"les mis." the oscars are hollywood's chance to sanctify new stars. best actress will go to jennifer lawrence for the same reasons. actors love silver linings playbook and her stardom will help sell other movies she does in the future. best actor will go to daniel day-lewis who is one of the greatest actors of our time and who became liberating lincoln. craft. best director and best picture are nearly always tied together and i don't see any way class president steven spielberg who made a film about american history that makes hollywood seem important can be stopped. those are the easy races. the hard one is supporting actor. five well-known craftsmen in respected movies. hoffman was seenous, waltz was great, but bet on tommy lee jones. it seems like a landslide kind of year. and that does it for "the cycle." martin, you will win your office pool and share the money with me if you follow my tips. >> i'm all for dame judi dench as best supporting actress in "sky fall."

good afternoon. it's friday, january the 11th, and you're starting to hear it. it may even be coming in the clouds. there it is, tyranny. ♪ >> the administration was able to check the box. >> disappointed. what did you think you were there to talk about? >> we think many of those proposals are basically feel-good proposals. >> i have never heard as much talk about the need to do something with high capacity magazines. >> four or five rounds per second. >> honors the legacy of dr. king. >> what y do you need 30 rounds? >> if african-americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history. >> executive orders, what in the world are you talking about? confiscati confiscation. >> talking about attack on the second amendment but why do you not support 100% break ground checks. >> the basis of the second amendment is about resistance to

government tir ra ni. >> the third reich, nobody saw that coming. joo 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms. >> we begins as vice president joe biden wraps up a week of meetings. biden has said he will take his recommendations to the president tuesday, and this afternoon the vice president met with represent at thises from the video game industry and assured them that they are one of many parties being brought to the table. >> i want you to know you have not been, quote, singled out. i come to this meeting with no judgment. you all know the judgments other people have made. >> indeed. the gaming industry is the last in a series of group meetings, including the nra and other gun groups yesterday.

and it's their allies who are extremely eager to blame games or anything else for violent crime. >> i think there's a very good different view as to what the problem is and how to solve it. >> if we focus on the gun, we miss the opportunity in of this country to zero in on the real problem. >> the dangers of violent video games, but they get too many friends and donors in hollywood. >> we can eliminate knives in people's homes and baseball bats and hammers and take away blunt objects of any kind. >> okay. we can save lives by taking away video games, baseball bats, and blunt objects. but not guns. even though it was a military-style ar-15 semiautomatic that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 staff members at sandy hook elementary. a similar weapon used by the accused mass murderer james holmes who killed 12 people and wounded more than 50 others at a

movie theater in aurora, colorado. it was a gun, not a baseball bat, that took the lives of more than 335,000 americans in the last decade. that's more than the entire city of st. louis or pittsburgh or cincinnati, gone. it's a gun, not a blunt object, that ends an average 609 american lives every week. 87 a day, 1 every 17 minutes. just in the last 24 hours at least 6 people were shot in chicago. two fatally. in greenland, arkansas, a man is under arrest for a triple shooting that left his wife and mother-in-law dead and another family member critically wounded. and in orange county, florida, a deadly drive-by killed one and critically injured another. so with this many lives at stake, how can it be sensible to defend the means of status quo slaughter?

what can be the motive behind blocking any common sense reforms that could help limit this horrendous carnage. >> the basis of the second amendment is about resistant to government tyranny. >> the second amendment is there specifically to make sure that people of this country have the firepower they need to defend themselves, and not just against burglars and muggers and purse snatchers and rapists, but government as well. >> right. so the risk of another sandy hook, another aurora, another tucson is necessary to allow any american to have at the ready the means for armed rebellion against the government. i think that's what he was saying. let's get right to our panel now. in washington democratic strategist julian epstein. in tampa, florida, lehigh university professor james peterson and with me in new

