree something needs to be done, but what that something is is much harder to achieve. so targeted reforms i think is the way to get to where we need to go. host: some of what people are saying on twitter. derek says just this, i will

take 21 but i wish it was 25. rebecca says, rick scott, florida governor in 2018, signed a gun bill into law the tuning a three-day waiting period for buying guns and immediately the nra began screaming. where is scott on guns today? this one says, why would anyone be against raising the age to buy an assault weapon? donald's in cape cod, massachusetts on the support line. caller: good morning. glad to be on. i support the 21 age. i believe that there is more to this than what has been said. the senate bankrolled by the nra

is huge. 12 of them but i ended up with half $1 billion. if you want to know what your senator is getting from the nra, just google it. google him and ask how much he is getting paid. there is a lot of money involved. that is all i got. thank you. host: good to hear from you. john is in wisconsin, a gun owner in wisconsin. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking michael. this is not just a republican issue. that is why joe manchin seems to be more of a centrist on the issue. i am a member of the nra, have been for approximately 30 years i think. and i can agree with increasing

background checks to 100% commercial sales. i am against red flag laws because i get in a fight with somebody at a bar or some but he can call somebody up to get back at me. that is kind of a gray area. another great area i think -- gray area i think is -- i lost my train of thought here. how about a mental test? if you can have a waiting period before you buy an ar-15 , ak-47, something like that, whatever, you should have a mental exam. i once had to do a mental exam. not a happy thing. should a firearm, have a waiting period, tech training before

possessing a firearm. there is a lot of things they can do besides just raising the age. they make it sound like all republicans are against it. there is a lot of people across the country democrat and independent that are gun owners, lawful gun owners. host: in wisconsin, what are the steps you have to take to buy a new firearm? caller: i have to go through a background check. just fill out the form. host: there is no waiting period to buy? caller: i believe there was a pistol, buying a handgun. a nine millimeter a semi automatic pistol. the possibility, it may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

i am a member of the nra. i am in favor of some changes but you cannot do it across the board. thanks for taking my call. host: this is an analysis. their headline, and 2019, congress pledged millions to study gun violence. the results are here. they write that a pretty accurate trauma surgeon in chicago treated a six month old baby with a bullet wound. in the five years since, he has seen dozens of children shot and wounded, sometimes killed by firearms. as he grew up and went to school in toronto, the doctor occasionally saw gun violence in that city. the number of patients he saw with gunshot wounds multiplied when he became a surgeon in two of america's biggest cities, first in chicago and now in new york, where he works at a childers medical center. each time he treats a gunshot wound, the heartbreak lingers.

that led him to pursue research in recent years. we are tired of having to tell parents over and over again they lost a loved one to a preventable disease, he said, who also leads to gun violence prevention center. we are tired of not doing much about this. after a two decade freeze on funding for gun violence research, he was excited to begin a large study on violence prevention and health care settings in 2020. in a push to revive funding for gun violence, congress allocated $25 million annually to the centers for disease control and prevention. and the national institutes of health starting in 2019. the agencies distributed their first set of grants to researchers like him in 2020. the researchers are asking questions about school violence, safe storage, and other public health interventions, but it takes time to do solid research. these projects i just begin to bear fruit. he said he expects results in

three or four months and his research will likely be among the first published because of renewed funding. more than two dozen other studies are expected to wrap up in the next years. read that at thetrace.org. sylvia is in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe the raised age of 21 -- we need technology. the movies, terminator, true lies, he is cia i think. he went through a wall. the x-ray showed the whole body. why can't we use that for schools, hospitals trains stations -- hospitals, trains, stations? we don't need military. thank you. host: opposing the changes,

stephen atlanta, georgia. stephen atlanta, you are on the air. caller: thank you. first of all, weapons of war is a joke. weaponsare weapons of war . rifles and guns are not. 85% of the shootings are with handguns. ar-14, 15, whatever is, is a bunch of bull. that does not address the problem. but you want to raise the age of being able to buy a rifle. let's raise the age for voting to 25 or 30 there is no reason not to. there is no reason anybody should be in the military and not be able to buy a gun. period. i am a veteran. i am a gun owner.

i have not fired it in 30 years. the last time i fired one was when i was in the military. the problem is the person who shoots the gun. the gun has nothing to do with it. not saying you should be able to file a suit or go at general motors or ford because the person ran someone down. if you want to raise the age just to do something, it does not solve the problem. let's solve the problem. thank you. host: to chuck on our gun owners line, farmington, michigan, next. check in michigan. caller: good morning. host: hi there. caller: i would like to comment about the double standards. as a marine corps combat veteran , we have such a double standard with people saying, well, what about the military? what should we do with the military?

the first thing they did when they drafted me, fortunately i was able to pick my service. i picked the marine corps. they handed me a firearm. america, wake up. this is not the most deadly weapon that we see. we killed 110,000 people last year with fentanyl and drugs. wake up, america. this is just a smokescreen. i would like to have other people comment because when you kill 110,000 people and nobody says anything and does anything, and i am absolutely in favor of gun control. take all the guns out of the capitol, and then we will find out what we can amend and put some teeth in the laws we now have. god bless america come and thank

you for taking my call. host: this is the opinion in the "new york post." we can do something about gang violence. rich lowry writes that the headlines coming out of the weekend were grim. 54 injured and 11 killed. seven separate mass shootings this weekend. nbc news, 12 dead and another we could have mass shootings across america. yahoo! news, 12 dad and 10 mass shootings over the weekend. the headlines are clearly designed to commute the impression the united states is experiencing a buffalo or uvalde almost every day. it is not true, says rich lowry. none of the shootings over the weekend had anything in common with those horrific events. none were carried out with ar-15 s. most involved beefs with people at parties or around bars. the first incident involved two cars pulling up at a graduation

party in south line acoma opening fire -- south carolina, killing one, opening fire. the violence of teenagers shooting teenagers and petty disputes and gang-related vendettas should not be minimized says rich lowry. it is a significant blight on american life. disproportionately affecting young african american men and rendering certain neighborhoods in our country borderline unlivable. but they are in a different category from what we commonly think of a mass shooting. that is at nypost.com. mitchell is in chattanooga, tennessee, supporting the changing of the age. go ahead, mitchell. caller: yes, i just want to say first of all good morning and thank you for having me. yeah. my first comment is why do we

send those people to washington? to sit around and do nothing? i definitely support raising the age limit to 21. when we send those people up there, we call them a name. we call them lawmakers. for someone to call in and talk about this constitution so vaguely understood -- that is nowhere in the constitution, and age limit. we need to make a law. that is what we send them therefore. we have children killing children. if you have to go to 21, go to 21. hugh: paul -- host: paulette in phoenix city, alabama. lama: -- tanya: --

caller: my daughter is afraid to go to school. age 21 does not mean you should be able to buy a gun. the police need to do more. these schools are getting shot up. people here in alabama are running around shooting people. a friend of mine got shot from getting out of his car. just because you are 21 years old is not mean you should be able to buy a gun. who are you buying a gun for? just because you are 21, you are going to buy a gun? that is ridiculous. the kp's are made for war. everything they are doing in ukraine, i agree with helping

ukraine and , but start helping america now. it is all coming back on us. kids are scared to go to school. i'm scared to go out! my mom is 89 years old. she does not want to leave the house. i do not want to leave the house and i am 57 years old. host: this is from politico this morning. " doj charges proud boys with seditious conspiracy over the january 6 attack." they have charged the leader of the proud boys who played a role in the january 6 attack with conspiring to use force to oppose the presidential transfer of power. the charges escalate the case against of the proud boys and

their leader who now will face some of the most severe charges related to the attack on the capital. similar charges were unveiled against the oath keepers in january of this year. the january 6 public hearings get underway thursday night at 8:00 eastern live here on c-span. live coverage is available on our free mobile app, c-span now. the second hearing will be this coming monday. we will also have that live for you here on c-span. on that committee is jamie raskin who spoke yesterday about the progress of the committee so far. [video clip] >> we have a mountain of evidence about what took place.

