>> dickerson: "face the nation", we continue our conversation with former homeland security advisor to george w. bush and cbs news national security analyst, fran townsend, and former fbi profiler, maryellen o'toole, fran i want to start with you, we were talking about the availability of semiautomatic weapons. as a terrorist threat, there have been al qaeda operatives or terrorists who pointed out the accessibility. >> that's right. adam gadan an american board al qaeda member 0 released a video calling on al qaeda in 2011 for al qaeda members and like minded terrorists in the united states to take advantage of u.s., the accessibility to guns in the united states. frankly, i think authorities have been surprised, myself included that we have not seen more of this. but i would point out, just this week, authorities announced a 2012016 plot in new york city we

taking guns and shooting inside the new york city subway system was an aspects of that plot. >> so, you know, it is not like al qaeda, isis and the terrorists don't watch what happens in the united states. and the fact that a las vegas was not terrorist related doesn't mean terrorists aren't watching, the method of operation and considering it for their own plans. >> dickerson: so they can go to school on, this essentially? >> absolutely. >> dickerson: mary allen, let me ask you about the motive, the fact there is not one yet identified. is that very curious to you? >> it is very curious, but we may have to look tia little bit differently and what i mean by that is, there may not be an external trigger, because it is so complicated and because it is so sensational, extraordinary, this -- it may have been self triggered by him years ago, somebody who did not want to be ordinary, somebody who had an interest in violence and collected guns, this was a plan that he had in the works for years, and he made the decision of when he would act it out.

so we may be looking for the wrong thing. it may not have been externally triggered. and that makes it harder to find out. >> dickerson: if you were doing, this what would you look for? i mean, i would be looking for, i would go into interviews with other people exploring his personality and not specifically looking for an external trigger like was it the hotel? was it the music industry? i would be exploring in detail his personality and looking to see whether or not if this really is someone who has psychopathic traits that would explain a lot as well which is not a mental illness, it is a personality disorder, we, it is a very lethal combination of an individual here and i think unfortunately the general public really does misunderstand violence and who is capable of it. >> dickerson: fran, going forward, big veb, big venue events, what can change a to protect them? >> let's remember, our current understanding is people as they entered the venue, the 22,000 at the concert they looked at the bags, it was not as though there was no security at the perimeter but whe when you are talking abt

someone who planned to do it from outside the perimeter it becomes much more difficult. i think what you will see in the united states, hotels and complexes are going to look at screening bags, why could he get all of these guns and weapons up there a lot of weight and ammunition at the mandalay bay there is a last security guard before you go up to the elevator, maybe you put screening there. it is a big complex. this is a very complicated for large hotel complexes but complexes in las vegas immediately following like the wynn did institute screening. >> is it your view hotels will actually make this a new part of their operating procedure? >> i think people are going to look at that and i think it is far for likely, frankly, what we ought to do is look at the actual root causes to problem which is these high capacity ammunition magazines and deal with it at that level as opposed to imposing the problem on the hotels and their guests. >> dickerson: all right. mary allen quickly what would you be asking? >> i would be asking her to just open, open-ended questions to

tell me about his personality, tell me what it was like when you traveled with him, tell me what it was like when the two of you were alone at home. just walk me through the dinner and not -- not have her screen anything she tells me. i will screen it. you just tell me what life was like with him and just get her into a narrative. >> dickerson: all right. thanks so much, we appreciate thanks so much, we appreciate your time. we will be right back. >> people and their ideas will continue to move the world forward. as long as they have someone to believe in them. citi financed the transatlantic cable that connected continents. and the panama canal, that made our world a smaller place. we backed the marshall plan that helped europe regain its strength. and pioneered the atm, for cash, anytime. for over two centuries we've supported dreams like these.