york, the great michael crowley, senior correspondent for "time" magazine. dr. peterson, when the nra is prepared to focus attention on everything and anything but the weapons and ammunition that are used for mass murder, does this not render their contribution to this debate now null and void? >> well, for those of us who are sensible about wanting to implement measures around common sense gun safety it does sort of render them null and void but in the real politic of the situation we have to understand that this sort of form of the politics of distraction we have seen those on the right play with quite a bit throughout the presidential campaign actually sometimes can be very, very effective here. even by the very nature of the fact we're talking about video games, talking about films, and talking about those things being a part of the conversation instead of focusing on access to guns, the proliferation of guns, about mental health issues and background checks, it shows you how the politics of distraction

works. it takes up air time and news space we need to focus on things that are important here. >> i totally agree. mike, you have written this week's cover story which is all about chris christie. chris christie this week on "morning joe" made the point and on the "today" show that he believes there should be some regulations. governor of new york, an due cuomo in his state of the state speech, said we do not need assault weapons. here is the problem, neither of these two are in congress. >> right. >> and the gop in congress is virtually silent on this issue. why? >> well, i think there are several reasons for it. one is that i think a lot of republicans in washington genuinely don't think that gun control is the solution. i do given the credit of taking them on good faith and i think they do think there are a variety of reasons and that people commit these acts and that limiting some sales isn't going to make a difference -- >> so just so our audience understanding, you're saying there are some republicans who

believe we can do things with video games, do things in terms of mental health, but we can't do anything with regard to firearms? >> well, i suspect that they believe that the effect will be quite limited and that the laws are not the problem and, you know, you hear them say we should be enforcing the laws we have. but i think that's only part of it. i think to some degree there's a good faith feeling there's not that much you can do legislatively. i think their constituents do not want gun control. we have a structural situation in the congress right now where the bases of both parties eckert disproportionate power. you saw what happened to moderate republicans like dick lugar who were knocked down in primaries with low turnout dominated by mation gnat hard core conservatives and i think guns are the sort of issue where a lot of republicans think somebody is going to get me from the right if i move it. the nra remains powerful and they're afraid of it. >> julian, none of us were surprised when the nra issued a statement ten minutes after leaving the white house saying this tarveg force is only about

di anyone initialling the second amendment. is it your view that the only way to begin tackling this issue is if the president does things like targeting high capacity magazines, background checks, as opposed to specific weapons like those that were used for mass murder in aurora, colorado, oregon, the shooting in oregon in the shopping mall, and sandy hook elementary school? >> i think the lesson from the 1994 assault weapons ban is you have to get at functionality rather than trying to name particular weapons or name particular exceptions to weapons. those were the loopholes in the '94 act. the fact the nra has come out and made extreme and ludicrous statements exposes the nra i think as the lobbyists for the gun manufacturers rather than the gun owners. most gun owners would tell you you have to be the worst hunter since elmer fudd to need high capacity weapons. it is marginalizing the gun

advocates lobby. if there are any undecideds in this conversation, they're really turning them off. >> and comparing themselves to rosa parks. >> it's so offensive on so many levels. the idea that something like the assault weapons ban is going to compromise the second amendment, you think these guys need better legal counsel. you have assault weapons bans in a number of states. they've been challenged. they have all been upheld as constitutional. in fact, when we had the 1994 act that was passed, the nra did not want to challenge that inside the supreme court because they were scared of an adverse ruling. so you wonder about of this kind of vaunted nra is i think becoming no longer a vaunted nra. it's becoming somewhat more of a paper tiger than a caged tiger because these statements and this communications strategy is not winning any friends. it's losing lots of friends and that's why i think you even hear

a lot of pro-nra members saying the kinds of things that the white house are talking about makts a lot of sense and it all shows up in the polling. the poll something overwhelmingly for doing the things that the vice president is talking about. >> but, dr. peterson, you have heard some of the things coming out from gun advocates and the nra. what is your reaction to this kind of rhetoric? it's sounding increasingly hallucinating. >> there's a lot of what we call trickology going on here. theer those on the right who are mouthpieces for the gun manufacturing lobby, what they have done is they've taken this sort of american notion of the second amendment and that he try to use this as a prop to actually continue to be able to sell more guns and to continue to along the lines of the proliferation of guns with no resource whatsoever. so for all those folk who are interested in the second amendment, this is why we always say this, we're for the second amendment as well. we don't want to take anyone's