i hope all of the most important material evidence will be made available to the public. we had 150 of our officers wounded, hospitalized by the mob, which unleashed violence upon us in order to break our windows, tear down our doors, drive congress out of the capitol and interfere with the transfer of power, and blocking the counting of electoral college votes. we have officers who have broken vertebrae, broken ribs, broken jaws, lost fingers, traumatic rain injuries, posttraumatic stress syndrome. this was an act of violence in the nation's capital unlike anything any of us has ever seen before. the investigation launched by

congress is the most sweeping investigation launched by the doj in its history. nothing even comes close. we are talking about and event of grave danger to the republic. it was not a tourist visit. it was not legitimate political discourse. it was not discourse of any kind. it was violence unleashed against the people of the united states and our representatives in congress, and all of it was surrounding a concerted , pre-existing plot to overturn in destroy the results of the 2020 presidential election. host: our morning question about raising the firearm age -- some responses from twitter. " in the meantime, i support purchasing firearms at age 25

after you pass a competency exam for safety." " too many solutions are meant to target scary looking weapons. it is an arbitrary number," so stony, -- says tony, " with no basis in logic>" -- says tony, " with no basis in logic. " 31% oppose raising the minimum age. let's go to hard well, georgia -- hartwell, georgia. caller: i support raising the age to 21 for some firearms in particular the ar-15, ak-47, and all the copycats like that,

because those weapons were designed strictly for military use and then the firearm company is managed to sell them to the public. as far as the military is concerned, when an 18-year-old joins the military or is drafted into the military, they are issued weapons after being fully trained. when they are issued the weapons, it is with adult supervision. when the need for the weapon is finished, they turned the weapon back in. they do not only weapons. that is kind of out of their. -- out of there. as far as ar-15, ak-47, and all

copycat weapons, they should be banned because they were not meant for civilian use. host: there is more ahead on the program. we will continue the conversation on this issue more with stephen kotowski -- steve gutowski who joins us next. you talk about this more in depth, including what is going on in congress. later on in the program, david cornwell talk about the upcoming january 6 committee hearing -- david corn will talk about the upcoming january 6 committee hearing. ♪

>> after months of closed-door investigations the january 6 house committee is ready to go public. tune in as congress interviews witnesses. tune in thursday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span or on c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span's the weekly podcast brings you over 40 years of audio recordings from our audio library. on today's episode -- >> why are we here, if not to try and make sure that fewer communities go through what sandy hook has gone through? what uvalde is going through? our heart is breaking

for these families. every ounce of thoughts and prayers we can send, we are sending. >> that was chris murphy shortly after the shooting at robb elementary school in uvalde, texas. the next day senator murphy was quoted in the new york times telling those of the capitol " our job is not to send thoughts and prayers. it is to pass laws." we hear what senate and house chaplains told congress in their prayers in the days after 19 children were killed in mass shootings. >> help them. help us all to have hope in a time of great desolation. >> you can find the weekly on

the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. host: our next guest is stephen kotowski -- steve gutowski, who is the author of the reload. you can find it on th ereload.com. it focuses on gun issues. steve gutowski, welcome back. tell us about your publication. why did you started and how is it supported? do you have ads or subscribers? guest: the reload is a member supported site. we do not have any corporate backing. it is an independent publication. host: why did you start it? did you feel these issues were

not being covered in a certain way or not as much as like to see? guest: often times most media outlets do not have much knowledge about firearms, how they work, or even gun culture, why people own guns, why the politics surrounding restrictions. i started the reload to bring more to the topic. host: what is your expertise that you bring to the publication? guest: i have been reporting on this issue exclusively for the last decade. most of that time, i broke a number of stories on firearms issues, whether it is about the nra or about legislation in congress or the etf director position, so i have had a lot of

experience. i am a certified firearms instructor as well. host: when you read stories in the mainstream media, what do you think are some of the fundamentals reporters often get wrong in their reporting on stories about firearms or firearms used in the commission of a crime? guest: a lot. a lot of mistakes are made about the basic function of firearms even. something even as simple as the difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic, which is where a gun will fire continuously if you hold the trigger down. these are mistakes that are commonly made about gun laws, what actual proposals would do to change that, and there is also, i think, a complete focus on the criminal use of firearms. we talk about this a lot in the

media during mass shootings. they are very newsworthy events. we do not really talk about firearms and many other contexts at all. 45% of the country reports having a gun in their home. normal people own guns. there is a lot more to the story of firearms then mass shootings. host: you mentioned the term " gun culture," in the united states. what are some unreported stories about america's gun ownership? guest: the changing face of gun owners in america. you see more women buying guns, more minorities buying guns. the stereotype of the old white, rural man who likes to hunt being the only one who owns guns is becoming increasingly out of touch with reality. there is coverage of this in the media generally, so i do not want to cast too wide of a net,

but it has been largely ignored. the impact it has been having on politics has not been examined. there are a lot of different kinds of people who own guns and they own them for different reasons. host: i was curious about your recent piece, your newsletter that said " and the nra stumbles." you wrote this after the recent nra meeting in houston. tell us what they stumble was by the nra and generally what is editorially your approach to the nra? guest: we try to provide fair coverage to the nra. it is important for them to know what is going on inside their organization. we try to do it in a fairway that is not unduly attacking the organization. we do not run editorials. we do analysis.

-- we do analysis. in this most recent case, we reported on their annual report they put out that shows their finances for the groups that make up the nra. it is not a very good report. spending has been cut dramatically over the last three years, and so has revenues and so have member dues. they are down. host: any idea what is behind that? guest: obviously covid had an effect on all charities, but it is not just covid. they cut hundreds of people from staff, but they have not rehired all of those people, and they have had internal turmoils. they lost membership. that is based off of corruption allegations against wayne lapierre and other members of leadership. that has creating internal -- created internal fighting. you also have the fact that they

are using very old styles of fundraising and membership development that relies on direct mail. it is not so clear that they are picking up these new gun owners. we had this surge of gun buying during the pandemic, and everything that followed from that, and the nra did not grow its membership during that time. host: you are at the recent meetings. what was attendance like? guest: attendance was very low, even by their own numbers. it was actually the lowest attended nra annual meeting since 2006. the same can be said of their board elections. the members vote on who will be on the board of directors. they had the fewest number of ballots returned since 2006.

