after the end of this show, but it being magic, you've tough already done it. i don't think it's a secret they do that show -- >> yes, we did the taping early. >> so how bitter was dave that he was passed over again? >> no. i think he's going to make it. >> did he survive? >> he says, last man standing. guns on demand. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. in connecticut, at least, they know the value of human life. today the governor of that stricken state signed a law dealing with assault weapons. magazine capacities and background checks. all matters that should be dealt with countrywide. sadly, the power of guns continues to power our politics. we talk to the head of gun owners of america and ask him

what's wrong with banning gun sales to criminals, addicts, spouse abusers and people with dangerous mental or emotional problems? better question, why would anyone want anyone selling guns to such customers? cutting to the heart of the gun debate tonight, let's get at it. donald williams is the president of the connecticut state senate where today some of the strongest gun control legislation in the country was signed into law. sir, what is the message from connecticut to the country, senator? >> well, we can certainly get it done here. and we can get it done in a way that's never been done before with democrats and republicans working together. believe it or not, this was a bipartisan effort and we were able to work with democrats and republicans and passed the strongest and most comprehensive bill in the country dealing with gun violence prevention. >> what do you think is the importance of background checks? it's one of the features of your legislation. >> you know, it's critical. recent research by the john hopkins school of public health indicates that background checks

and permitting processes that tap into a criminal background check keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. and, you know, even the gun advocates, even some of those folks on the far extreme of the nra claim that that is their goal. to protect the law-abiding citizen and to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals. if that's where they stand, why won't they support these essential checks? >> let's take a look at one of your colleagues, a republican colleague in the senate, the connecticut senate. one of the most stirring moments many think today in the debate. it occurred when republican senate minority leader john mckinney whose district includes newtown recalled those killed in the december massacre. let's listen to the senator. >> so today in making this vote, i want to be the voice for charlotte bacon and daniel barden and olivia engel and josephine, and ana marquez-greene and dylan hockley

and madeleine hsu, and catherine hubbard and chase kowalski and jesse lewis and james mattioli and grace mcdonnell and emilie parker and jack pinto and noah pozner and caroline previdi and jessica rekos and benjamin wheeler and allison wyatt and their siblings and their moms and their dads. >> senator, this has been a good bipartisan day up there in connecticut, hasn't it? in regards to this bill. >> it sure has been. senator mckinney is a good friend and colleague of mine. i sit next to him in the state senate. and he read the names of all of the children, the elementary schoolchildren, their teachers, and administrators, 26 in all, who lost their lives. that was a tipping point in connecticut. it should be a tipping point for the entire country to take

action. >> well, let's get to that. thank you so much, senator williams, for getting that bill through, getting it signed and setting an example for the country. joining me right now is larry pratt from a different side of the argument. executive director of the gun owners of america. where are you on background checks? >> we have opposed background checks from the very beginning. the "journal of the american medical association" which is no friend of ours had published a study several years after the background checks were imposed and they found that they hadn't had any impact on reducing crime. so we have a system in place -- >> wait a minute, how to you know that a person -- let's talk logic here. if a criminal or a nut or an addict or a wife beater shows up at a gun store and wants to buy a gun and the guy say, no, how does that not prevent violence? how is that not a good thing to happen? would you sell a gun to one of these people? >> criminals have other places -- >> would you sell a gun? >> of course not. >> why should a gun store sell?

>> you listen to the answer, please. don't be so impolite. >> i'm being polite. you said no. >> i was following on with an explanation of why we are opposed to it. the "journal of the american medical association" said the background checks had not lowered crime. secondly, the aclu raised valid concerns even today we're constructing a national gun registry and that raises serious privacy questions. >> the law right now is you can't sell guns knowingly to any of those categories of people. criminals, wife beaters. >> of course. >> you want to get rid of that law? >> that's not the -- >> no, would you like to get rid of that law? >> of course not. >> you want to leave that law in effect? >> that would apply to anybody. >> you don't want a background check? >> period, period. >> you want to get rid of the background check. >> absolutely. >> your response to newtown is to get rid of what we have now? >> it's not our response. we've had that since the very beginning. we objected from it. we said this would become -- it has become a gun registry. >> the illogic of this is as follows.