and the people and companies behind them. so why should that matter to you? because, today, we are still helping progress makers turn their ideas into reality. and the next great idea could be yours. ah, my poor mouth breather. allergies? stuffy nose? can't sleep? enough. take that. a breathe right nasal strip of course. imagine just put one on and pow! it instantly opens your nose up to 38% more than allergy medicine alone. so you can breathe, and sleep. better than a catnap. shut your mouth and say goodnight, mouthbreathers. breathe right. >> dickerson: joining us now from culver city, california is adam winkler, law professor at

the university of california los angeles and the author of gunfight. a history of the debate over gum control. mr. winkler i want to start with the idea a narrow question and broaden out, senator feinstein said she would think of no law that would have stopped this massacre in las vegas is that the way it looks to you as well? >> well, it looks like that, although maybe dianne feinstein should take a little credit she proposed to ban these bump fire stocks in 2012, and in 2013, with proposals that were -- went nowhere in congress, perhaps these devices could have been taken off the market beforehand. although that probably would not have stopped the shooting itself a, it may have limited some of the damage. >> dickerson: let's step back, we are focused as we have to be on the specifics of this event and on the details of now this possible piece of legislation. what questions aren't we asking? what is the larger context here we should be thinking about as we think about these issues? >> well, i think what we should be thinking about a is a little less about mass shootings, they get all of the attention with regards to the gun violence

problem, but constitute only a small frac shun of the casualties every year. you know, gun violence takes 33,000 lives, about 100,000 gunshot victims every year. there is mostly as a result of suicide and criminal misuse of guns, far short of mass shootings, mass shootings are a problem that are very difficult to solve but we can make some headway lowering the daily death toll from ordinary gun violence. >> dickerson: in trying to do that and addressing either mass shoot ticks on the daily toll you talk about, the clash between rights heats up quickly. is there a smarter way to think about it? i mean, people get frustrated both be at this rush to legislation and on the other side the fact that there is no legislation that passes. 0 give us your sense from history how this can be addressed in a way that might be a little more effective. >> well, one thing we need to recognize first and foremost is that the second amendment is not what is preventing us from having good and effective gun control laws. the second amendment has been a part of our constitution and our

heritage for a long time and does protect an individual's right to have guns for personal protection. however, the courts have always held that gun control laws short of disarmament are constitutionally permissible and indeed the supreme court only read the second amendment to provide an individual rights northtively in 2008, clear we had this gun problem in 2007 beforehand, so the answer is not repealing the second amendment as some have called for, i don't think that is the right way to think about it. historically we always had the right to bear arms but always also had gun control, we have lost that sense of balance believing we need to have either gun control or gun rights but can't have them both. >> in the case in which they found an individual round, anthony scalia is often quoted in the case that there are limits. is this really from the courts given that politics on in is so frozen, is this really something that the supreme court needs to weigh in on or that the courts need to weigh in on to reach this balance we are talking about? >> well, the courts won't reach

the balance unless we go so, and why i say that, because the courts can't propose new gun control laws and they are not going to issue some kind of remedial order mandating congress ban bump stocks, congress has to take that initiative itself. and, and i feel many people are disempowered in the gun debate today that going is going to change but i do think it is a matter of elect tore politics that the nra is a very, very strong fighting force because there is a lot of single issue pro gun voters that support the nra candidates when they endorse them in primary and general elections. gun control streaks who are frustrated probably need to focus a little bit more on mobilization, getting themselves more politicly forcefu forcefulo they can combat the nra and the single issue pro gun voters. >> dickerson: let me get your ruling on the question of concealed carry reciprocity. i heard the term used, what is the legal read of this and the federal legislation that is being proposed in the senate? >> well, there are two different kinds of national reciprocity

legislation and try to keep them separate, the nra is proposing a law that would allow say a utah resident to come to california on tourism, for vacation or for business and carry their gun in accordance with that permit but also versions of reciprocity that are, have been proposed in congress that would allow california resident to get a permit in utah online without ever having gone to utah and then carrying the gun in california. that would completely undermine the self-determination and local control over conceal carry that states and cities have traditionally used, so it depends on which the version of reciprocity we are really talking about. >> dickerson: which has a better shot legally, do you think? >> well, i think actually legally it is much stronger for the nra to propose a law that allows a utah resident to come to california, congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. i don't think there would be a significant second amendment problem with that. it is a little bit more khanning to say that as a matter of interstate commerce congress can mandate that california

residents be able to get a permit somewhere else and carry those guns at home 0. >> dickerson: adam, thanks so much for being with us and we will be right back. >>