members are not as engaged as they have been in the past. host: steve gutowski is our guest. he is the editor of the reload. we will be talking about congressional efforts to address gun violence. we will welcome your calls and comments. the lines are divided. four republican -- for republicans, it's (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for gun owners, it's (202) 748-8003. independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: -- guest: the most notable one is

the micro stamping requirement. the focus there is to require handguns to have technology that imprints a special marking on every shell casing fired out of a gun. the law will be, once the state acknowledges -- confirms that technology is viable, it will be illegal to cell any gun that -- sell any gun without that technology. effectively, that is a total ban on sales of handguns once that law goes into action. host: part of the new york package that deals with higher capacity magazines. guest: there is a confiscation

measure in the new york package of legislation. what they are doing, they have limited the size magazines can be, but they allowed the ones people already own to remain legal. they are removing that legal protection. if you possess any of those magazines you may have purchased illegally at the time, it becomes a crime to possess them. you have to give them up or destroy them. host: have you learned how they plan to address that? will they have a buyback or a grandfather period where you can turn them in? guest: there is a grace period. new jersey did a similar action a few years ago and they did not have a buyback. they did not couple it with any enforcement mechanism. they not going door-to-door. often times they are used as

pack on crimes. someone commits another crime with a gun and they happen to have a magazine that is illegal in the state. host: it was passed last week, what is called the protecting our children act. it would raise the purchasing age for other medical rifles to 21. it would crack on gun trafficking, and also subject ghost gun purchases to background check requirements. a lot there. a question we ask our viewers, in terms of raising the federal age, some six or seven states have raised the age to 21. what are your thoughts on that? guest: recently in california in

the ninth circuit, it was determined that a total ban on ar-15 and similar rifles for anyone between 18 and 21 is unconstitutional. it is too broad-based . if it goes to the full ninth circuit, people expect they will uphold the law. it is something florida did in the wake of parkland. a couple of states have tried this. they are new so they have not fully gone through. it will see -- handguns are not regulated by --

i do not see it passing the senate, frankly. i have spoken to a number of staffers on both sides of the discussion in the senate and age restrictions for rifles is not something that will pass. host: one of the elements of that legislation that caught my attention was the ban on bump stocks for civilian use. i thought that was addressed by legislation after the las vegas shootings. guest: president trump actually initiated a federal ruling to ban bump stocks, to classify them as machine guns under the national firearms act, which was basically a confiscation. this law is meant to codify that. it is already illegal to possess bump stocks in this country. no one makes them because of

that. it is a redundancy, i guess. host: you have been talking to senate staffers about the negotiations going on. what is the difference? what are you hearing his difference on the senate side? what do you think is possible in the senate? guest: right now the discussion that has the best chance of ending in a deal has to do with red flag laws, not a federal statute that would allow federal courts to issue emergency orders, but a federal model legislation with funding to incentivize states to pass those sorts of laws. that seems to be picking up the most steam in the senate, coupled with school security type measure like senator grassley's act, which would look at school threats.

that is the most likely thing to come. there is a lot of pessimism about all -- around all of these discussions. democrats are willing to take anything on guns that republicans are willing to put on the table, but more republicans are focused on mental health. host: all of these mass shootings are horrific events. you have been watching this for a while. you have been watching reaction on capitol hill to these events for a while. and your sense is that they are closer to passing legislation. guest: that does not mean they are that close. closer because it is a horrendous event that garnered a lot about rage, but the solutions on each side are very different from each other, and it's hard to find common ground beyond something small.

host: we have a call for steve gutowski. independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. i had a couple of questions. one, in terms of raising the age to 21, how does that work with the voting age only being 18? i think the same logic would apply to raising the gun purchase age to 21. from that standpoint, i would not go along with raising the gun purchasing age to 21 without raising the voting age to 21. the gun violence we are seeing in philadelphia, los angeles, how will any of that be addressed? laws have not worked. it is a matter of enforcing

the current laws. these cities have stricter gun laws and they have the worst gun violence in the u.s.. i want the gentleman there to explain these red flag laws. my understanding is that they will violate due process. does that mean people will be able to complain about their neighbors and somebody can come take their guns? that is what i am concerned about. host: thank you for calling in, steve, go ahead. guest: those are good questions, honestly. on the 18 to 21, that is one of the objections of course, that it is age discrimination. we already have an age disparity in our federal gun laws because you have to be -- the question becomes are we going to

continue raising these age limits for gun purchases or all sorts of rights that are guaranteed in the constitution? it is something that is obviously main objection to these sorts of laws. republicans in the senate are effectively agreeing, that this is not an appropriate remedy. you also get to judging people by their demographic group. the history of that logic taking hold leads to other things. these are issues that are difficult to solve, because most violence is committed by people who are males between the ages of 16 and 25. that's why people want to target

these laws. red flag laws, one of the important caveats to red flag laws, these are designed to allow the temporary seizure of firearms, if someone is proved to be a threat to themselves or others. you have to be very careful about how you set up a red flag law, because the common critique is that they do violate due process. they do not give the opportunity for the person accused of being threat -- being a threat to themselves or others to defend themselves. they are not present for the first phase of this process. how long before they can get into court? if that is too long, that is a problem, then you have issues with who can raise a red flag order?

that is another thing that varies from state to state right now. most states do not allow just anybody to do itm but some of them -- do it, but some of them have extended it. new york allows police prosecutors, health officials, family members, and school officials. even when you have those things available, the fact that it does not always work anyway because look at the buffalo shooting -- he was taken to a hospital for a psych evaluation, and apparently was not found to be a threat to himself or others, and a few months later carried out his attack. there is a lot of complications. there is a third question, right? host: that was pretty much red flag laws, city violence, particularly what has happened over the weekend. guest: that is a really good point.

the other problem with media coverage focusing on mass shootings, is that it conflates different kinds of gun violence, or different kinds of gun deaths even. most gun deaths are suicides. that is going to be a different solution to that issue, or at least different policy to prevent suicides rather than street shootings. same thing for your everyday murders that happen in the country, which have increased in the country after a long decline. the issue is you have to find the proper balance of policies. not one policy will address all of these things. host: let's hear from indiana. walter is on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

it is kind of funny. we are talking about guns and weapons! i am a united states veteran. does that mean the military men and women who have guns will not be able to carry a gun until 21? it is preposterous, the whole thing. i have an ar-15. it has not moved. it has a high-capacity magazine in it. it has never moved out of my room. it has never shot anybody. maybe it is not the weapon. maybe it is the people. that is a whole other issue! you get these knuckleheads, these politicians and pundits on tv, and they go " weapons of war," and sheila jackson lee couldn't even describe what a weapon of war is.

i had a semiautomatic. i had an automatic rifle in the military. let's get rid of all the weapons of war. it is the same old same old. when you get to be old, you realize anybody who wants to fix the problem would go to the source of the problem. let's ban cars because cars kill people. host: walter in indiana on the ar-15, he says he owns. how often is not bought as a home protection firearm? guest: that is one of the most common reasons americans buy ar-15's. that is what they call modern

sporting rifles. ar-15 is the primary gun in their. -- in there. most people buy them for home defense. they are also good for sport shooting as well. you can hunt with them, depending on what game you're hunting. they usually require a hallet -- higher caliber bullet to hunt deer. primarily, home defense is there reason people buy sports shooting, target shooting for others. host: on the independent line, you are on. caller: it is interesting you brought up the ar-15. i have a comment regarding the shooter in uvalde, texas. this young man was 18 years old, clearly mentally disturbed, but

beyond that do not think enough attention is being given to the fact that he was able to acquire 2 ar-15's. to an 18-year-old, those products are well beyond their financial reach. i am wondering who financed this young man to get these weapons. he was clearly already mentally disturbed. i am thinking someone behindi thiss -- is young man. whenever these shootings take place, there is always an " opportunity" for the far left to jump on the bandwagon. you can tell by my voice i am an african-american. i am a teacher, former reservist, but where the nra

lost me was the shooting that took place in the early 2010s with castille. he was pulled over by the police. he told the officer " i have a gun in my glovebox. i am an nra member." he got shot by the cop. the nra -- you cannot be selectively advocacious when it comes to a person. you advocate for your members are not at all. i felt this guy had a legitimate case to have a weapon. his gun rights were clearly violated, and he paid for it with his life. those issues disturbed me. host: all right.