if i walked into a gun store, looked like a nut, a crazy person, would you sell me a gun? >> no. >> if you could call up and find out in a matter of seconds whether this person has a mental capacity, has a problem, court ordered to not operate in any way with a gun, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of that information? >> chris, even after you done that, the chap who's been turned down can be -- >> how? that's what we're trying to stop. the new law proposed is you don't have private sale, can't have internet sales, you can't have gun shows. >> you think criminals are going to obey that? private sales, by the way, means you're going to outlaw private sales. people will have to go through dealers. >> i don't know how to argue with it except this. if you have a 65 mile an hour speed limit, because most people obey the law. why don't we get rid of the speed limits? not everybody is going to a obey them. >> we think the country would be fine without the background check. >> without speed limits, too.

>> i didn't say that. >> some people can get around this, therefore, don't try to stop it. >> because they do, and then the risk to the good guys of the gun registry and the abuse of the data that can be -- >> let's start with this. why is there an abuse -- why is it bad for the government of the united states to maintain information on people that are criminals, wife beaters, addicts, or otherwise threats to society, or under some sort of restraining order so they don't get access to firearms? >> they're going to get access to firearms anyway. if they have a criminal intent, they're going to do it. they have done it. they do it all along. you're saying you're okay with a national gun registry. >> you're okay. i never said that. >> that's what we're doing with this national background instant check which by the way isn't always that instant. >> do we have a national registry right now? >> we have a substantial part of it because we know that when a dealer enters a portal through his internet access to get a

background check, he gets an information sheet that says this data is the property of the united states government. >> let me ask you this. >> and we can do with it what we want. that violates federal law. >> this is all slippery slope argument. >> they violate the law when they get it. >> you walk into a store and somebody says to you, i want to see an i.d. card to see if you're 21. is that all right with you? >> i don't have a problem with that. >> okay. so somebody walks into a store, in order to protect the store owner, so he doesn't sell to a criminal, he wants to know, a store owner, whether i'm selling to a criminal or not. is it helpful to have him access to check to see if this person is a felon or not? what's wrong with that information? >> you know, if you stop there, he'll go somewhere else to get it or do what the gao did a number of years ago, he'll get a false i.d. >> i've had you on, but there's something ideological to this. if i'm a good guy, go to church on sunday, or synagogue, i want to be a good person, i don't want to sell a gun to a nut, a criminal, a wife beater, somebody on a restraining order. how can i avoid doing that?

if joe smith walks in the door, eyes wide open, says i want a bushmaster? >> you're assuming if you stop him at one -- >> i didn't -- >> he's going to go elsewhere to get the gun. that's what criminals have done. that's what they are doing. >> why do we have squad cars in big cities where we have tough crime neighborhoods some places when they can't be anywhere? because they help to deter. you could say, don't have any squad cars, any police because you can't stop all crime? what kind of argument is that? >> as a matter of fact, what deters even more when you have an armed person that's the potential victim. we have found, for instance, in northern virginia, where gun owners of america is, we have a murder rate of .3 per 100,000. >> there's all kinds of reasons why murder rates different. >> you come over here to the district of columbia, it's 30 times higher. >> you think they make the gun here in washington? give me the name and address of a gun -- >> why did the guns -- >> because people have criminal intent and they want a gun and get a gun.

>> i see. i thought the guns were waiting to get over here. >> let me ask you this. where are the gun manufacturers in d.c.? >> there's not a gun store. >> they're not made here. they come in here. i want to go back to my moral question which may work with you or not. if you're a moral gun salesman, do you want to sell to criminals? >> i don't think anybody wants to still -- >> how do you help a person not sell to a criminal? >> we're not helping -- >> no, how do you help a gun her hasn't from not selling to criminals? >> because the criminals are not being thwarted. the tradeoff -- >> in other words, guns on demand? >> national gun registry, that's unacceptable. >> your argument is guns on demand. walk into a store, i'm a citizen, you got to sell me that gun. i don't care how crazy i look, you have to sell me the gun. >> that actually will not impair the ability -- >> you don't have a good argument. let me tell you how good your argument is doing. >> all you want is control. you want to know who the gun owners are. >> i'm a pretty libertarian guy on this. let me give you some numbers here. >> we don't trust people like you.