guns. instead of listening to folks like rush limbaugh and then ra who are in the back pockets of the gun manufacturers, we need to understand and not be fooled by the fact that the trickery around the second amendment has nothing to do with what we're talking about. we're talking about common sense gun safety, the most important thing is universal background checks. 74% of the nr a support background checks. we have to make movements along those lines. >> final question to you, mike. you expressed some pessimism about the prospect of anything going through the house. the vice president has said he expects to deliver his proposals to the president by tuesday, around that time. is anything going to be done? >> i think it's unlikely. you know, there was a report in "the new york times" today suggesting even the white house is pessimistic about its ability to do anything in congress. subsequently this afternoon the white house is pushing back very hard and saying, no, we're going to make a good faith fight. i think the odds are long. i think it's important to understand that if this is going to happen, to some degree it's going to have to come from below.

as everyone is talking about tyranny and the president coming to steal your guns. i think the white house is smart and they feel like they need to move public opinion. they want it to feel like it's happening, not just the white house throwing itself into congress throwing fists but there is real popular support, movement. you will see a lot of outside pressure. if they can mobilize that maybe they can break the jam. for unfortunately for people who want to see action, i don't see it right now. >> thank you all. coming up, president obama and karzai talk troop levels in afghanistan. is the end of this war closer than we think? stay with us. >> by the end of next year, 2014, the transition will be complete. afghans will have full responsibility for their security and this war will come to a responsible end. hey! did you know that honey nut cheerios has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good?

sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. but i'm still stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't unstuff your nose. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels speeds relief to your worst cold symptoms plus has a decongestant for your stuffy nose. thanks. that's the cold truth!

and karzai talk troop levels in to a responsible end. so, we all set? i've got two tickets to paradise! pack your bags, we'll leave tonight. uhh, it's next month, actually... eddie continues singing: to tickets to... and karzai talk troop levels in to a responsible end. whoooa whooaa whooo! you know ronny, folks who save hundreds of dollars by switching to geico sure are happy. and how happy are they jimmy? happier than eddie money running a travel agency. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

just a short time ago at the white house, the president and afghan president hamid karzai appeared at a joint news conference. both leaders announced that u.s. troops will handover total control of security to the afghan forces sometime during the spring which represents a slight acceleration from the time table. but it was at the end of the news conference that perhaps the most important question was asked. after 11 years, almost half a trillion dollars spent and perhaps 20,000 afghan civilians and more than 3,200 u.s. troops dead, can the mission still be justified? >> at the end of this conflict we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the

goal that we sought. >> joining us now is michael o'hanlon, director of research and senior foreign policy fellow at the brookings institution and dana mill bink, a political columnist with "the washington post." dana, if i might begin with you, we all know of the fatigue with this conflict and the president's desire to bring the troops home. but given what we know of the relative immaturity of afghan forces alongside the continuing presence of the taliban, isn't it in our interest to walk slowly out of this conflict rather than too quickly? >> well, it may be in our national security interest to do that, martin, but there's been a great deal of anticipation that this conflict was coming to an end. we saw during the presidential campaign that they d republicans tried to make a big deal of squabbling over the details but they, too, were seeing a fairly rapid end to this, and this expedites it somewhat more quickly. so i think there's going to be a lot of crossing of fingers and hoping things don't turn into an

even worse disaster there. but this had already been baked in the cake. there's no political will to stay any further. >> okay. mike, i followed much of what you have written on the subject of afghanistan, and it seems as though you feel a little more optimistic about the country. but given the endemic corruption, the harboring of pakistani terrorists along the border, the confused way that nato has pumped money into afghanistan, do we leave a nation that really is almost as potentially unstable as when we arrived over a decade ago? >> it's a great question, martin. a quick comment in response to dana with whom i do not disagree but i would also point out we went through an entire presidential election during an unpopular war and neither candidate in the entire period of 2012 proposed an accelerated troop drawdown. >> that is true. >> so there's a little bit of a pragmatism in the american people. we're sick of this war, we don't like it, we wish it was over and yet there's a responsibility i think among the american