guest: on the money question, there is no evidence that anybody else paid for his gun. it is an interesting question. those were expensive rifles that he bought. it would be good to know how he got the money to do that, given his age and lack of apparent income. as far as the nra question goes, this is an issue we hear a lot that the nra did not speak up in issues -- cases like with philando castile. castile had a concealed carry license. he was legally allowed to have the gun he had on him. nra didn't do much in response to that shooting. host: has the nra responded to that criticism? guest: the nra has a lot of

african-american members, and they do often promote them in their marketing material. they have events in detroit to teach women there to carry firearms. rick ector is african-american as well. it is not that they do not do any work in the african-american community, but it is a criticism you will hear. host: let's hear from patty in reidsville, wisconsin, democrats' line. caller: stephen, thank you for taking my call. i am a retired nurse and i have taking care of patients who were

shot. it was not pretty. my recommendation is when these shootings happened, the people who are pro-military style weapons should have to be given a tour of the site, or at least be taken to the class where children were shot. they need to walk through and see all of the interior damage done to that building. secondly, my daughter and son-in-law are temporarily working in germany in the health care system. they are pro-gun people, but there gun has to be locked up in armories. you are able to take it hunting, or competitive shooting, but it has to be turned in, and if it isn't, they will come knocking at your door because they had a violent situation there, and

that is how they illuminated all these tragic murders. thank you -- eliminated all these tragic murders. thank you. guest: yes, well, firearms are deadly weapons and they can produce a lot of damage. it is horrible when they are used against innocent people, and i think all gun owners realize and recognize that and do not want innocent people to be killed in any way, whether with firearms or otherwise. certainly, i do not think there is a lack of understanding in the gun community. it is just that lawful gun owners do not feel as though they are responsible for the criminal actions of other people, especially monstrous people like the shooter at uvalde. they do not feel any affinity. people feel rather offended when they are compared or implicitly connected to mass killers and

that way. host: let me ask about the legal liability of gun manufacturers. the headline says " you've all the victims demand answers from daniel defense, the maker of the rifle used by the shooter." they say " the attorneys representing the father of a 10-year-old killed in the shooting in uvalde, texas filed a letter demanding answers from daniel defense regarding the company's controversial marketing techniques and any communication they had with the gunmen." legally -- the gunman." legally, is that companies subject to any legal action? guest: gun companies are protected from lawsuits that relate to the criminal use of their products by a third party.

if they did not know about, it before hand they cannot be held responsible similar to if someone, runs you over with a ford truck you cannot sue ford. one of the president's biggest priorities is to repeal this law. there has been continuous attempts to circumvent these protections. you can still sue gun manufacturers just like you can sue manufacturers of cars or anything else if their product is defective. host: here they seem to be focus on the marketing techniques. guest: this is the new tactic to circumvent the act.

you saw it in the sandy hook settlement with remington. that was the biggest success they have had since the passage of this law. it was not a court ordered settlement. it was done out of court between, effectively the insurers of remington because remington went bankrupt during this lawsuit, so the insurers were left with the liability. the marketing of the bushmaster rifle used in sandy hook somehow violated state law. one of the loopholes or one of the ways around the law is if a company has violated a state law they cannot use that legal liability protection. if they violated the advertising laws of the state they are being sued in, they can be held liable

for the underlying crime. host: and that was the case with remington in connecticut? guest: that was the argument. it never got to the point where a court decided whether remington or the families were right. they decided to settle. host: from that reporting on daniel defense, do expect the same kind of process? guest: i would expect the lawsuit to happen, yes. whether or not they are successful as the sandy hook parents were is a different question. host: let's hear from rick on our gun owners' line. caller: good morning, guys. i hope you have a good tuesday. a brief comment on the uvalde shooting and the failure of the police to react. there are four court cases that

say police have no duty to intervene in these. one of them is the district of columbia. castle rock versus gonzales. sometimes dick cheney versus winnebago colony is cited also. if they just read what happened in the district of columbia, i think most people would be shocked. host: -- guest: yeah, that is a good point. i do not think most people are aware of the legal situation surrounding policing. police do not have a legal liability if they do nothing to intervene you. it is not a legal responsibility.

most police have a commitment to do that. they take an oath to protect people, but they will not be held liable if they failed to do that. in the parkland shooting, there were lawsuits surrounding the inaction of police in that instance. there were lawsuits in this incident, especially given the scene, we know, given what happened where police failed to intervene for over an hour with that shooter in that classroom with the children locked in their, while parents -- there, while parents were being restrained outside. the reality is there is no legal liability connected to action to defend someone outside of specific circumstances, like if they are in police custody where the state has involuntarily

taken control of their safety. i think it is something a lot of gun owners .2 as why they -- owners point to as why they own guns. you will see in the aftermath of this shooting, " the police did in practice even -- didn't protect even these children in a situation where urgent response was needed. it is ultimately up to you to defend yourself." that will be the take away for many gun owners in this case. host: you're the editor of the reload at the rel -- thereload.com. it is subscription-based. how many subscribers you have? guest: 1000. our content is free. host: how do you get the newsletter? guest: go to thereload.com and

sign up for the newsletter. host: let's hear from florida, democrats'line -- let's hear from ryan in florida, democrat'' line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a lifelong democrat who has always wanted a gun. when i was 18, i had no firearms training or experience. when i bought my first ak, i made sure not to buy rounds until i was completely familiar with the mechanism. i do not think a lot of people do that. i wanted to know if there would be some sort of recourse for 18-year-olds to 21-year-olds to

have a pathway to owning firearms? strong room in every classroom, like a teacher's office, for all of the kids to be able to pack into and have a lockbox in that strong room makes a lot of sense to me. the reason i am a democrat is because free college means more professionals in the world and free health care. host: any thoughts? guest: i would note there is a caller who is a democrat and bought an ak when he was 18 years old. this stereotype or about gun owners -- stereotype about gun owners is overblown. that demonstrates that is not necessarily the case. this question on 18 to 21 still

being able to own guns, they are doing what florida did, which is to raise the age of buying semiautomatic rifles, which would leave other kinds of rifles and shotguns still available for purchase in that case. it would effectively restrict the most popular rifle in the country, which is the ar-15. it would limit their ability to own guns, but there would still be some ability there. school hardening has been one of the main responses you have seen from republicans in response. they want better doors, they want a single entrance point solution for school security. that has been the main policy proposal you have seen from republicans in response to the shooting, rather on the other --

host: it is surprising the ar-15 is the common choice for home defense. it is a bigger firearm than a pistol. it would seem a pistol would be easier to access, easier to store, and to have available for home defense needs in a pinch like that. what makes the ar-15 so popular in that regard? guest: handguns are probably still the most popular overall. we saw more handguns than long guns over the last decade or so, so it would not be surprising to find that handguns are more popular overall. the main purpose people by the ar-15 is for home defense. it is more accurate than a handgun. it has a higher capacity for a munition than a handgun does, and it is still relatively light. the impulse is very little. host: we will go to jerry in