>> do you trust -- this is a quinnipiac poll, just came out. see how well your argument is working in this country, except with congressmen and senators you're going to intimidate. do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all people who buy guns? 88% of republicans, 96% of democrats, 90% of independents, 88% of men, 94% of women, 91% of white americans, 94% of black americans, 90% of hispanics. you're not winning the argument. they all want background checks. >> that poll is about as valid as a $3 bill. >> why is that? >> they had said something like 85%, 90% of nra members and gun owners of america members wanted the background checks. we polled our numbers. >> you say this poll is no good? >> it's no good. it's as good as a $3 bill. the same people telling us 90%, we found it's 4%. nra found it's 5% amongst their members. >> so every poll we get keeps saying the same thing but those people are lying? >> if you set the poll up to get a certain outcome, you're going to get a certain outcome.

>> i go back to my question. would you like to sell a gun to a felon? >> i wouldn't like that. >> you wouldn't -- you hedged there. would you do it? >> not knowingly. >> how would you know otherwise? >> you don't. and -- >> in other words, a guy -- a guy can card a kid for -- a can of beer, you have to show an i.d. card, prove you're 21 but don't have to prove you're sane or innocent to buy a gun? >> you certainly don't have to make that proof when you're buying the gun illegally which is what criminals do. that's where your system breaks down and we're left with your national gun registry. >> i'm left with the idea we live in an imperfect society with some people who are violent and the people who are known to be violent shouldn't get guns. do you agree with that? >> yes. as long as you don't take my guns away from me, i can handle the guy with the gun. >> see, this is pure rhetoric. i'm sticking with one point tonight. >> my linear logic is pure rhetoric and you're jumping -- >> i'm talking about do you want background checks? you don't want them? >> the aclu tells me this is a dangerous proposition. >> can we speak for ourselves here?

>> can you take an answer other than forcing one? >> i want to know, larry pratt, where do you stand -- >> i told you where -- >> are you against background checks? >> from the very beginning we were against -- >> the ones we have now? >> we don't trust people like you. >> okay. thank you. a lot of people do. they're watching. thank you, larry pratt. you explained yourself perfectly. you're against all background checks. coming up, the aryan brotherhood of texas probably don't like them either. assistant d.a. prosecuted them in kaufman county, texas. another has withdrawn from the case citing security concerns. tonight we're going to talk to an african-american who spent time in prison with the aryan brotherhood of texas and got to know and fear them. plus, life seems normal for most of us despite the big sequestration budget cuts. republicans feel like they have the high ground politically on this one. real people are getting really hurt by sequestration. how about cancer clinics turning people away? it was 45 years ago today martin luther king jr. was assassinated down in memphis. andrew young and dr. king's grandson dr. martin luther king iii join us to talk about voting

rights and gun violence. let me finish with this. nine out of ten americans support background checks. why doesn't congress? and this is "hardball." the place for politics.

would ronald reagan support marriage equality? his daughter thinks so. patti davis says reagan likely would have supported marriage for gay couples. while she never discussed it with her dad, she says he probably would have bucked his party on the issue for three reasons. hollywood acting career. close friendship with a lesbian couple who cared for patti, and ron. and government intrusion into people's private lives. my mant? trust your instincts to make the call. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied

as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment,

welcome back to "hardball." today governor rick perry of texas announced $100,000 reward to help find the killers of a texas district attorney. his wife and also his deputy. officials didn't say whether they were close to discovering the facts of the case. there's been a hell of a lot of attention played to the possible role of an ultra violent white

supremacist prison gang, the aryan brotherhood of texas. kaufman county d.a. mike mclelland's office brought indictments against 34 members of that group in november. late last year the department of public safety issued a warning to law enforcement people about retribution from the group. this week a federal prosecutor involved in prosecuting that case sent e-mails to defense attorneys of the aryan brothers announcing he was withdrawing from the case from, quote, security reasons. so what do we know about the aryan brotherhood of texas? and how much of a threat do they pose? mark podok is our expert here. senior fellow at the poverty law center. we're joined by phone by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. he served in prison with the brotherhood. mark, how danger is the aryan brotherhood of texas? >> i think the aryan brotherhood of texas is arguably the most violent and scary prison gang