political body politic that i think is still there and that's going to constrain decision making. as for whether i'm optimistic or whether this mission has worked out very well, i thought the praez's words were very telling. he said we'll be able to say that we achieved our goals. but he allowed himself some flexibility to define what those goals were. since bin laden is dead, since a lot of al qaeda is decimated, could you say the narrow counterterrorism goal looks largely achieved but he's not prepared to promise that afghanistan is going to remain a stable country because we don't know that yet. i hope, martin, that in five years we can look back on this and say despite all the mix stakes, we got to an okay place but i accept your point. it's too soon to be sure. there's still a chance of a civil war after we leave and the taliban taking power. i don't expect those things but i can't rule them out by any means. >> dana, earlier this week general stanley mcchrystal was on "morning joe" and was critical with the afghan mission

and then there was this exchange. >> implicit in that is the criticism that in iraq and afghanistan we simply didn't know enough before hand about local realities to exactly know what we were getting into and how to contend with it? >> we didn't know enough when we went in and we were very slow in learning. >> dana, there's a man speaking with authority, but is this not another good reason for chuck hagel's nomination because he, unlike so many of his fellow republicans, prefers to act cautiously when it comes to these forays over seas? >> well, two things. he prefers to act cautiously using war as a last resort instead of a rather more immediate choice as had been the case over the last decade, but he's also a big supporter of working multilaterally and that's why he had been so critical of the bush administration in iraq. the problem wasn't necessarily that going into afghanistan too quickly. it was that we got distracted for all those years in iraq and

let the situation in afghanistan deteriorate. chuck hagel was right at the time in criticizing the bush administration on this. that's why it has long struck me you would want a man who does not want to rush into warfare as a first resort sitting there in charge of the pentagon. >> right. mike, on a slightly broader scale, are you at all concerned that this president's rightful desire to get our troops out of these entrenched and intractable conflicts, that this may point to a less vigorous role for the united states in terms of international affairs? >> you know, it's one of the big questions before us, martin, and i am struck that the syrian civil war, where i think there are no good answers and i'm not a big interventionist myself, it may require a little more american and international role than we've been willing to countenance so far for the very reason you mentioned but i'm hopeful president obama is actually going to be pretty careful on his subsequent afghanistan decisions as i think

you mentioned. today's press conference did not promise any particular rapid drawdown path. yes, we're hearing a general sense of war weariness. yes, the president is going to find rhetoric that says we're gradually getting out, but i think he will probably still keep several thousand u.s. forces after 2014 and i think he will try to keep supporting economically and otherwise the afghanistan government as long as they have an okay election next year. the stake are so high there and his own legacy is now so closely associated with afghanistan that i expect some continued association in the future. >> and, of course, an election in pakistan to come in a few months, too. michael o'hanlon and dana milbank. gentlemen, thank you so much. stay with us, our "top line" week in review is coming up. >> he has long severed his ties with the republican party. this is an in-your-face nomination to the president to all of us who were supportive of

israel. >> yes, yes, in his face! in his face! >> yes, in the face! [ male announcer ] when ziggy the cat appeared at their door, he opened up jake's very private world. at first, jake's family thought they saved ziggy, but his connection with jake has been a lifesaver. for a love this strong, his family only feeds him iams. compared to other leading brands, it has 50% more animal protein... ...to help keep ziggy's body as strong as a love that reaches further than anyone's words. iams. keep love strong.

stay with us. this week's "top lines" are coming up. >> i don't quite understand why everybody would be afraid that we determine what is happening. >> i'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! this is $100,000. we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime.