georgia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: ok. thanks. as far as owning guns go, i will never give up for anything concerning the second amendment, for one very simple reason -- cannot trust a politician. if you could trust a politician addressing gun control would be no problem. none whatsoever. one of the best examples i know, right here in georgia, when they passed the seatbelt law, it was very lenient. the only way they could give you a ticket is if they stop you for doing something else. every year since it has gotten

tighter and stricter, tighter and stricter. that is where your gun law will be. if we ever try to do something to the second amendment, they will never stop. guest: i actually think this connects to the earlier caller who talked about gun laws in germany. in america we are different from most of the rest of the world. it stems not just from our armed revolution being the birth of our country, but also a general distrust of government and politicians is higher here than in other countries. there is a tendency to, favor individualism and self-sufficiency and i think that plays a lot into our gun politics. host: it is the reload.com, steve gutowski its founder and editor. thank you for being with us this

morning. later on we will be joined by mother jones bureau chief derek korn. the efforts going on -- more on gun reform, the efforts going on on capitol hill. coming up, open phones. we welcome your thoughts. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. ♪ >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. bestseller lists and trend through interviews. you can find it on c-span now or

wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> now available to c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government, with contact information for every member of congress as well as contact information for the biden administration cabinet. order your copy tonight or skin -- today or scan the qr code on your screen. >> c-span has unfiltered view -- unfiltered coverage of the russian invasion of ukraine. we also have international perspectives from international

leaders, all on c-span now and c-span.org/ukraine, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> if you are enjoying book tv, then sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the upcoming author discussions and more. book tv, every sunday or online at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: it is open forum here on washington journal, your chance to weigh in with your thought on public policy you are following, including some of the things we have talked about so far.

you have a chance to weigh in on gun issues, or january 6 with the earrings coming up beginning thursday -- hearings coming up beginning thursday. it is also primary day in 7 states across the country. this is a headline from one of the pieces looking at one of those races. we talked about a couple of them earlier today. i will scroll down to a discussion of new jersey. " will jersey go for juniors? voters in new jersey will decide if they will pick a pair of juniors for nominees. it could show the power of strong name id. tim kaine junior and the son of the state's former governor is seeking a rematch with tom malinowski, one of the most vulnerable incumbents up for election.

you must beat six other republicans, including some who claim he is not conservative enough. kaine has out raised all of his other primary opponents, bringing over $2 million. in the eighth district, rob menon -- rob menendez is running for the democratic nomination. menendez, who had raised more than $1 million through may 18 faces on you everhart. the democratic establishment has back to be younger menendez. let's go to largo, florida and hear from jim on our democrats -- jan on our democrats' line. caller: good morning.

i went to say just a couple of things in regards to assault weapons. i believe the age should be 25 for purchase. i believe all of these assault weapons should be regulated in the -- confiscated in the u.s. and be sent to ukraine. that is where they will be useful against this war -- in this war against putin. god bless you and god bless america. host: jerry is in broadway virginia. republican line. first off, in this country, we have two political parties -- a republican party and the communist party pretending to be

democrats. they have been trying to disarm citizens for 100 years. that is what communist regimes do. they control their citizens. citizens in this country have never been more -- than they are today. who in the world --? any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon. -- our assault weapons. ar 15 is simply a rifle. host: next up is rachel in texas, democrats line. caller: my personal opinion is

my sister is a teacher in texas, this hits home for me, imagining my sister in this scenario. and come from a republican family. -- i come i am a democrat myself. in my point of view, you have to be over 20 two rent a car, so why can someone at 18 buy an assault weapon? host: on your sister, what do you hope will happen in terms of being able to make schools safer from attacks such as the one in uvalde? caller: the guy who walked into the school, he walked in through an unlocked door. when i was in high school, they

made sure all of our doors were locked. i do not understand how it was unlocked. i do not want to arm teachers. where would the teacher keep the gun and keep them away from the children? there is a note to arm a teacher. -- no way to arm a teacher. kids should not have to worry for their lives in school. when 9/11 happened, laws were changed immediately. claim these happened -- when this happened, the first one, nothing has changed. host: andrew, westfield, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i am going to express my dissatisfaction with our government for the way they are

crucifying working people. i graduated high school in 1969. i got drafted by the u.s. and served two years in the marine corps and got out with an honorable discharge. from then on, i worked 1-2 jobs to provide my family a home. when i become eligible for retirement, i retired from the postal service in which i served 35 years, and i also qualified for social security because i had my 40 quarters in. what is really aggravating to me is social security cut my benefits by over 50% because i

had a federal government paycheck as well as social security. i feel this is a disgrace to every working man and woman, because we did not make the qualifications that required us to the able to drop both retirement from the federal and the is social security insurance. on both cases, i caved in and my employer paid into social security. it is such a disgrace that they cut us for being hard-working americans. host: was this a surprise or did you know ahead of time that this was going to be the deal when you retired? caller: i heard about the laws in 1986 or 1984, but my point

is we were born and raised to work hard and the government would take care of us. for congressmen to put this mandate on working people is sinful. when congressman want a raise, they just enact one. host: there is a story in political about redistricting in louisiana. louisiana's governor said monday she will call the legislature into a special session to brought up new congressional boundaries. now that a federal judge has blocked use of maps that have only one majority black district. john bel edwards announced this plan at a news conference just minutes after the regular legislative session ended and date few hours after u.s. district judge shelley deck

blocked the new maps, including an order that the legislature draw up a remedial plan by june 20. we go next to anthony in minneapolis. caller: i have a couple of things i want to bring up. first, we need to understand that we have a lot and hate in our country and it showed up in the last time the election went through i am afraid for the next two elections. i do not see either party accepting a loss. how do you walk past that? we constantly hear republicans say that guns do not kill people and that only law-abiding people should have them. most people were law-abiding prior to the time that they

committed the crimes. i do not understand why people continue to look at the second amendment and not read the whole thing. it is about a militia. -- and also, even distrusting the government. if the government has the military behind you, you ain't doing nothing. i do not care if you give everybody an ar 15, it is not going to help. you do not have planes or bombs. the last part, i am an african-american, born and raised in chicago it is racist to continue to point out chicago when all across the country, things are unsafe. you cannot go anywhere without having to make sure you know where exits are. we are in an existential dilemma. we probably have four years --

in this election is going to be crucial. host: dan, brooklyn, republican line. caller: one thing -- i had experience with combat. i treated patients with gunshot wounds. it is nice to know that after you have seen these horrible things in urban settings, here in more rural areas, you go home, lock your door and feel safe, but some of these high-powered rifles can be shot at site your home and can penetrate through your walls and hit you and kill you. that is how powerful these guns are and how weak these buildings. people being allowed to have guns and shoot animals out here in rural areas -- not rural, but

more isolated with greenery. consider the fact the waving houses are constructed now, the world cannot protect you. a bullet can easily go through the wall. i am not talking through the window, but the wall. the material they use now would not be protective. i would like to know what think about that -- the fact that you are exposed in your own house to somebody shooting outside and would probably be safer behind a tree. when you talk about people being allowed to have guns, consider that your home is not protective. host: this is from the wall street journal on the presidents trip later this week. the biden administration has excluded cuba, nicaragua,