out there right now. its members have been blamed for more than 100 murders and at least 10 kidnappings since they were formed in the early 1980s. you know, they run a huge methamphetamine racket in texas and surrounding states and they're incredibly violent. they're known for torture murders. they at one point ordered someone they thought was snitching killed. the killer was told to bring back the severed finger of his victim as a trophy. >> so a lot of it is discipline. brutal, bloody discipline of its own members. >> that is right. >> how much inside, and how much outside? how much in prison? how many people are killed in prison out of the 100 or so and how many outside on the streets and homes? >> we don't know the exact numbers. the majority, for sure, were people in prison or members of rival gangs. what's not true is the majority of victims are just innocents who are out there. they're in some way in that world that is shared by the

aryan brotherhood of texas. >> let's talk about that while we have a person we're just going to call him anonymous. he's going to talk to us now by phone. anonymous, i'm going to call you, sir. tell you what we need to know as americans, as citizens, about the aryan brotherhood of texas and associated groups. >> caller: well, i think that we -- mark hit it on the head. we need to be very afraid because they are a very, very dangerous violent gang, and they're hard to infiltrate because they're kind of self-selecting from prison. you know, you could join a militia just by going on the internet, but they know who their members are because you had to be a member -- you had to be in prison to be able to get into the gang. you just can't join. so they kind of know who each other is very well. and they enforce a very strong sense of discipline. >> i understand why they might unite themselves in prison just for self-protection or whatever. what is their mission outside of prison? what do -- they want to take

over the country as white people? or what's their -- what is it that when they're getting together, what do they talk about? >> caller: i don't think so. i think it's more, if you get out of prison, you've got a felon conviction, it's hard to get a job. they offer you a way to make a living. drug dealing. methamphetamine making. you can go and get in the unemployment line or ride around on a harley davidson because these guys are making money. they offer basically a family structure. it's a sick family, to be sure, but they consider each other family members. that they will die for. and that's kind of people living on the margins, that's kind of -- that's an attractive offer. >> but the killing part of it, the ruthlessness of it, what makes them so cold-blooded? were they killers when they went to prison or did they develop that cold mentality, the willingness to take lives of people they consider traitors, who are prosecutors, who are dangerous to them? >> it comes from the culture in prison.

their attitude was to make sure we're not preyed upon, we have to be as dangerous or more dangerous than the other guys. that the retribution will be swift, it will be sure, and it will be violent and, therefore, you get a standoff. so some groups will, well, we're not going to mess with these guys because we know what they're willing to do. because there are other prison gangs that are just about as dangerous, maybe not as well organized on the outside, but there are mexican and black prison gangs. that's the reason they form the aryan brotherhood to protect themselves against the other gangs. >> i get that part. let me go outside, mark, a prosecutor. we've grown up in a country, i've talked to lawyers, judges, prosecutors, who don't feel prisoners spend much -- they go to prison, they know whey did something wrong no matter what they say to their cell mates. they know they're guilty. they don't carry this vendetta against the process people. is this new to think about who puts you away, who might put you away and start killing these people?

that's what must make this whole job of prosecution frightening. >> it's new in this country i think for sure. i think we've seen something like 20 murders of prosecutors in america in the last 100 years. in other words, it's incredibly rare. you know, i think it's a very surprising, in fact, if abt is behind these killings, and i say that simply because they will obviously, if that's true, it will obviously bring the full weight of the whole criminal justice establishment down on the heads of these people. so, you know, as anonymous i think rightly said, these, you know, we're really talking about an organization that is fundamentally a criminal enterprise. it's about making money particularly in the methamphetamine world. aryan brotherhood as well as aryan brotherhood of texas people are perfectly fine with making alliances, whatever it might be, if they feel they can make more money. >> what do you make of the high ranking members involved to issue orders to, quote, inflict mass casuallies or death to law

