and inmate safety at risk. that's our report. guns for everybody. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this week's bottom line argument of the national rifle association. why can't we have background checks on who buys a gun? because we can't. why can't we? because we're going to filibuster, that's why. and why are you going to filibuster? because we don't want background checks. you don't want -- why don't you want background checks? because we're going to have guards at schools instead. well, how do you know those guards don't have criminal

records or mental problems? because we're going to force them to have background checks. got it? we'll give guns to guards only if they have background checks can, but we won't make anyone else have a background cheg. that way, you see, we make sure everyone has to buy a gun. got it? do you? we sell guns. yesterday here on "hardball" larry pratt of the group called gun owners of america had no defense for his opposition to background checks. 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 so -- or under some sort of restraining order so they don't get access to firearms? what's wrong with that? >> they're going to get access to firearms anyway. they have done it. they do it all along. >> yet while they oppose background checks as he just did for gun owners when it comes to making schools safer, they're all for background checks. this week the national rifle association task force said to make schools safer.

not surprise iingly arming scho employees including teachers is a big part of the plan. but buried inside their report, the nra report, is this bit of hypocri hypocrisy. quote, it is recommended the schools perform a preemployment background check and periodic rechecks on all employees including a criminal records check. yes, they're calling for a background check, the same thing the nra fights so strenuously in their recommendation of the report. also this week the nra opposed a u.n. treaty that restricts arm sales to governments and groups that commit war crimes. why? because any restriction could eventually restrict the u.s. gun owner and that treaty had overwhelming worldwide support passing 154 nations, 154 countries, to three. the nra found itself in the esteemed company of those three countries, iran, north korea and syria. that's our new crowd. ron reagan is a radio talk show host, msnbc contributor, former mayor of san francisco. mayor brown, having run a city, you know this issue of safety, public safety. the strange nra thinking is you

can't let a teacher or an armed guard, a retiree from the police force, for example, work in a school unless they've had a thorough background check and you have to have a regular recheck, not just the first time they get hired. you have to go back and recheck and make sure they have kept their nose clean and yet if you say that about a typical gun purchaser, don't ask nothing. no questions. given the guy the gun. that's the way they want to do it. guns on demand like you're buying a hershey bar. that's it. it's a hershey bar. i'm going to try that. background check, what are you crazy? that's the hideous argument they make. check out the guy that's going to guard the kids but don't check out the guy buying the gun to go after the kids. >> that's typical of what the nra has been producing and pushing among politicians for years, and it's totally and completely illogical, inconsistent, and, frankly, they are out to lunch on the issue altogether. >> have they made a mistake,

ron, to expose some critical thinking here on how you hire school guards by employing usual logic when it doesn't come to guns. they're exploring the fact maybe there is such a thing as common sense here, and they ought to be consistent. >> yeah, your annoyance is right on the money there. what annoys you, i think, is you are being asked to accept arguments which are nonsense on their face. wayne lapierre gives fatuousness a bad name. he contradicts himself all the time. the size of magazines, he doesn't want it being restricted to ten bullets for a magazine because it only takes a second to change magazines anyway, so ten bullets, 30 bullets, what difference does it make to the mass murderer? however, if you're defending your home, then you really need the bigger magazine all the time. you can't just be switching out magazines all the time. >> well, once again, it's megan kelly over at fox who did the hard work here.

she had npr, national rifle association, wayne lapierre on, limiting magazine capacity. everything you are talking about. watch this strangeness coming up here. here is wayne against megan. let's watch. >> if there's anything that moves people in this country or has moved them in one direction or the other recently it is that newtown tragedy, and you hear the parents and the spouses of those killed. there were 20 children and six adults killed. say 11 children had the chance to escape as that guy reloaded. >> criminals aren't going to have less one round in their hand of someone who is going to do horror is too many. >> but how do you know, wayne? adam lanza -- i'll give you the floor. adam lanza, his mother was a legal gun owner. how do you know this person, that his mother, would not have obeyed the law and limited the magazine clip and then adam lanza would have been limited to ten rounds instead of 30?