how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

is the same frequent heartburn treatment as prilosec otc. now with a fancy coating that gives you a burst of wildberry flavor. now why make a flavored heartburn pill? because this is america. and we don't just make things you want, we make things you didn't even know you wanted. like a spoon fork. spray cheese. and jeans made out of sweatpants. so grab yourself some new prilosec otc wildberry. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. from a candid conversation on ginneder diversity to the mounting hysteria over guns. here are todays a "top lines."

the week in review. >> it's 2013, suck it, mayans. >> what is the name of this network again? >> no feminist watch you. >> you quarterbacks, you get all the good looking women. >> 50i78 surprised you haven't brought miss alabama in to talk about like ben za give. >> the war on women, how the republicans were to blame. >> what in the hell is diversity? >> the women will be replaced by men. >> the record speaks for itself. >> diversity is an old, old wooden ship. >> i can't think of something that's more opposite of the brady bunch. >> and that is the story of the kangaroo in the garage. >> this place is run by a bunch of children. >> barack obama is getting inaugurated again. >> that was the worst day of my presidency. shows you the power of the nra. >> little school kids riddled with buml lbullet holes. >> these assault rifles we don't have that right. >> the second amendment is there to protect us.

>> it's time to say -- >> enough. >> if we don't deal with the substance abuse issues and the mental illness issues -- >> we have no national database of these lunatics. . >> isn't that the internet is? >> we don't have a crime problem a gun problem. what we have is a sin problem. >> i think you are worried that the federal government is going to come after our guns. >> nobody is trying to take away your begun. >> the third reich, no one saw that coming until it was too late. >> hitler took the guns, stalin took the guns. mao is took the guns. >> limiting your second amendment rights is priority one for sheriff joe. >> 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! >> what in the world are you talking about? confiscation. >> it's about reansistance to government tyranny. >> gun appreciation day honors the legacy of dr. king. >> many of those praepales are feel-good proposals. >> if african-american had been given the right to keep and bear

arms perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history. >> to follow that litany, let's get to msnbc political analyst karen finney, ryan grim, washington bureau chief of the huffington post and lynn sweet swef of the chicago sun times. this week the forces of proliferation are now comparing the president to hitler and stalin. is this not an indication, ryan, that if mental health is a key determinant of gun ownership, these individuals must surely be disqualified. >> you know what's interesting is that there's nothing new actually in a lot of these gun lunatics comparing obama to mao and stalin and to hitler. they have been doing that his entire presidency. it's only in the last couple weeks that they've kind of been elevated because we're having

this conversation about gun control. if you remember back, they opposed the health care bill because they said the health care bill was going to take away all their guns. i'm not making that up. that was like -- >> right. >> that was a major thing going on in the far right wing grassroots, that we have to stop this health care bill because it's going to take our guns. seriously. >> a continuing theme for them. >> it is. >> now, karen, the firearms apologists started out by saying that the solution to gun violence was more guns, but now it seems they're almost saying that the solution is more violence. take a listen to conservative author mr. ben shapiro. >> the basis for the second amendment is not really about self-defense. i fear the possibility of a tyranny rising. it is about resistant to government tyranny. history is replete with democracies going tyrannical. in other words, karen, the reason we have a second amendment, at least according to this line of thought, is so we can overthrow the government and

if the government we have now is just as bad as hitler or stalin, does that mean that these guys are now gearing up for some kind of, i guess, armed insurrection? >> apparently they are because as you know, martin, nothing in this country has changed. we haven't changed any opinions at all about what's appropriate since the constitution first came to be, right? it's all the same, right? tyranny is as much of a threat as anything else. look, here is the thing, i think ryan hit on something. remember last year over the last two years actually, part of the rationale they have made over the gun walking program was president obama allowed violence to occur in mexico in order to create the will to redo the assault weapons ban. that that's why he was letting that happen. so these kinds of hysterical theories have been out there. i think what you're seeing though, the intensity of is ratcheting up and the lunacy of what they're saying is ratcheting up because they realize they're losing the argument. if you look at the polls since the newtown shooting, the nra,