enforcement officials involved in cases where aryan brotherhood of texas people were facing sentences? i mean, they are making these threats. what to you make of them, mark? >> well, it's hard to know what to make of them, because, of course, this, what you're reading from is of course a memo put out by the department of public safety in december warning prosecutors say had intention. >> we lost two prosecutors, the wife of a prosecutor in their homes. >> i'm not making light of it at all. i'm saying i don't know the quality of the intelligence. i think there's a lot about these killings that makes you wonder. you know, it certainly does seem to suggest the circumstances that abt might well have been behind it. >> let me end tonight by going to anonymous. does your experience tell you they might be involved in going after prosecutors? without any details. is this an m.o.? >> caller: it is something you will see develop. yes, it could be very true.

>> back to you mark. is this something we ought to be aware of? how do you deal with it? are we in a situation like in mexico or some country that has real systemic challenges to it like drug cartels where they say, you know, you prosecute one of these guys, you're gone. and they have the firepower to do it up against the federal government down there. do we have a situation developing here? are you still keeping your powder dry on the possibilities they may not be the villains here? >> well, i think it's possible because i think what's really happening is that prison gangs said a few years ago were really largely confined to the prisons are more and more spilling out on to the streets. >> thanks very much, mark potok. mr. anonymous, thanks for coming on and help enlighten us about the general situation. you gave us a nice mixed view of the situation. up next, rick santorum may have said it first. we heard louie gohmert say it yesterday. jon stewart has a rather blunt question for the republican party.

wait until we get to this. i love when jon mixes it up with the far right. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ female announcer ] switch to swiffer sweeper, and you'll dump your old broom. but don't worry, he'll find someone else. ♪ who's that lady? ♪ who's that lady? ♪ sexy lady ♪ who's that lady? [ female announcer ] swiffer sweeper's electrostatic dry cloths attract and lock dirt, dust, and hair on contact to clean 50% more than a broom. it's a difference you can feel. swiffer gives cleaning a whole new meaning.

and now swiffer wet and dry refills are available with the fresh scent of gain.

ha! back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. yesterday i told you the latest from texas congressman louie gohmert, a frequent star of the sideshow. in february gohmert suggested putting limits on gun magazines would be similar to allowing same-sex marriage and the slippery slope that follows. let's get a quick recap of his comments. reaction from jon stewart. >> the problem is once you draw that limit, it's kind of like marriage. when you say it's not a man and a woman anymore, then why not have three men and one woman? or four women and one man? or why not, you know, somebody has a love for an animal? >> aside from the fact that

you're justifying not limiting one thing by pointing to the need to limit another thing, what is it with you people and the animal [ bleep ]? i don't understand how your mind always go there. is that the only thing that's been holding you back? because i don't have -- oh, wow, look at that goat. if only i wouldn't get in trouble. >> well, you know, republican outreach isn't having a banner week when warnings about bestiality have entered the mix. next, another blow for the birthers. christopher earl strunk lost his battle to have president obama removed from the new york 2012 ballot. no surprise there. but a new york supreme court justice just ordered him to pick up a tab of about $170,000 to pay the attorneys who had to do the job of posing him and another $10,000 fine for opposing him. according to the judge "if the complaint in this action was a movie script it would be

entitled the manchurian candidate meets the da vinci code. fanciful, delusional and irrational." mr. strunk is not just targeting president obama but nancy pelosi and several government agencies. he said they're all part of a conspiracy to get president obama elected. a conspiracy. well, hmm. finally, on monday i showed you the white house nod to april fool's day. a special message from the president. turned out to be from youtube star, kid president. turns out the third grader, bobby novak, got a meeting in the oval office. >> i think you should try to sit behind the desk so you look a little more official. >> hello. >> okay. any advice for me as just an ordinary kid president? >> i have one. >> okay. >> it's not really my opinion.