venezuela from a key summit this week that has mexico's leader backing out and sending his foreign leader instead. and mid-threats of a boycott, the administration excluded the three autocracies do to concerns over human rights. the regional summit being held in los angeles is expected to focus on gratian and economic issues. the president's is we do not believe dictators should be invaded. karine jean-pierre said that mexico's present -- president said he would skip the meeting. he said he had a good relationship with esther biden and planned to visit the white house in july. in alabama, brett, independent

line. caller: two comments -- the government continues and has always continued to take away rights. i ask your peers this one question. when was the last time that the u.s. government gave us additional rights or more freedom. if you cannot answer that, think of all the times they try to take away more rights and tighten restrictions, more regulations, more ways to make money off of us, finds for everything like seatbelts. taking away the second amendment or any portion thereof is a dangerous position, because once they encode on that, they take away more and taking

restrictions -- tighten restrictions. you cannot rely on the government to protect us. you have to be able to protect yourself. the case in point is uvalde. there are questions of why it took officers so long to get into the classrooms, but i was not in that position. the caller had a point. 9/11, look what happened. everything changed. we got a national security force inside every airport. the only person to ever try to get on a plane with a shoe bomb, they changed everything. now we are still taking off our shoes 20 years later and not one other attempt with a shoe bomb has been made. but we have lost that right and are never going to get it back.

school shootings have been going on for years. we still have them. they have done nothing to protect our schools. i am not talking about taking away guns. i am talking about schools with barricades and fencing. they have changed things by locking doors, but in uvalde, a door was unlocked. every school needs police officers, high fences, security. they locked down the social security office. you cannot walk in there with up of coffee, but you can walk into a school with a pistol or bomb. host: the headline here previewing the hearing later today, persistent inflation puts it yelling in the spotlight. janet yellen testifying this morning before the senate

finance committee. we will have that live. also this morning is a hearing on domestic crimes at 10:00 a.m. eastern as well over on c-span3. john in mankato, minnesota. go ahead. caller: i am talking about the gun you shoot. i do not think it is right to question the motives of those on either side, but the fact is that the nra and its supporters going back 60 years to increase the number of guns in our country in order to make our country safer. but now we know that their method does not work.

what happened in buffalo? the shooter wore body armor. many will wear body armor. in parkland and in uvalde, we know we cannot rely on the police or anybody else to protect our citizens. it is not just schools. if the guy cannot shoot somebody in the school, he will get him in the playground if not in the playground, in the mall. host: up next, we will be joined by david corn, the washington bureau chief for mother jones. we will be talking about congresses approach to gun legislation and taking a look ahead at the first public hearings of the january 6 select committee. that is coming up. ♪

>> recorded conversations -- at least 60 presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear them on cnn's podcast, presidential recordings. >> you will hear from linden johnson about the march on somma and the war in vietnam. not everybody knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries and new because they were tasked with transcribing many conversations and cure the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal through an open door. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> the number assigned the day

he died -- if i cannot go -- i will not go anywhere, just stay behind these gates. >> presidential recordings, now on the bed now about or wherever get your podcasts -- find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> the house january 6 committee set to go public. tune in as numbers question key witnesses. what are live coverage getting thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we welcome back david corn , washington bureau chief for mother jones. several issues happening on capitol hill today. we start with the first public hearings and over a year for the january 6 select committee. what do you expect? what would you like to hear? guest: let us step back. i have been paying attention for congressional hearings for more years than i would like to admit. they are not what they used two b. committees are not as strong on the investigative front. they have had trouble figuring out how to do hearings in a new information environment and have not and impactful. if you years ago, when all the democrats were saying just wait for x to testify. that will change everything and

it did not change anything. the january 6 committee understands this. they are committed to trying to do what they can to their stories in an engaging way to remind people what happened and to try to get a few persuadable steps there are not many out there -- to focus on this innate way that they may be has not. -- have not. host: what is your sense of how these hearings will look different? guest: it will be prime time. in days past, hearings on and on and by the evening, you were sick of them. do it on broadcast schedules. they are attuned to the idea of presenting new information so it's not like, we have heard this before.

but to do it without a lot of speech-ifing. hearings get bogged down a speechmaking from members on both sides on points and not germane to the hearings. they have a much stronger idea of how to tell a story. they will let investigative staff members be in charge -- use of the video, use of new information, what i hear, i have been reporting -- much more committed to making this a success then in the past decades. host: there are already geared j.k. simmons out of this hearing with steve bannon and peter navarro -- doj cases coming out of this hearing guest: these are two different tracks hearing the hearings are

to tell the american public what they found from their investigation. wrongdoing may remain not be current -- or there is a lot that goes on that is wrong that may not raise it to the level of a crime, but it is still there job to tell the public what happened. then you go over to the justice department. they have been prosecuting cases related to the investigation, contempt cases of people who have not cooperated. steve bannon and peter navarro has been indicted. the house has also asked them to bring contempt charges against danny vino. the justice department has not done that yet. meanwhile, they are investigating the riot itself and yesterday put forward

charges of sedition against members of the proud boys and the oath keepers. a lot have wondered if they will have charts against donald or his inner circle for what was done throughout the post election period to try to overcome the election results. so far, we have not seen that out of the white house. it is unclear that the committee will produce new evidence. host: how horton do you think those -- how important you think those indictments from yesterday will be? guest: they are tremendously important. we are looking at the capitol right now that day, thousands stormed it and were trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power. i was working at home, not there. two reporters were there at the back end.

at that point, i said, do not go in. but they followed the folks in. i was monitoring from afar, but this was an attempt on the part of the padres and keepers to stop the certification and overturn election results. that is punishable, but we need to deter people from thinking they can do this again. host: the role of donald trump was litigated in the impeachment last year. doug jones said, the committee said it is not their job to build a criminal case. that is merrick garland's job. there will be a temptation to make this about tom. when they do, they will lose

people. at the end of the day, and this is in assault on democracy. guest: i would disagree a bit. i would not make it all about donald trump, but i do believe that donald trump's efforts to try to stop the certification in concert with people who were trying to put in fraudulent electors, this is what i think has not cut through enough. there was a real attempt on donald trump's part to overturn the election on the basis of no evidence. they keep saying, we are not overturning anything, this was fraud, but they have not produced any evidence that this happened. you have republican secretaries of state and officials who have said again and again that there

was no fraud. this whole effort they were making -- john eastman being involved, steve bannon, putting pressure on the justice department -- donald trump tried to replace the acting attorney general with a lack who would clear the election was fraudulent. these are elements of the story that deserve more attention and are as important as the riots. host: our guest is david corn. we welcome your calls and comments at guest: -- at (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and for

independents, (202) 748-8002. in the wake of the shootings, it -- internally and in the house, there have been talks of bipartisan legislation in the u.s. senate, but what might come at this? guest: i think about lucy and the football. you think you are close to a field goal and it does not happen. my sympathy goes out to the family members of victims of mass shootings. we have seen a steady increase of gun violence. , my perspective, i think it is part of a sickness that does not exist in other countries. it is not that other countries do not have mental health issues or issues with doors in schools. the only difference is the

amount of guns we have and our laws. after these horrific events, some republican members -- john cornyn, republican senator from texas -- working with a bipartisan group in the senate, led on the democratic side by chris murphy, who comes from connecticut and the shooting at sandy hook in 2012 was impactful. they say as yesterday that they are trying to get some agreement on some package. it is likely to be modest and is corn and says, incremental -- nothing bold. from chris murphy's perspective, he is willing to take a quarter of a loaf if he can demonstrate

that we can do something about guns, that his judgment is going to have to be, is this compromise enough? we are like -- unlikely to do anything again for a long time, or is it just republicans looking for political cover heading into the midterms? they do worry about votes from women who care about gun violence. host: we had the publisher of the reload. one thing he said is that the american media does not fairly portray american gun culture. i want to read from your daily newsletter. you address this differently. the headline this morning, barack obama was right about gun cleaners -- cleaners.

