shotgun, and guns, and a varied ar-15 which added 100-round magazine which apparently jammed after three rounds. conn banned the sale of high- capacity magazines and requires background checks on private gun sales. mayor law prohibits the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in aurora as well as sales of magazines of more than 10 rounds. the national rifle association which this week introduced a plan to our school security officers and teachers said that fingerprinting of gun buyers is an infringement of our second amendment right. and then, you went to law school, studied constitutional law. do you agree? >> i do not think the framers were thinking about this. the nra has taken the second amendment and had driven a truck through it. what was intended for muskets

and militias is now being applied to join magazine that can shoot thousands of rounds. it is ludicrous. >> nina, this is your ballpark. is the supreme court with the nra on this? >> probably not. i believe you have to be fingerprinted to have a permanent pass to the supreme court. in fact, many of the big, sensitive buildings, we have the right to go to these buildings, but we have to be fingerprinted to get our passes. this is indicative of a larger problem but there is no limit. this week, we have a capacity actually in this country to solve a lot of crimes that we do not solve. we could fingerprint bullets, at least know that where they were purchased and where they came from, but we do not do that. this week there was a ba and his wife killed in texas. they do not seem to have a lot of leads. >> if the nra did not expect -- succeed with what they are talking about their fallback position would probably be, let's are the kids in school. just kidding. no, i am not kidding.

the kind of thing could happen. what is important is the president is keeping the pressure on to do something about this. there was concern that he had stepped back. it is important for him to do things like he did in colorado, important for the states to also move, but this is not a movement. this week in georgia, a small community passed an ordinance requiring people in the community to have guns, shotguns, because they did not have sufficient police. >> charles, former congressman a said hutchinson with the nra school sheila task force program raises an interesting question. he said the stricter laws make us feel good, pat us on the back, but is there any evidence that they make us safer?

>> that is the problem. you can make all the constitutional arguments you want. the devastating evidence is the empirical evidence. we have the kind of band that we want now. a study commissioned by the department showed that it had essentially no affect. the reason is obvious. we have 300 million firearms in the possession of americans today. you could stop the importation, stop the sale, anything you want. that reservoir will be around for 100 years. the other irony is, the rate of homicide has been cut in half since 1980. we do not have an epidemic of crime. we are having a rise in these in same, extreme mass shootings, generally by

psychotic people. we are all talking about acquisition of guns at a time when homicides are going down. the problem is the crazy people who get the guns. >> and how fast they can get them. >> the tucson shooter, everybody who knew him spoke about him as a that was out of control, and one of his classmates said that she sat in class near the door, holding her handbag, thinking he might shoot people in the room, and she would go on to escape. under our laws, until he shot people, you could not taken into custody. >> this was the guy that shot gabby giffords. thehis week we learned shooter in aurora, his psychiatrist reported him as dangerous and they have moved to take away his school pass. >> at what point do you get involved in the doctor patient relationship? >> i used to be a psychiatrist. if i had information that he was a danger to himself or others, i not only had the right, but the duty to make sure that it was reported. that is the exception to the sanctity of that relationship. >> unless you are australian and have an assault weapons ban where they really go out of their way to take them back --

it will not work. mostly this is something that allows people to moralize and wring their hands, shows moral fervor. starting with the president, where if he was serious about this, would have done something right away. i was talking to a senior guy in the administration over the weekend to argue you have to do this in the first week or you do not have any chance. the longer you wait, political forces gather. >> could he have the past and assault weapons ban, could he have done something on ammunition? no, he could not. talking about the psychotic people, must not forget the individuals who kill those prosecutors in texas. the individual in arizona.

guns. commonet to the denominator. >> it is true that laws are imperfect, but that does not mean that we do not have them. there are a lot of murders we do not solve, that does not mean we do not have laws against murder. >> north korea making nasty spirits again. >> the united states will defend and protect ourselves and our treaty ally, the republic of korea. >> secretary of state john kerry. he says the north korean military has been authorized to the attack in nine united states with smaller, lighter, diversified weapons. a missile has been moved to the east coast, but otherwise, apparently no signs that pyongyang is waging a full- scale war. >> what do you mean otherwise? >> there is more to full-scale war then missing -- moving a missile to the east coast. >> if it launches and hits us in okinawa, we will have a full-

scale war. it does not need to unleash its entire arsenal. doubt me -- i doubt it has the ability to mature as a nuclear warhead, but there is one that i would say. no one knows anything about this guy or his motives. history teaches us that sometimes regimes and leaders are so irrational they will do the irrational. hotler's invasion -- hitler's invasion of russia was the most illogical action of the world war. just because he is saying that this does not mean that he would do this. we have to prepare ourselves in case. incould produce a situation his country now where all the threats and expectations, all the bravado, he may have to act. we better have a contingency. >> argue with that, colby? >> the worst thing is it does