you're doing awesome. >> i'm doing awesome? that means a lot to me. i think you're doing awesome. we have a lot of responsibilities. between the two of us maybe we can get things going in a good direction. >> thanks, man. up next, why are democrats not making the case. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

robert ebert has died. he was 70 years old. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." remember when republicans championed $85 billion worth of spending cuts known as the sequester? they're saying, where's the problem? no one even cares. the budget cuts are causing real problems for real people. catch this headline on the front page of "the washington post" just today. "cancer clinics turn away patients citing sequester." "the post" reports cuts across the country turned away medicare patients blaming the sequester budget cuts. colleges say the reduced funding which took effect for medicare

on april 1st makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs. patients would need to seek treatment elsewhere such as at hospitals. to give you an example, sacramento schools will see special education cuts. utah felt cuts in their emergency unemployment benefits. a west virginia program to end poverty stopped all new projects until september. and down in chapel hill where i went to school, they could lose a bunch of work study opportunities for students down there. so until now, at least, republicans feel they've had the high ground on this issue of sequestration. it may take more reporting on the effects the cuts have been having to even the score. joining me, two "hardball" strategists on how their own party is jockeying for position on the issue and how it should be. robert gibbs, of course, a genius, served as white house press secretary under president obama and now is an msnbc political analyst. tom davis served as republican congressman from northern

virginia. i think you went to williams, right? the same thing. you're one of those smart guys, anyway. "jeopardy" winner here. here's the thing. you guys are winning on this issue. i think the public would much rather have sequestration because it hurts some people than have a tax increase, revenue enhancer, that is a tax increase that your own party has to defend. that's why you guys if the republican party have said better sequester than having to raise taxes. >> raising taxes would kill the party with its base. off years are driven by turnout. >> smart move you've been doing. >> it's the right political move. look, it's not the cuts i think they prefer. they prefer to get into entitlements because that's the fastest growing part of the budget. >> they'd be blamed for cutting medicare and social security. both parties are playing games here. his party is opposing tax increases of any kind, so-called reform increases. your party doesn't want to go after the people and say, let's mess with medicare. is sequestration the smart move

for obama? is it the smart move? >> i agree, there are no off ramps to this. i think this is much more politically about posturing for the end game now, which is the debt ceiling increase and the last possibility for our grand bargain. so i think, you know, local stories like this, and these will get much more attention. >> does this help obama, this stuff? >> i think it helps position him for an end game where we decide cutting aid to students and cutting chemotherapy to medicare patients is not the way we want to go out about getting our fiscal house -- >> here's this powerful picture we think of the sequester cuts. a father in indiana listening to a lottery of names drawn of families who would be cut from their local head start program due to budget cuts. "the associated press" shares this man was spared, rather, but upset about the others being eliminated. not everybody gets in, tom. your party can handle this politically? you're better off with this stuff? >> we are, but more important, aside from that, we're borrowing 40 cents to the dollar. it's unsustainable.

there are no good options out there. whether raising taxes, cutting spending. there are no good options here. >> can your president, our president, your political leader, say, we have to get rid of the sequester, it's hurting too many poor people, i'm willing to commit a cut in medicare? >> i think he will. >> he will do that. >> it has to be met with -- >> it's not going to be met. they're not going to help. stop counting on the other party to do the right thing. no republican is going to -- >> this is a race to see what part of the bone we can cut to. >> no, it's the race between who's the good guy. >> i wish that were what washington was about. >> you think he's the good guy. >> i think that the president -- is the president willing to take a step forward and do something about the long-term entitlement picture in order to make sure we're making the investments and doing this in a balanced way? absolutely. the question is whether we'll get anybody to take that step. >> you can win the 207147 elections. >> look at the senate lineup, too. >> a lot of vacancies now. can the democratic party put all

its eggs on the idea of winning in 2014? >> we've had redistricting. >> why do i get this feeling, you're so smart. i get the feeling the president -- he's a man of values. he believes in stuff. i'm looking at immigration, looking at guns, looking at the sequester. what i think he wants to do is win in november of 2014. that's his crowning achievement. >> no, i mean -- >> you don't think that's true? >> well, i don't think anybody -- i can't think of the legacy of a former president being how they left the house of representatives -- >> have you told them that? i agree with you. i'm with you. >> look, i think -- you -- as a president you want a legacy. you want to burnish a credential of having -- >> better to do immigration, better to do something on guns than to win the house? >> absolutely. >> i like the way, clarity. hillary clinton, she's doing a lot. i figured she'd go off to some ranch. nobody i know ever does it. just go relax.