you use the quote from barack obama in april 2008. after a shooting, he said, you go to small towns in pennsylvania. jobs have been gone for 25 years, nothing has replaced them. each administration has said, these communities are going or to regenerate and they have not. when they get bitter, they cling to guns, religion, antipathy towards people who are not like them. that was a political landmine back then, that you write about the broader implications in your newsletter. guest: i think we have a gun culture in which there are some people who cling to guns, see them as crucial to their sense of identity and self.

if you talk about restricting and having regulations on gun ownership, they see that as an attack on them personally. that is how they feel. they cannot be part of a policy debate and ended up with compromise. fort them, it is almost an article of theology that you cannot take away my guns. i have been shooting since i was a kid, rifles and firing ranges. i understand the interest in guns and rifles and in sportsmen shooting. i get all that. i am sympathetic, but it does not mean that you cannot have regulations and cannot ban certain weapons. but this absolutist obsession with guns, in some cases, it

comes a fetish. that exists in this country unlike any other western democracy. you do not see this any other place. that is why we have so many guns and cannot have common sense than safety measures. barack obama was right. too many cling to guns. there was a poll. 28% of americans that mess shootings were unfortunately the price of freedom. almost one out of three americans says we have to accept mass shootings so we can have the freedom to have salt evans. -- assaulf weapons. almost one third of americans say they are willing to accept

uvalde, buffalo, newtown. to me, that is a tremendous problem and something barack obama was right to address. host: that newsletter is available. guest: go to ourland. the best way to subscribe for free is davidcorn.com. host: that as go to mike in north carolina, republican line. caller: this january 6 commission is hiring an abc producer to get a lineup of the panel. they are all anti-trump, liz cheney.

they are getting producers. this is a farce. adam schiff and raskin, this is their third time on stage. i want to go back to guns. you work for msnbc. everybody on there talks about being racist and all that -- talks about fox being racist, but you have a racist person, everything is antiwhite. how come msnbc, even cnn, all of the crime going and these big cities, it not the mess shootings in uvalde, buffalo, dylan roof? guest: i have known joe reed for years. she is a friend, not a racist.

i do not know where he is getting that from, but he does not like her perspective and is name-calling and wants to point to something she said and argued substantially. that is what we can do, but when you say someone is racist without trying to back it up, that shows you are not interested in serious debate. i cannot speak for msnbc, but i watch local news, crime gets covered. msnbc covers all sorts of issues. on the january 6, committee, there is a problem -- republicans are out there. this is partisan, i get this, but republicans have been pushing that the election was stolen. it was not. there is no evidence. bill barr said there was no

evidence. the few instances we have found involved trump voters, but nothing massive involving chinese or italian hackers. they are pushing this fraud. that led to the attack on january 6. what they are doing after that is trying to say it was not a big deal, but how do you have an investigation of one of the most obvious crimes in america with people on the panel saying it did not happen and the election was stolen and then lying? it was a hard position for nancy pelosi to be in, but republicans had an opportunity. nancy pelosi gave them 50-50 representation on an independent, bipartisan committee and kevin mccarthy,

mitch mcconnell turned the deal down. now they say, this is a democratic dominated committee. but you had your chance and decided the american public did not deserve and independent, bipartisan account of that. you come to that position bite covering for trump and other republicans who insist on pushing a con. hence and millions of americans buy into it. host: let us hear from janet ohio, democrat line. caller: hi, david. good morning. host: got a question? caller: you look good. the three flags in the background very attractive.

i wondered if you heard yesterday the -- what we read -- what representative another head to atlanta matt gaetz. host: do you have a question? caller: he is an ultrabright commercial. host: that is funny. if you have a question -- i will go to lupe in california, independent line. caller: i have it, and a question. this is for the republicans, democrats, independents. much before trump ran for president -- months before trump ran for president, at one point,

he was being interviewed and said, what did you get at it your uncle -- what did he teach you to do to be important and their way with things? he said, just say it long enough until they believe it, even if it is a lie. they will believe it. that is what happened here. for those who have ears and eyes, you can see what happened. that is all i can say. guest: she is right in that donald trump has demonstrated time and again that he does not feel compelled to be bound by the truth. the washington post, fact

checking:, when donald trump left office in 21, they said that they had chronicled over 30,000 false statements from donald trump just during his presidency. no one has composed to this. it sounds hyper partisan to say that and i know republicans do not like hearing this, but it is an objective fact. when he ran 2016, lindsey graham, marco rubio, ted cruz alt said he is a liar. he never stops. it has all culminated in the big lie of the election. he learned that if he says things over and over again and that people who support him will accept your word as truth. host: what do you think of the false narrative continuing?

that donald trump won the 2020 election continues to be a strong point for some candidates. guest: i think the republican party has become about not policies or ideology. they stand for trump. trump has made it a cult of personality, it may be, maybe not, but he become the raison d'etre of the party. the mission is to advance trump. i get probably 20-50 emails a day from republican groups. they are all about either donald trump or saying the democrats are radical socialist driving america into a hellhole and nt 4.0 will rule the day -- antifa will rule the day. it is not about policies on economics or guns. it is just about attacking democrats and supporting donald trump.

the narrative that trump was not defeated is essential to trumpism. they have to keep with it. as long as the base think that is important, trump is good at saying it was stolen from you, this is going to say central component of -- stay a central component of the republican party. host: william, republican line, california. caller: you want to talk about the stolen election on -- over january 6. what i see is a stolen election, getting shut off for a toilet leak in the basement. four states that one time, recounting the votes, putting brand new ballots, re-signing

them by political operatives and the january 6 nancy pelosi concentration camp. she failed to have people held for how many days? a year now with your no due process. you cannot even talk to them, cannot see them. you have secret hearings with turncoats. another thing, mr. jones, this is jones -- host: it is david corn. guest: it is sad. we have seen what concentration camps look like. putting people locked up and -- having people locked up in jail and upbeat present, but this is

not that there is due process. i am told that 200 more may be coming into the system as they continue to identify people who were violent on that day. i think this is what we are up against. this guy leaves that there were toilet leaks across four states on election night that ended up disqualifying some ballots and they used others to seal the election -- steal the election. there is no proof, but one reason he leaves it is because donald trump has been saying the election was stolen. once you leave the big picture, particular conspiracies become things you latch on to. it is a problem for us as a democracy if we cannot agree on

basic facts, cannot agree that climate change is happening. we cannot agree on what to do about it. we live in alternative realities. i do not blame donald trump, because he is like the scorpion and the frog. it is in his nature to do this, let kevin mccarthy, mitch mcconnell, after january 6, they had a nano second of saying this is wrong and worthy of impeachment. but within days, they folded. the whole leadership of one party -- it sounds partisan, but when you hear a cult like that, you see the basement of this course because leaders are not acting like leaders. host: let me ask about joe biden and give you a chance to weigh