their unfavorables are going up even among gun owners who say the nra doesn't represent what we care about and our values. you have more gun owners saying i don't have a problem with background checks. i think it's only going to increase until we see what the president says. >> lynn, when you hear people like mr. shall peer row talking about a tyrannical regime, do you think that if the president issued an executive order, say, banning military-style assault weapons, that these individuals would regard such an order as tyrannical and would respond accordingly? >> martin, there is nothing president obama is going to do no matter how small a step that he is not going to be blasted for something he did not do. i mean, let's just face it, this is part of the permanent opposition to president obama. it forms and reforms over different issues. as karen said, yesterday it

could be health care. today it's guns. let's face this for what this really is. this is not really -- the obama administration knows that the last thing they want to do is to portray themselves as anything even close to confiscating guns. that's why even in their language, they talk about curbing gun violence. they don't use the word gun control. they do that as a way to try and avoid some of this insane talk about hitler who you should never, never, by the way, invoke because that is -- >> i entirely agree and i think all of us wood. >> absolutely. everyone would, and i think it diminishes any intelligent discussion of how to curb gun violence when you go that way. >> absolutely. i want you all to hear from the pied piper of lunatic conspiracy theories on the right. take a listen, please, to the one and only rush limbaugh. >> talking about guns and executive orders. if given the chance, they'd take your gun away from you. what in the world are you talking about?

executive orders for what? taking guns. confiscation. >> ryan, he appears to be whipping up a frenzy that has no basis in fact. isn't this also highly irresponsible knowing that there are people in this country who take their cues from repugnant buff fons like that man? it depends on what he's responsible for. i mean, he's responsible for getting ratings and whipping up his base and that's what he does. but because the confusion about the second amendment is so pervasive, let's just correct the historical record really quickly. the second amendment has nothing to do with overthrowing the government. nothing. it is about supporting the government. >> yes. >> the word well-regulated. the regulation word is in there that they hate. militias are so support the government. there are a number of checks and balances in the constitution where you can throw out the government. there are elections, there's a supreme court, there's a congress, there's a white house. all of this was spelled out very clearly. the framers established a way

that there would be peaceful transitions of power. they did not write into the constitution the idea you could overthrow through violence the very government that they were setting up through the constitution. >> karen? >> these right wingers -- >> any discussion -- >> these right wingers play fast and loose with the constitution all the time. so we should have to stand in line for eight hours to vote because, you know, heaven forbid we are granted our constitutional right to vote, but, no, no, i can't even have a background check when i get my gun. the hypocrisy obviously is part of what is glaring in the face. >> and lynn, final word to you. >> and also when you talk the second amendment no, amendment is absolute. we cannot walk around the streets with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher, okay? there are just limits that our society places -- >> are you trying to take our rocket propelled grenade launchers? >> don't try to take it away from us. >> we are just for the sake of argument and for the collarity,

we are not confiscating anyone's shoulder mounted hand grenades. coming up, the nra says the white house checks a box and now they appear ready to check out. stay with us. >> we think many of those proposals ever feel-good proposals. i do not think there will be a ban on so-called assault weapons passed by the congress. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

i'm up next, but now i'm singing the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. ♪ oh what a relief it is! we create easy to use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! strategies, chains, positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? open an account today and get a free 13-month e ibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0157 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab.

is the nra's reign of terror over washington finally coming to an end? it's a fair question. especially in light of their reaction to this week's meeting at the white house with vice president joe biden. instead of offering meaningful contributions as they promised in the days after sandy hook, the nra responded the way they always do, by firing off a series of attacks.