she does have the opportunity -- she's been the great secretary of state. people love her, in fact. why doesn't she take a break right now? what's this about going right into these big speeches? is she trying to ward off joe, warn him, i like you, joe, but don't be stupid enough to run against me? is that what she's doing? >> i think she is taking advantage of lucrative speaking offers. >> she wasn't going to do that. >> look, i -- she should and she should -- >> okay. what about biden? joe, i like you, don't run against me? >> i believe, honestly, she has no idea what she wants to do. >> you guys are like robots. you all talk the same way. you think she might not run for president? >> i do because i think it's 2013 and it's not -- >> why wouldn't she run? >> why would she? >> because all her life, she and her husband, this has been a political life. it's a political life they've led. >> i think these are intensely personal -- >> this is the problem with this guy, and everybody close to the clintons. you're not that close to the clintons. why do you guys all say you don't know when every step she

takes is to run? >> she has to get in front. out in front now, send the warning to everybody else, i'm there. everything else is stopped until she makes a decision. >> let's put money on the table right now. would you put 100,000 bucks right now on the table? you'd probably get it with speaking fees. would you bet that money, even money, she won't run? >> i would bet even money. >> that she won't run? are you laughing at him? >> i'm laughing at him. >> she's been through the process before so she knows the good and the bad. she'll be 69 years old. she may decide she doesn't want to do it. >> i think there's money on the table here. >> i think she could wait until ten minutes before the new hampshire primary filing closes to decide to run for president and still be the nominee. she doesn't have to -- >> all right. hillary land is still out there. they have officers all over downtown. there's people out there wait ing for their meal tickets to be punched. there are so many people who

believe she's running and invested their lives into running if for president. 50/50. give me a break. thank you, robert gibbs. thank you, tom davis. 45 years ago today we lost the reverend martin luther king jr. of course, i'll tell you where i was. i bet you know where you were when you heard. this is "hardball." the place for politics. [ thunder crashes ] [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

here comes another. another senate democrat who's come forward to support marriage equality. florida's bill nelson who just got re-elected, of course, reversed his opposition to same-sex marriage telling the "tampa bay times" that we're all endowed by our creator are unalienable rights. we will be right back.

we're back. today marks 45 years since civil rights pioneer dr. martin luther king jr. was shot and killed at the lorraine hotel or motel in memphis, tennessee. back on april 4th, 1968. take a look at this photo of dr. king the day before his assassination.

he was gunned down, by the way, on that same hotel balcony that very next day. i was down there. it's amazing to visit that room, in fact. the night of dr. king's assassination then-presidential candidate robert kennedy broke the news actually to a mostly african-american crowd at the airport in indianapolis where he was campaigning for president. rfk pleaded at the time to try to deal with this horrible development. >> for those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, i

would only say that i can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. i had a member of my feeling killed, but he was killed by a white man. >> with me now is the son of dr. king, martin luther king iii and civil rights activist and former ambassador to the u.n., andrew young, who was with dr. king when he was assassinated in memphis. thank you very much, martin, for coming on. thank you, ambassador young. i guess i'll start with a family member. martin, you carry the legacy and name of your dad. how's this country doing? how can you imagine him looking down and seeing us today and how does he feel and think about how we're doing? >> i think dad would always characterize things positive. he would say we have real challenges. he would be very pleased about the fact we elected an african-american president but he would be very concerned about the triple evils of poverty, racism and militarism and violence we have not eradicated yet. with almost 60 million people

living in poverty today. 22 when he was alive, militarism on the rise, we still more money than the next 10 nations and with our communities we are killing more people than we ever have and can't even get a gun bill or assault weapon ban in this nation. i think there are real challenges. he would find a way to make it positive. >> you're right. you have seen these numbers. we just had a big fight with a guy tonight. 78% of african-americans in this country want to see tougher stricter gun laws. thank you so much, mr. ambassador. you have had such a wide experience since with the carter administration, mayor, you've been through it all. how are you doing? >> i think we really are doing well. i say that because we have, by and large made racism illegal.