>> megan, people that know guns -- you can change magazine clips in a second. there's no evidence that, you know, that anything would have changed. >> so you go to the gun salesman, mayor, and you go to buy a 30-round clip and he says, don't waste your money, young man, because, you know, you can change those magazines really fast in a manner of seconds. you just take the ten-round one. this is the stupidest argument. they want the 30-round clips because they want to have access to them for hunters, i guess. i don't know who, or people defending themselves in their homes against the government. but, you know, yet they say we can flick this thing out of here in ten seconds. apparently up in newtown, luckily, it's not that easy for a nut to change clips. >> i have to tell you, chris, it's crazy. all of their arguments are crazy. with one in particular is crazy because, after all, if you have to change the clip, that gives a few seconds for somebody to maybe save their lives or for others to be able to assist in saving their lives.

there's no question about that. except the nra says we want the maximum opportunity, i suspect that dianne feinstein, the senator from california, is right. they really want bazookas, they are not just looking for clips. >> if you asked them, they would legalize them, i'm sure. ask wayne lapierre if he wants to outlaw tommy guns. no! last night i had to do a victory lap for last night. a lot of people like this. i challenged larry pratt, the gun owners of america -- a gun salesman -- opposing background checks. let's watch this. the illogic of this is as follows. if it i walked in a a gun store and i looked like a nut, a crazy person, would you sell me a gun? >> no. and frequently gun dealers experience that and -- >> so if you can call up and find out in a matter of seconds whether this person has a mental compa capacity that's a problem and has been court ordered not to be operating in any way with a gun,

why wouldn't you want to take advantage of that information? >> chris, even after you've done th that, the chap that's been turned down can easily go somewhere else. >> where? where do they go? >> they can get them on the street. >> that's what we're trying to stop. the new law proposes you can't have private sales, internet sales or gun shows. >> do you think criminals are going to obey that? >> i think they want everybody in the saloon, everybody is armed, and some guys are drunk and occasionally there's a fight and the guy shoots and kills the drunk guy and we have a half-hour episode. that's the world they want to live in. >> they want everybody armed because that means everybody would have to go out and buy a gun or have one bought for them. this is a $12 billion industry. this isn't about ideology. this is about money. the nra's point that you were talking about here seems to be that there's no purples in having any law whatsoever because criminals will break the law anyway. that's their rationale. >> anyway, thank you, ron

reagan. have a nice weekend. mayor brown, sir, thanks for coming on again. coming up, the man in the middle. president obama is about to propose a budget that would force a compromise or a roadblock. it calls for cuts in medicare and social security and some on the left, no surprise, aren't happy. also, 2016 simmering new polls, a new hillary speaks. a new matchup for the presidential election. and don't want democrats to vote? republicans in north carolina figured out a way to keep students from casting ballots in their own state. raise mom and dad's taxes. can't believe it. finally, let me finish with the courage of a president to take the first step to debt reduction. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it. only hertz gives you a carfirmation. hey, this is challenger. i'll be waiting for you in stall 5.

it confirms your reservation and the location your car is in, the moment you land. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. ♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you.

the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz. some brokerage firms are. but way too many aren't. why? because selling their funds makes them more money. which makes you wonder -- isn't that a conflict? search "proprietary mutual funds." yikes! then go to e-trade. we've got over 8,000 mutual funds, and not one of them has our name on it. we're in the business of finding the right investments for you. e-trade. less for us. more for you. the fund's prospectus contains its investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information and should be read and considered carefully before investing.

we're back. president obama did a gutsy

thing today. he signaled he's going to present a budget that's going to force politicians to do things they don't want to do, make republicans vote for higher taxes, make democrats agree to cuts in medicare and social security. in some ways this is a win-win for the president. either republicans agree to higher taxes and oversees a grand breakthrough or the republicans fold their arms again and say no again and are exposed to everyone in the country preferring to protect the rich over making a real deal. gene sperling is assistant it to the president for economic policy. this is a very gutsy thing for the president. as i said, he stuck his neck out tonight. he's a leader saying, look, i can do things on the spending side. i can make some adjustments. we can help reduce the debt over time significantly. now i want to be followed by the republ republicans as well as the democrats and do something on the revenue side. there are risks to doing this. why did the president take the risk? >> because our goal every day what we do here is focus on what's going to strengthen job creation and help the middle class. and right now we are weighing