not take much to get it started. it takes one person near the dmz who decides to take a shot. >> there are 50 miles between them. >> i am not talking about a weapon. canou have a missile, you bridge the gap. it does not need to be nuclear- tipped. once that happens, there will be massive retaliation. >> what is the motivation, what do they get out of it? >> in the past it has been extortion. they scare some people, we give them food. basically throwing rocks at a window. at some point, it gets really dangerous. the point is when they have a nuclear weapon they can put on top of a rocket. i do not think they are there

yet, but they cannot be that far away. >> i think it is scary. as charles said, some people are irrational. when they lead a country, they can meet them over the cliff and they can take a lot of our stuff with them, too. >> what is the rational response for the obama administration? >> they responded well, they sent a b-2, a lovely item in flight, starting in missouri, went off to correa, returned home without stopping, and it can carry nuclear weapons. that is a message. we can hit you in half a day and turn you into a cinder. also, with all of the missiles, they sent to guam, around japan, and also on the east coast, the bolstering of the anti-missile defense is extremely important. that would neutralize any attack. it has had a reasonably restrained and get someone aggressive response, which i think is the right -- >> what happens if they do love the one into guam, or okinawa, or japan? one into guam?

>> is a nuclear or conventional? game on. >> this will be a time for a regime change in north korea. you just do not hit back in a limited way. >> the president offers cuts in medicare and social security and takes a voluntary pay cut. fair we have tried to be and analyzed where we take those cuts -- and we take them because we have no choice. >> that is the secretary of defense. to show his support for the people in the defense department that will be furloughed by sequestration, hagel will write a check to the treasury for 14 days pay. the same as the furlough. the president says that he would do something similar. are members of congress following the example? not yet but i'm sure they will think about it. it was reported on friday that

next week the president will offer a budget calling for significant cuts in medicare and social security. this will not raid liberal democrats and may call for more tax increases, which will make republicans unhappy. something to displease everyone. simpson like in the bowles plan, something to underage everybody, but it is the only way to get to yes. as the negotiation argument goes, everybody has to give up something they really do not want to give up. >> this is like a video we have seen before, negotiations with john boehner. >> it is small ball. as long as you do this nibbling, a typical washington fashion, nothing is going to happen. nothing is going to happen

until the president makes it his business to focus exclusively on this and make the case to the nation about why we have to do it, but that is not the way they do it. thatdo it in increments so it can be argued over washington talk shows with the rest of the country not paying attention. >> do not not that. >> i respectfully disagree. i rise in defense of the president. if this is how the budget is reported, it is not just the president saying in the back room, i will do this and that. if this is in the budget that he was of the next week, real cuts in entitlements, he apparently has done that and the cost-of-living formula, reduces its tightly, if it does include a hike in the retirement age, and includes tax reform, in which republicans would increase the amount of revenue, which they should, in return for a

slight lowering of rates, then we have a deal. we have the outlines of -- this would be a demonstration of a remarkable series this on the part of the president. i say if, because the budget is not out yet. >> he has to take ownership for this. >> in that sense, you are right, it is an outline of something to put on the table to negotiate. i have talked to one of the most loyal members of his base in the house of representatives, who, in talking about the changes of social security said that he could absolutely not go along with it. he has constituents who say, do not touch my social security, this is all i have. >> what about down the road? starting in 2023? >> here is the point i want to make about that. if the president is going forward with this, he is taking some political risk as well. it falls to the republicans to also match that. you are going to have to take -- this will call for both sides

to give up something and to cut into their base. >> isn't this how the process works? >> very conservative republicans, like tom coburn, has agreed, if you do real tax reform and you lower rates and eliminate loopholes, he is willing to do it in a way that is not revenue-neutral, in other words, leaving extra cash in the treasury. that is what obama wants. i think the republicans who would respond with a quid quo pro. >> you see this week the business community beginning to bail on that very idea. they like their special breaks. they do not want to give them up. >> empty political gestures. that is the point.

little all these gestures that sound good in a sound bite, but what has to happen here -- or nothing will happen -- the president has to go forth, and not just one speech, but speech after speech, stay on this one issue. this is what we have to do, here is the argument for it. otherwise, the base will rebel, business community will rebel, conservatives, there will be fights all along the way. >> of course the bases will rebel. that is what is expected, but they have to come to a compromise. the question now is will they follow through on both sides? >> crystal ball time. where will obamacare go and how will it be received? >> it will be a rough go in the beginning. i look at massachusetts as a model. what happened in massachusetts, for couple of years, people were very unhappy with it, it had very low ratings, and then after it got established and people got insurance, they love it. >> they also have trouble seeing doctors after a while. >> they have, but compared to what they had, they love it. the ratings are very high.