only this time america's gun lobby seems to be losing its aim. we're joined by representative john yarmuth, democrat of kentucky. good afternoon, sir. >> hello, martin. >> you have been an nra supporter in the past but now you're co-sponsoring a bill in congress that would outlaw high capacity ammunition clips. you say that this time the bill isn't just going to go away, which is great. but i have to ask you, sir, why not pass a ban on assault weapons, weapons that were used in aurora, colorado, in the oregon shopping mall, and at that school in newtown, connecticut? >> martin, i'm for doing that. >> you are? >> oh, i am for an assault weapons ban, but i think that for some unknown reason, i don't get the logic of it, but that seems to generate more resistance than the proposal to do away with high-capacity magazines, and if you do away with high-capacity magazines,

you basically make the assault weapons ban moot because they will have nothing to put in them. so i think to me right now it's just a question of what we can get passed. if we can get 220 votes for high capacity magazine regulation or ban and if we added an assault weapons ban we lose ten votes, then we lose everything. so i'm for both of them but i'm trying to make the -- i think we need to make the kind of calculation of where we can -- what's most likely to be doable. >> and you genuinely believe that if we target ammunition in the form of these clips, that will have an effect because what about, for example, properly marking the ammunition in some way? or possible taxation on ammunition as an additional if you like disincentive for people who acquire mass amounts of weaponry and ammunition they might use subsequently? >> i think there are a lot of

things of that nature we ought to consider. for instance, i think if you just order, say, 1,000 rounds of ammunition, that ought to trigger some kind of a questioning process just as if you were depositing and withdrawing $10,000 worth of cash in an american bank. there's a limit -- there's a reasonable limit on what you should be able to buy, and without raising suspicion. again, maybe you don't ban 5,000 round purchases but you trigger some kind of quetiinvestigation. >> some kind of question. the nra claims they have 100,000 new members since that horrific shooting in sandy hook. but isn't it true they care much more about the interests of gun manufacturers as opposed to gun owners and that's an industry worth more than $12 billion a year. that's who then ra represents.

>> and it's almost $40 million of annual ccs from gun manufacturers. three-quarters of their corporate support. we know what this game is about. it's scaring the american people to death so they will buy more guns. that's the strategy. it's been the strategy for a long time. >> you represent a constituency in kentucky, republican senate leader mitch mcconnell is a fellow kentuckian. he says he doesn't see congress taking up guns until maybe spring at the earliest. i mean, is that really an appropriate response to what happened in december, december the 14th, when 20 children were riddled with bullets? >> no, i don't think it is. but, you know, when it comes right down to it, we meet so infrequently, there may be -- that may be actually true because there are not that many days for the congress to be in session between now and you're talking about the 20th of march as spring. so, you know, that may not be farfetched, but still we've -- we ought to have hearings.

these things need to be discussed publicly. we need to have a little bit of time for of this coalition of citizens to make sure that whatever weight thenr a still has is counter balanced, whether it's churches, gun dealers, mothers, teachers, all of the citizens who are so passionate now about seeing a reduction in gun violence. we need to make sure that they are letting their members of congress know how they feel as well. >> now, i know that many in your constituency acknowledge and respect what you've said yourself bf the nra, but what's your feeling about your colleagues in the house? are they still petrified, fearful, particularly republicans, of the gun lobby? or do you think that more members of congress like yourself will actually be able to stand independently at this most important moment? >> well, again, i think for the first time in years there's going to be a counter balancing

pressure on those people who have been basically slaves to the nra. i'm not sure that their influence has moderated at all or diminished? they spent $20 million financing campaigns so there are a lot of members of congress who have taken their money, both republicans and democrats, but, again, i think when citizens are hurt on this for the first time plus the president's bully pulpit, i think for the first time there's going to be enough pressure on the other side to at least make them think twice about toeing the line for the nra. >> thank you representative john area mut. >> can i say one thing to follow up on your prior discussion? yesterday i was on a radio talk show here with a very conservative talk show host talking about guns and she compared one gun regulation proposal to making the jews wear yellow stars in germany during the nazi era. so it gets pretty wild. >> it's rep rehinsible.