in on issues you think he is getting right and falling short on. guest: when you care about governing -- and not think prompted, but when you care, is about politics and messaging at the same time. you want to put out a certain message but this week you have to deal with infant formula. no one counted on the war in ukraine and thinks going as well as they should have gone -- things going as well as they should have gone in afghanistan. the american rescue plan was a great move early on. the bull back better plant was good policy but bad politics in that biden did not keep his hand on the democratic party, allowed too much of an internal debate that dominated the messaging. one thing he is not being strong on his pointing out who is

responsible for it things americans want and are not getting. an out of proposals he is put forward our popular -- a lot of puzzles he has put forward our popular. expanding medicare coverage for dental, paid parental leave, universal pre-k, help with other they care -- things that score 78% in polls, the reason they are not happening is not because of senator manchin, it is because every republican is blocking this. he has not done a good job of throwing that line and has not done a good job about talking about the crisis and threats to democracy trump and the republicans are proposing,

particularly with his changes at the state level that gives republican politicians control over election counting. host: columbus, ohio, democrats line. caller: hello. a couple of things i would like you to expand on. you called a semi-automatic rifle in assault rifle. actually, it is not. i would rather taken ar-15 into combat than a slow shot, because they are two different weapons. with the interaction that happened, if i could get into a car and go with a friend to a

store, he rubs it, i am -- rob's it, i am there beside him and also get charged. why are these people not getting charged the same? guest: i do not get bogged down. ar-15's are being used in these mass shootings, they are not necessary for hunting. we talk about banning certain types of ends, limiting certain type -- certain types of guns, limiting certain types of ammo. in terms of people being arrested, 800 people have been arrested for january 6. there may be 200 more. that is a getting because to at least a majority of those who preached the capitol.

they are getting in the people who were there and did wrong. the question is the people who exit them on, whether donald trump or others who incited the riot, will they ever be held accountable? -- was it the first bipartisan, majority vote for impeachment that you had in the history of america it was still 10 shy of the teachers thirds needed to the president. but it was bipartisan that donald trump was guilty. i do think there is a lack of accountability for people like rudy giuliani, mo brooks, others on the podium that day and steve

bannon encouraging this, encouraging the big lie. host: there will be a report from the january 6 select committee. do you think it will be a legislative outcome? will laws be changed? guest: the election count act of 1887, i have tried to read that bill. go online and get it. it is poorly written, poorly conceived, contains too many compromises. how to count electoral votes, what to do about it, that should be revised but has to be reformed in a partisan way.

the committee has been looking at this and whether that's republicans like liz cheney and adam kinzinger add republican views about things, but i am not sure they will be able to come up with an agreed-upon solution, but on that piece alone, there will be something proposed. host: dean, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: as far as i am concerned, the election is over. i do not judge, but i am curious about something. the hearing on thursday night, why did they have to get james goldstein and his crew to produce this at taxpayer expense

? either they have got the facts or they do not. i will take this off-line. i am shocked. i thought c-span programming was unfiltered. host: our programming is unfiltered. we are covering it gavel to gavel on thursday night. she is talking about the former abc executive producer who has been reportedly hired. guest: i am very unfiltered. but all congressional hearings are produced at taxpayer expense. all congressional hearings have staff members whose job it is to do communications, to figure out what video are we going to show? are we going to make posters, diagrams? who are we going to put in front of the camera? that is normal.

there are a lot of reporters who do communication jobs and become press secretaries. it is not that unusual for a journalist to going to politics. this is a high-profile fellow doing this. in the way that the inauguration and other events and people with cd -- backgrounds are brought into looks good on tv, this is what is happening with this hearing. if you are not familiar with the way things work in washington, this may seem odd, but they're not ringing in steven spielberg -- bringing in steven spielberg. host: we will have live coverage here on c-span beginning thursday night at 8:00 eastern.

also a hearing announced monday morning at 8:00. a couple more calls for david corn. craig, florida, republican line. caller: first time caller, wanted to thank you. i want to let this gentleman know that i am an african american. we will never believe the january 6 committee, because the only thing that makes them bipartisan is two republicans that they trust. for this guy to say that joy reed is not racist, that is a lie. guest: i go back to what i said earlier. to call somebody racist without backing it up is defamatory and not part of polite and

reasonable discourse. if i want to make a case that tucker carlsen has said something racist, i argue the case, say i think this is a racist statement and people are free to respond. but if you just want to shout, racist, racist, racist, it shows me that you are not serious about having a debate to advance common interests. host: lewis, north carolina, democrats line. caller: this is a nice program today. we all know there is a history of violence starting with who assassinated abraham lincoln.

-- trying to stop the republican party for doing things a lot did not like, but he did not succeed. if donald trump was a dixie crack klansman, do you think that donald trump, when he went to the republican side, do you think he completed the mission that john wilkes booth tried to do to annihilate the republican party? i think he did that. they need to call the donald trump party the pink party ok. i am talking about proud boys, neo-nazis, klansman. that is what their party is made of -- no policy, no platform, just against everything that the majority of americans are for, they are against. it is said that you have got

some republicans, white and black, that cannot see that donald trump was never right to be our president. guest: i do think that donald trump has annihilated the republican party, made it all about cap, -- about him. it was not about policy ideas or debate. you cannot be part of the republican if you do not accept the life that the election was stolen. it is getting more ridiculous. look at the primary in georgia where brian kemp won over david purdue and he is saying this was stolen. republicans stole the election for republican voters because donald trump endorsed the guy who was clearly going to lose.

republicans go along with this. he has made the party about nothing but donald trump used to be a republican, was pro-abortion, like the clintons, now he has changed. he has made the party entirely about him. if there was ever a semblance of policy in the party, he has eradicated it. guest: did you ever interview him as president or former president? guest: the last time i chatted with him was spring 2015. he did the usual donald trump thing. he said, you are good on tv, but you are not fair to me. he puts his hand on me and tries to impose his physical presence. he said, i am not a bad guy.

he does this by a combination of intimidation and flattery. i said, you have a bondage that you do not know about. my uncle, milton goldfein. he used to work for you. milton? he is my uncle. he goes, oh my goodness, he was the best lawyer ever, none better than him. host: one quick call. joan, colorado, quick comments. caller: you have said is that there should be more accountability regarding january 6. i agree. i want to hear from nancy pelosi

, the capitol chief of police, muriel bowser, and others -- john sullivan. i am curious how you feel? i want to hear the whole thing. host: we will let her go >> this is a republican talking point, they want to talk about nancy pelosi and what she did and did not do. i think talking to the capitol hill police and fbi, there have been hearings on this aspect and some reports put out, about what they knew it did not know and their preparations which were not sufficient. the committee has been doing that soy hope they do more of that, but i would not say the key issue of that day was what the police did. because if there had not been a

mob sent to attack and stop the certification, nothing else would've happened. they should be looked at, but the cause of what happened was a donald trump, the republican party the conservative movement and thousands of people who went there and committed violence. host: read his articles at mother jones.com, thank you for being here. caller: great to be here. host: where back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern and hope you are too. take you live to capitol hill, treasury secretary janet yellen testifying in moments before the senate finance committee. it will be live on c-span.