down this economy with a sequester that will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and uncertainty about our fiscal future and uncertainty created by manufactured crisis because we don't have the ability in washington right now to compromise. now the president put forward today not his ideal budget. he put forward a compromise offer that he had done given to speaker boehner and it included some very tough things, but it asked for sensible entitlement reforms that strengthen those core benefit programs, medicare, social security. it asked for revenue savings in the very way that speaker boehner had asked for just months ago, not the by raising rates more, by tax reform that would close loopholes and tax expenditures and apply it to deficit reduction. we can do this while we still invest in the future but, you're right, just what you said. you're not going to get this compromise unless everybody is willing to give, everybody is willing to show a little courage, a little compromise and

the president is leading by doing so. >> i can follow this pretty much through having worked on the senate budget committee. i see it getting through the senate budget committee. i see it probably through the senate. we have enough votes to get it through, i think. and then i can see getting to the house and i can see paul ryan over there on the house side carving up his theories and ideologies and objectivism and all that crazy stuff. how do you ever get a compromise if you do the right thing, get it to the senate but in the end it proceeds through may and perhaps into june, you end up having a logjam on the other side. what happens then? what happens then? >> well, let me make a couple of points. number one, we were very close with speaker boehner last fall. let's remember, he had a trillion dollars of revenues on the table as part of the deal with entitlement savings. he's pulled that back completely even though 60% of that kind of revenue increase was passed. we've been close. unfortunately, they've decided to take, as you mentioned, an absolutist position which does

not help us compromise. secondly, you know what do we teach our kids in government? when a bill passes the house and senate, it can go to a conference report. >> i know. >> and that both houses and both parties can work together. we ought to give that a chance. that's what we should be doing. >> i see you're going the right road here. you're going to try to get a budget. a compromise. here is boehner's reaction. let's watch boehner. here's boehner's reaction. if the president believes those modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up that's programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. that's no way to lead and move the country. like the soviets used to be. i'll take what you're offering and then we'll negotiate back from there. >> let's think about what that position is and i think how few people at home would support that. he's saying that as part of a

larger deficit reduction plan, which is part of an economic strategy to strengthen jobs in our economy, that there's not -- are you ready for this? there's not one single penny, not one, that you can get from any tax expenditure, any special interest tax break, any loophole for the most well-off american that you can apply for deficit reduction. >> thanks so much gene sperling from the white house. the managing he heditor of the , i think normally somebody has to lead, and it's one of those things almost like in a kidnapping you have to -- i want the baby back, here is your $100,000. you have to do it exactly at the same time. in this case the republicans didn't want to do it at exactly the same time. the president has to lead and i think it has trickiness. what do you think? >> you're right in the sense the president is doing like a hostage exchange saying we know that republicans want something very specific. they would like to cut entitlements. democrats should understand

republ republicans would like to either raise the retirement age or deeply cut entitlements or by privatizing the program. that's the stage that we're working in. the president is saying i'm not going to do any of those things but i will give some entitlement cuts, going to social security benefits, but i'm only giving you that, republic wrans, if you give me revenues. you have to give me something that i want, which is revenues, to get what you really want which is to cut social security. democrats, of course, hate this and take an absolutist position on cutting social security benefits for a good reason because of what i said. they know what republicans really want to do and don't want to open the door. he's not talk iing medicare and medicaid cuts but going to change cpi, it does cut benefits. let's be clear about that but in return is looking for revenue and investments, universal pre-k and as gene sperling said these tax loophole changes to how much you can put into your ira that would impact the wealthy. it would be real revenue. the president is trying to do a delicate dance knowing nancy pelosi could deliver the votes