>> dickerson: we turn now to our politics panel, susan page is the washington bureau chief at usa today. are a measure is the senior editor of the "national review" and a columnist for bloomberg view. we are also joined by new york times op ed columnist and the editor in chief of the atlantic, jeffrey goldberg, jeffy, jeffrey i will start with you. this legislation we are going to go narrow before we broaden out, the legislation for a bump fire stock in the senate, what do you think about the prospects are. >> senator feinstein and wayne lapierre seems to not want it to go through congress. >> i will start out, i will go wide and note that the pattern generally speaking after massacres, gun massacres in america is to loosen gun laws, not to tighten gun restrictions. given the dysfunctional senate, given everything else, given what we know about the way this has been polling, i don't have much hope for -- i wouldn't have much hope if i were a supporter

of that. i mean the broader point is that it again probably is mainly in the realm of a symbolic gesture toward a solution. we always talk about these issues way at the margins. i admire fran townsend's position on large ammo clips, but that is not the root cause of our problem here. these technical issues which are also surmountable by garage, home garage mechanics, these are not going to -- these don't deal with what we are talking about. >> dickerson: ramesh, part of matt politically happened is, as they pointed out at 538 there is no better predictor of your position, not gender, not race, than if you own a gun, in terms of whether you are a republican or democrat that this has become cultural beyond the specifics of, you know, bump fire stocks. >> well, it is a polarizing issue but it is also an issue on which all of the intense intensity is on one side of the debate that is there are a lot more people who vote solely on

the basis of guns who are pro gun and skeptical of regulation than are on the other se. and one of the reasons you have that lack of intensity on the side of people who want the regulations is that so few of the regulations would plausibly make any difference. so, you know, as jeff was suggesting, the types of things that we can think about doing, like an assault weapons ban won't make much of a difference in the things that, and the things that might make a difference would be really extreme things like gun confiscation that would present tremendous practical problems and tha that leaves us at an impasse. >> dickerson: what do you think of the democratic party having to keep this intensity up? and i also piggyback a question that according to gallup one in four democrats support concealed carry laws, do you think it is a litmus methods, test in the democratic party? in other words if you support conceal and carry does that runout route out of the dependent party. >> the democrats have quite a few litmus tests and i would say there are others that become

before this particular litmus test. >> one thing about the aftermath of this terrible and unprecedented shooting is that we are not at all shocked that it is not likely that anything will happen, that our government is likely to do nothing in response to this, to pass no additional gun laws and that they will have the same old tired debate we had before and one reason is just plain politics that if you have six democratic senators running for reelection in states that trump carried that are red states, they are not going to be enthusiastic about taking on this issue. so you end up just saying,, you know,, it only has been a days but does anyone expect anything to happen. >> dickerson: david, what do you make of the argument that gun control, many people put forward is after the san bernadino shooting candidate donald trump called for a muslim ban and suggested profiling muslims so the question is we can impinge upon rights for the purposes of safety, but yet gun control activists felt when they talked about trying to limit the rights of the second amendment for the purposes of safety, they