i disagree with martin a little bit. i remember 66 million people killed in the second world war. 10,000 or less in iraq is progress to me. not nirvana. but the thing we have to deal with is the economy and poverty. and we cannot deal with the poverty unless we look at a global economy. we have more money in tax havens almost than we have in circulation. that's why we have deficits. the economists say 20 trillion dollar tax haven. "forbes" saying 21 to $35 trillion. somehow wave got to get that money into circulation. >> that's great thinking. i haven't thought about the

power of that money. >> that's the answer to poverty. it's not just poverty but national security. let's put it on the saudis for a minute. instead of putting their money in hiding, let's help them run a little risk and invest in egypt. the answer to egypt's problems are not whoever is running it, it's the economy. the economy works for 40 million people and you have 90 million. nigeria has a million college graduates a year with no jobs. that's trouble. and we've got -- only america -- i mean all the foolishness with north korea and all that kind of stuff that distracts us, the real problems are the problems of unemployed intelligent youth who have access to your information and the technology that i don't even understand.

>> i agree with you. i've seen that in the third world, allegro, where you have huge populations with nothing to do. >> i don't know your politics but i agree, there are three states suppressing the vote, getting rid of sunday voting and i think a lot of that is prejudicial and suppressing the vote. >> i think it's one party trying -- >> you're being benign. >> you can say it's race and certainly partially race. it's tragic in 2013 the vote is trying to be suppressed for anybody. nobody says people shouldn't have an id. the fact you created new kinds of ids that cost money and when

people are on fixed incomes and you say you have to pay $75 for a new id, that's almost like a new poll tax. this is wrong and the supreme court and congress talking about eliminating section 5 in the vote ing act right. >> you're a generous man and say they don't hate them because they're black, they hate them because they're democrats, that's your pitch. andrew young, the black violence, it's serious business, victim hood, people getting killed, the drive-bys. seems i have never seen such a divide. black americans want gun control. >> they do and need gun control. by and large we need self-esteem. the kind of violence and insanity that black on black crime really has killed more people than the klu klux klan did.

>> thank you, martin luther king for joining us and ambassador andrew young. we'll be right back. are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. >> announcer: an important free offer for men with balding or thinning hair. >> i'm happy with e way i look now. >> with his hair now, it's just this new-found confidence and there's a glow aboutim you just can't match. >> announcer: men, no diet, no exercise program, no new set of clothes can ever improve your confidence, your good looks and the way women look at you the way a thick, full head of your own real hair will, and now you can have it

in just four weeks when you call hair club right now. with over half a million success stories, hair club really will give you back your own head of real hair in just four wks... >> i think he looks 10 years younger with his hair now. >> announcer: easily, painlessly and affordably. >> life's about having fun. it's about looking good. i mean, 80% of feeling good is looking good. >> announcer: call hair clubow and get your own head full, thick hair in just four weeks. look younger, feel more confident, put that old swagger back in your step and put some zip back in your love life. call hair club now. >> getting my hair back was the best thing that ever happened to me. >> the most common type of hair loss in men is so-called "male pattern baldness." d.h.t. causes hair ls by binding to individual hair follicles and essentially shutting down production. those follicles start growing weaker and weaker hairs and eventuly don't grow y hairs at all. >> announcer: call now for your confidential appointment. we'll give you a free hair and scalp analysis, we'll explain what kind of hair loss you'rexperiencing and

show you the tted and proven solutions we'll use. remember, there are many different kinds of hair loss anhair club is the only one who can offer you a custized solution based on your unique type of hair loss and expections. gethe head of hair you want and women love in just four weeks. change your life forever. call hair club now. >> i only wish i hadn't taken so long. that's why i'm telling you, do it now. >> announcer: call now for our freevd and brochure, shipped to you in a discreet, plain envelope. hair club has the solution you want. call now! [♪...]

let me conclude tonight with this. 9 out of 10 americans, 9 out of 10 republicans want background checks for all gun buyers. 96% want background checks for all gun buyers. 9 out of 10 independents want background checks for all americans. 9 out of democrats want it 9 out