>> insurance rates are going up, already money problems with it. fiscally, it does not work because it did not reform the fundamental system that provides health care. until you do that, it is not going to work. you cannot just provide more care, you have to control the cost of care. obamacare did not do that. there are things in the bill that might do it, but it did not do it enough. inthe question is, what is it for us? for the nation, it is different. you have seen a number of republican governors who were opposed to obamacare coming around with the idea that doing something with the medicaid part of the program, that they

are being pressured to do something. they are responding to it. you are going to have efforts on the hill to repeal it, as we have seen, they will all failed. or got it. -- gut it. 2014 is the key thing with obamacare. if you look at the charlie cook report, more seats never once in doubt are now possible for the democrats. these men and women will run on this obamacare program, and they will probably prevail. >> you think that is viable in 2014, and democratic house? right,, even if nina is that will be the first year of implementation. it would be catastrophic. you say it is going to work. it is not going to work. no one knows what it is. this thing is so humongous the complicated, there are so many

moving elements. the just announced this week that one of the sweeteners in this that was supposed to be in exchange for small business and individuals to go in and shop around and get the best plan, that will not be implemented except for a year later. the one thing that was promised is not going to happen. next year there will be only one offering. there is all the stuff that hasn't been implemented. the reason hhs had to postpone it, they ran out of time. there are a lot of states that will not do the exchanges. they are in no position to put it in. it will be an incomplete, complex, contradictory program, that regardless of the merits of it, simply does not have the chance of working. pointl collapse to the where it will need to be repealed or replaced with a canadian single payer system, which at least is rational to what we have here, coming up.

>> this got a negative response from charles. democrats need 17 seats in the house. republicansmber of who currently sit in seats that obama won in 2012. this is not a way out possibility. i am suggesting to you that the obama agenda still plays well, and it will play well in these seats, also for obamacare. >> obamacare will play badly, for sure, next year. in 10 years, who knows, if it still exists. >> a super pac for hillary, and mark sanford's quest for redemption. >> incredibly humble, gratified. incredibly thankful for this night, for what it means that many different levels. i just want to thank everyone of you for your part in making it possible. >> that is former south carolina gov. mark sanford who won the runoff election in his

first congressional district. he won the election without the assistance of his wife who declined to help in his campaign. we do not make this stuff up, friends. it comes to us as a gift. people with real job and i get to talk about this stuff. [laughter] >> i am incredibly skeptical of anything he says and i do not understand why he wants to be back in public office. i do not care who he sees. inyou do not believe redemption? >> not in his case. he likes to have people talk about him. >> his opponent will opponent willcolbert bush, -- will be elisabeth colbert bush. >> he has a good chance of being returned to office. he will marry the woman he

loves. did somebody in england to that? -- do that? >> and he was pro-nazi. [laughter] >> he said he was incredibly gratified, and that is why he went to argentina. [laughter] >> there you are, sports fans. >> we know that stanford is not pro-nazi. people forgive. in a post-clinton aide, there is nothing remarkable about this. newake a look and this, a super pac designed to lure hillary clinton into running for the presidency. james carville is on board. he said it is time for hillary legions to convert their harbor for candidacy into real

grassroots organization. so it begins. it did not take long. >> these days, if you want to run for president, you have to start early. i saw these rumblings, why is she not doing anything? she did not take the full six months off. this woman does not take a break. however, every time i underestimate her ambitions, i am wrong. >> she has already waited too long. >> on the one hand, it will make no sense. she will be old, in her 70's. >> nobody said that about right in. -- reagan. >> these people are different from you and me. they operate in a different

way, they think in a different way. why would sanford do it? they are just different. >> i am told, once you get the bug, it is like a virus. you cannot get rid of it. >> i know nothing of it. there is no way that james carville would be doing what he is doing if hillary clinton did not approve of it. the clinton campaign is underway. >> there are other people out there that looked fondly at the white house. one of them i guess would be martin o'malley, governor of maryland. >> if she really will occupy the field this time, i think, if she chooses to run, and nothing bad happens in the campaign -- >> what she is doing is freezing out anyone else, o'malley, cuomo in new york. i think she does not have to do any of that. mcauliffer is the campaign in virginia is the surrogate. if you want to begin on the ground floor of hillary, you join the mcauliffe campaign and give your money now. >> thank you. see you next week.

from washington, the "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. "the mclaughlin group" is brought to you by siemens. across the country, we're we're

building them to last. siemens, answers. one. mutual assured provocation. >> the bottom line is very simply that what kim jong-un has been choosing to do is provocative, it is dangerous, reckless, and the united states will not accept the dprk as a nuclear state. >> north korea detonated a

small nuclear bomb seven weeks ago. this has escalated the ongoing cycle of provocation by north korea and counter-provocation by the u.s. and the u.n. march 7th, u.n. security council votes unanimously to sanction pee i don't sanction pyongyang. march 11th, the u.s., and south korea, our longstanding ally, began joint annual war games. march 12th. north korea nullifies korean war's 60-year-old armistice between north and south and threatens to attack. march 20, north korea launches cyber attack on seoul, south korea. march 22. the u.s. and ally south korea announce an agreemt