thank you, sir. a note to our viewers we want to make clear that congressman yarmuth, you have always had an "f" rating from the nra. >> yes, yes. >> always. good on you for that. >> yeah. >> thank you so much, sir. >> thanks, martin. coming up, the latest from the white house where a war abroad and guns at home are taking center stage. stay with us. hey, our salads. [ bop ] [ bop ] [ bop ] you can do that all you want, i don't like v8 juice. [ male announcer ] how about v8 v-fusion. a full serving of vegetables, a full serving of fruit. but what you taste is the fruit. so even you... could've had a v8. but i'm still stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't unstuff your nose. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels speeds relief to your worst cold symptoms plus has a decongestant for your stuffy nose. thanks. that's the cold truth!

thanks. a hybrid? most are just no fun to drive. now, here's one that will make you feel alive. meet the five-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max says ha. c-max says wheeee. which is what you get, don't you see? cause c-max has lots more horsepower than prius v, a hybrid that c-max also bests in mpg. say hi to the all-new 47 combined mpg c-max hybrid.

between the visiting afghan president and the final day of talks over gun violence in america, it's been a hectic friday at the white house. let's bring in my colleague nbc's mike viqueira. mike, what was the white house able to get out of these meetings with president karzai because there was no specific number in terms of troop reductions. there was no specific time, although the president and president karzai mentioned a

drawdown trans -- sorry transfer of responsibilities in the spring. what did the white house hope to negotiate? >> reporter: there was some indication, martin, and judging from president karzai's comments as compared to the tone he's used in the perhaps that he perhaps may be more receptive to the so-called residual force in the united states is interested in leaving in afghanistan. there are 66,000 allied troops now and one other thing that came out of that meeting, martin, incidentally, is that the president and president karzai revealed that they're going to accelerate the drawdown of those allied forces, that handover, that transition, if you will, towards the afghan forces to take a lead role in combat operations. they're going to start doing that earlier this year than planned with an eye towards two years from now at the end of 2014 completely withdrawing. but, again, the main issue on the table, what will an allied or american residual force look like? what will their role be? where will they be base after

2014? the president, as he was concerned with in the negotiations in iraq, very concerned about irm munity for u.s. troops, while president karzai continually talking about the importance of the sovereignty of the afghan government. >> a brilliant summation. nbc's mike viqueira. we'll be right back to "clear the air." cus on your long-term , not their short-term agenda. [ male announcer ] join the nearly 7 million investors who think like you do. face time and think time make a difference. at edward jones, it's how we make sense of investing. to volunteer to help those in need. when a twinge of back pain surprises him. morning starts in high spirits, but there's a growing pain in his lower back. as lines grow longer, his pain continues to linger. but after a long day of helping others, he gets some helpful advice. just two aleve have the strength to keep back pain away all day. today, jason chose aleve. just two pills for all day pain relief. try aleve d for strong, all day long sinus and headache relief.

try the #1 gastroenterologist recommended probiotic. align. align naturally helps maintain digestive balance. ♪ ooh, baby, can i do for you today? ♪ try align today.

maybe you want to incorporate a business. or protect your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like the help of an attorney. at legalzoom a legal plan attorney is available in most states with every personalized document to answer questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected. it's time now to "clear the air." and in the firefight of hysteria and distortion that marks the nr a's opposition to anything that might restrict access to firearms, this week we've been fortunate to have an example of the kind of approach that the gun lobbyist is promoting. now, you will remember that immediately following that horrendous mass killing of children and teachers in newtown, connecticut, the nra offered a single solution. >> i'm telling you what i think will make people safe, and what every mom and dad will make them feel better, when they drop their kid off at school in

january is if we have a police officer in that school, a good guy, that if some horrible monster tries to do something, they will be there to protect them. >> well, just yesterday we had a perfect example of this. at taft unihigh school 120 miles north of los angeles, a 16-year-old student arrived for lessons armed with a shotgun. thankfully in the mythical world of wayne lapierre and the nra, the school had already adopted the kind of pre-emptive security that they're recommending, an armed guard has been on duty since 2011. so did the armed guard provide absolute protection for students and staff? did the good guy with a gun tage down the bad boy with the shotgun? not quite. unfortunately, the armed guard wasn't even there. according to a sheriff's department spokesman, he couldn't get there because he was snowed in. yet despite the