were criticized for political sizing things, how -- give me your sense of those arguments. >> i think one of the things, i am as a pessimistic about gun control legislation passing as everyone here for optimist for the sake of gun rights advocates but i do think this debate shifted a little bit and i think we saw in the quakes of las vegas that we immediately went to the policy conversation, and in the past there were gun control advocates who actually did hold back a little bit, and listen to this don't politicize the tragedy and i think they now think these mass shootings are happening often enough they can immediately go to say we can do things. that doesn't mean things are going to happen but i do actually think, this, this particular episode has moved the debate ever so slightly to the left. where you see the nra having to admit some openness to regulation and immediately see the policy discussion. >> dickerson: all right. more to come. pivot from that policy discussion to some other news of the week. susan, what is the -- what is

your sense of what is happening with the secretary of state and his boss? >> i don't think this marriage can be saved. i think calling your boss a moron is probably a firing offense in any workplace, and especially when your boss is as sensitive to criticism as donald trump. >> dickerson: he called me a moron regularly. >> cbs is much more forgiving. >> and i mean, it is not as though rex tillerson has defend in other words any other sector among the foreign policy specialists, i mean he has been completely undercut, this is a remarkable thing. it was a one-week ago almost to this moment that donald trump tweeted that it was ridiculous forex tillerson to engage in diplomacy with north korea, cutting the legs off, tillerson and we find out even prior to that, referred to him as a moron, in what world does this man continue to be secretary of state? >> he was cutting his legs off unless you believe they were playing bad cop, good cop except that nobody believes that. >> dickerson: explain a that to the people, though. >> in other words, it is the mix

and madman theory, kissinger goes and i would like to make a deal with you but my boss is crazy but the whole madman theory of dip city is predicated 0 testimony deal that the madman is not actually mad. if tillerson and trump had a functional relationship you could see one playing a toucher role and one playing a softer role, but here, all of the reporting is suggesting they just don't like each other and so it is not a coordinated diplomatic gambit to get the chinese to do x for or the north koreans to go y. >> it is. >> and the the negotiating with a madman in north korea, i think it makes it quite dang a rouse. >> ramesh you wrote or you said that i believe tillerson is doomed to failure once he couldn't kick his own deputy, what did you mean by that? >> he reportedly wanted to have elliott abe programs being be the secretary of state and that was vetoed by the white house because abrams had been critical or had been perceived to be highly critical of trump after he won the indiana primary and i think if you can't staff your own team, you can't pick your highest level people, yourte

it is -- we have had many secretaries of state who had difficult relationships with presidents, we had secretaries of state who don't enjoy the confidence of the state department staff. this is a secretary of state who has got both problems. am that leaves him as susan is suggesting without a constituency, and it is not just a question of can he keep on with this job it is also a question of what good is he doing in this job? >> and it is particularly worrisome right now because of what we see in the rest of the word. i mean we need the state department on north korea and iran precisely because it is a moment where diplomacy has the opportunity to cool some of these deeply worrisome global hotspots. >> dicickerson:. >> that's right. and senator corker this we can, david, said that secretary of tillerson, secretary mattis and chief of staff kelly are all that separate our country from chaos. >> right. >> so which is pretty extraordinary thing for a chairman of the senate foreign

relations to say. >> and he got an offer to walk it back and declined to walk it back and we see tweets this morning from the president that blasting corker who likes to remind ourselves is the republican chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. >> dickerson: ramesh, blasting him saying, this from the president, senator bob corkelers see, i said no, and he dropped out. do you want to antagonize your senate foreign relations committee with five and a half months to go in job? >> well that will certainly teach corker's ability to raise his fitness for offer. >> it is no another strategic play by the president. i think it is a pure frustration move that he saw senator corker saying critical things and he does what he does, which is lash back regardless of whether it serves any particular interest. >> dickerson: jeffrey, two things that i would like to get your view on, the president said that there is just one thing to do in north korea, presumably meaning military. how do you read that and then