in the house that probably harry reid could do it in the senate, but will republicans give something that they've already offered before to get something? >> and we don't have to get even further down the road here because as i was game planning it here, with some revenue enhancement they'll have to go house side, get a conference agreement, and it's still going to be tricky but at some point the danger here is the congress it self will grab hold of the cuts on the benefits side, put them into reconciliation bill and the president will get some of the cuts he's agreed to. there's always the tricky part of that. polling wise i think this puts the president on the political good side of the angels. a recent poll shows who the public thinks is to blame for the budget impasse. who do they trust more? half say the president got 41%. he has a pretty substantial advantage over them. when asked who is responsible for the partisan gridlock, 48% blame the republicans. only 30% blame the president. so he goes into this fight with

street cred, with people saying, you know what, obama is trying to do the right thing. i know some people on the very hard left, the professional left, to use a terrible phrase, aren't going to go along with anything he does. sometimes you just have to get off the dime, to put it bluntly. >> because the president keeps offering things that are substantive, he's really giving something that's painful to his side. that's why the public always sees him as a guy willing to compromise. he doesn't give away penny ante things. he gives away real -- something re real. by the way the little secret some democrats don't say, look, the center for budget priorities are okay with it if you exempt the very poor by not having supplemental social security and so has the center for american progress. they proposed going to change cpi back in 2010 in a big paper they did on social security. these are ideas that are not foreign to the left. up next, republicans are trying to stop young people from voting by, get this, raising their parents' taxes. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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.

and now hot pink toes. seems tough for a tough dog like duke. but when it has to do with gwen, he's putty in her hands. for a love this strong, duke's family only feeds him iams. compared to other leading brands, it has 50% more animal protein... ...to help keep his body as strong as a love that can endure any fashion trend. iams. keep love strong. now you can keep love fun with new shakeables meaty treats.

back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. first a little round of where are they now? remember joe walsh the former illinois u.s. congressman who lost his bid for re-election to democrat tammy duckworth? he resurfaced in a town hall this week blaming his 2012 election loss on, you guessed it, democrats who promise people free stuff. >> maybe this is why i lost. i traveled the entire district and i said, my name is joe walsh. if you vote for me, i'm not giving you a darned thing. my opponent walked around saying i'll give you this. by the way, you need a new shirt. i'll give you a new watch. i'll take care of you. i'll pay for your haircut tomorrow. this is how our politicians get

paid. will we ever have a ma skrort of this country that will vote for me when i say, i'm joe walsh. if you vote for me, i won't given you a darned thing. i'm trying to cut what washington takes from you so that you can keep more of what is yours. now go live your life and be happy. >> because of the 47% takers and makers stuff from last election. of course he's got company. jim demint kicked off his first day as president of the kfb heritage foundation with a letter to the staff saying, quote, more people than ever before, 69.5 million americans from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries, defend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. the united states must reverse the direction of these trends or face economic and social clams. well, now to former congressman allen west. you remember him. as the florida republican who said house democrats are members of the communist party. west traveled to l.a. as part of his new web series recently and

had a tough time adjusting. >> i have to correct a nice young lady at a nearby lunch stop who wanted to put sprouts on my turkey and swiss sandwich. i had someone ask me if i wanted to go to a real nice sushi restaurant, but i had to tell them that i don't eat bait. needless to say it has indeed been interesting being out here in l.a. >> well, there you have it, both allen west and joe walsh have said another run for office is not off the table. hmm. next, the latest republican spin on voting restrictions. this time about college students from north carolina who registered to vote at their college address. if it's up to some college republicans in that state that decision could cost their parents. according to a new bill, quote, if the voter is a dependent of the voter's parent or legal guardian, is 18 years of older and the voter has registered an address other than that, the legal guardian will not be able

to claim for a dependent. got it? republicans don't want young people voting democratic in their state so in this bill parents pay more in taxes if their child votes near campus. really? so you get off on election day from class? that's "hardball" for now. coming up next "your business" with j.j. ramberg. ugh! ugh! give me the purse! ugh! great job, julie! that why i eat belvita at breakfast. it's made with delicious ingredients and carefully baked to release steady energy that lasts. hi-yah! yes! that is what i'm talking about! so i can keep inspiring my students, all morning. ugh! ugh! belvita breakfast biscuits. steady energy. to do what i do -- all morning long. 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. her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