secondarily there is also reports that the president would decertify iran in terms of the nuclear agreement with iran. >> right. so these are both linked these are inextricably linked, one would think that when you are in a nuclear confrontation with a potential madman, you wouldn't want to open up a whole other can of worms with another potential nuclear power, another rogue state around. you would like to sequence this. furthermore if you decertify the iran deal right now, you are suggesting to not only our allies but rogue states and north korea, in particular, that america will not hold to nuclear agreements it is very, very slim chance obviously to get to a nuclear agreement with north korea, this brings it down to zero. so we are at a very strange moment and we are also at a moment when the president appears to be bluffing, and the rule of american president, the american presidency in these areas is you don't bluff, whenever you bluff it usually turns out to be a disaster for the united states. if he is not bluffing and saying

we are going to washing war with north korea soon that is another whole issue but to me, the biggest single question is not what any of us think about that kind of statement, it is how are the north koreans interpreting this? we don't understand how they think and we don't understand what they understand and don't understand about our system. this is, again, one of -- this is a case in which twitter, an errant tweet can lead to a nuclear exchange. >> dickerson: let me switch to domestic efforts. the president called chuck schumer, tried to, or tweeted about anyway he is trying to make a deal with chuck schumer or healthcare, chuck schumer the democratic leader in the senate said if it is repeal and replace it won't happen. what is up to on healthcare? >> i find it worry system, it is highly technical but what an executive order is going to let somebody to buy into something called association health plans and those would be relatively unregulated. so they could basically offer bare bones insurance that

wouldn't cover things like giving birth that wouldn't cover certain illnesses so what you would have is healthy people would buy that kind of insurance, driving up the price of insurance for all of the sick people who remain. it is what andy slavitt who used to run medicare say is synthetic repeal it is a step to try to undermine the health insurance market in this back door way through executive ordered. and i find it quite worrisome. >> dickerson: rather the idea is repeal -- it is just repeal? and no replace? is that the a, is that the way au am administration handed a lot of tools to the trump administration in this regard, because they did things like hand out all of these hardship exemptions, for example, to the individual mandate. that president can now be relied on by the president trump to hand out more such exemptions and neuter the individual mandate so there is a range of the executive action the trump administration can do to undermine obamacare and force the domes the table, i am a sure

that is one of the things they are thinking about when they, when they go to these actions. >> dickerson: finally susan on a democratic question, feinstein gave a lot of "new york times" the blockbuster a pattern of sexual abuse from. >> does this put democrats in a spot how much money he has given to the parties and something democratic officials have 0 have to do to get out of that spot? >> i think it does. i think that if you are going to criticize president trump for his remarks in the access hollywood tape and taken money from harvey weinstein you should give it to a charity or give it back to him or get it it out of your campaign koffers and you have seen sales the democrats doing this, this is a political problem but a cultural shift jerks seen that in politics, we have seen it in business jerks seen it in the news media, that behavior that has gone on for decades idecades is now unaccepd women are increasingly willing to speak up about it. >> dickerson: all right. that's the last word. thanks to all of you for being here and we will be back in one

moment. >> 6 inflammatory substances with a gentle mist. most allergy pills only block one. and 6 is greater than one. flonase sensimist.

♪

>> dickerson: that's it for us today. thanks for watching. join us next sunday when astronaut scott kelly joins us to discuss endurance, stories from his record-breaking stay in space. until then, i am john dickerson. >> captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org who are these people?

the energy conscious people among us say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.

for the nv real estate academy's fortunes in flipping system. (triumphant music) are you ready to learn how to make money and achieve your financial goals through real estate right in your own backyard? imagine being your own boss while building wealth and financial freedom for you an your family. if that sounds good to you, then listen up. over the course of this program, nick vertucci, self-made real estate millionaire, is going to show you how to get all of that and more by investing in real estate. - hi, i'm nick vertucci, and for the next 30 minutes, you're gonna meet some of my students, hear about my systems, and hear about some great opportunities for you and your family. so sit back and enjoy. - [narrator] as one of today's most trusted real estate experts, nick has been featured on television, in print, and was the host of la's number one real estate radio show, the real estate investing hour. over the years, nick has coached and advised