this is dan caldwell a former i give duty marine who served in operation iraqi freedom he is currently the issues and legislative campaign manager for concerned veterans of america he joins us from washington dan we'll talk about the veterans administration in a moment but what's your read on what's going on in iraq well it's an unfortunate situation and i think it's a result of a very schizo phrenic foreign policy in the middle east that we've seen during this current administration there's been very degrees of focus on iraq and on the middle east in general and there's been a really incomplete policy one minute we're drawing red lines the other minute we're talking about leading from behind we're being very aggressive in things like don't drone strikes going after al qaeda but then the next we're pulling back this is really results i think of this current administration not paying a proper attention to the growth of this group in the middle east and what has been

going on in iraq and other countries for a while now so what should we do in your opinion now. well there's a couple different things and i want to rank them in order of priority the first priority is to ensure the safety of the thousands of americans that are working and living in iraq they're there at the behest of our government they work for the state department there's a few military personnel there are marines like myself at the embassy various different contractors security people there to help iraq we need to make sure they're safe we need to make sure that they have a proper evacuation plan in place that can be executed on either by the military or by private contractors and then the next priority is to really make sure that we start to contain and roll back isis. right now isis just took control of the iraq's largest oil refinery that's very disturbing they can seriously damage iraq's economy and in my mind what is even worse is that they're very close to seizing the

hay defeat dam in western iraq if isis gains control of that facility they could flood a large portion of the country and cut off about a third of electrical power and iraq could create a huge humanitarian crisis i believe that the united states military needs to look at options to ensure the safety of that dam up to including seizing it like we did in two thousand and three with the ranger regiment and other special operations for the new york times poll the c.b.s. news eight only eighteen percent of americans think this whole iraq war was worth the cost in blood and treasure what are your thoughts on that. i will say that we don't know at this point if this war is worth it and quite frankly i don't think there's really a point in arguing that at the at this point it doesn't matter what decisions we made in two thousand and three or in two thousand and seven with the surge the fact that matter is an extremely violent anti american anti western terrorist

organization is seize large swaths of land and iraq and syria they could use that area to create a sanctuary where they can train more jihad is fighters more terrorists just like the ones they tacked us on nine eleven they could use that area to rebuild al qaeda which has been seriously degraded over the years at least the central ok to other branches of grown out like isis and we can start to see more attacks in the west and unfortunately in the united states. you know the facts right now are are that the middle east is teetering on the edge it's tutoring on the edge of anarchy and if they fall into complete chaos not just in iraq and syria but its present places like jordan saudi arabia could have serious consequences for not just that region but the whole economy of the united states in general as well so it is our business . i do believe it is i am not somebody who believes that we should be policing the

world i consider myself a realist and looking at at this situation i see real threats to american interests and ultimately the american homeland you know i i don't believe in doing things like arming the syrian rebels or i didn't agree with with some of the things we did in libya. but we need to take a look at this situation and realize that there's real threats to american interests around the world and ultimately probably the merican homeland in general will serve no longer the issue at hand on monday an independent federal investigator reported deaths that the department of veterans affairs has put patients at risk by overloading reports from whistleblowers who detail many problems with the patients what's wrong with the v.a. . well there's a couple things wrong with the v.a. the first is really a cultural issue and the administrative management side of the v.a. . there is an unaccountable management culture at the v.a.

and what i mean by that is is that the people running the v.a. at the top levels and at the middle levels believe they can do whatever they want there is no consequences for their action they don't have to respond to congress veterans groups the american people they basically believe they're above the law and that ultimately is the biggest problem with the v.a. is this culture i also think how they deliver health care and other benefits is inefficient the single payer model they use i think is is ineffective and i think that's been proven so. and i also think that because they've just been consistently given a blank check by congress for really the last ten years that they think that ok you know we're going to keep getting more money we don't need to worry about being efficient we don't need to worry about delivering care in a more efficient and timely manner and then you know at the end of the day you know closing the loop on that it doesn't really matter because either way they're going to get a good performance review they're going to get a bonus there's no really consequences if they ultimately fail at their job what

the concern veterans would do what to fix this overall what do you do start from the beginning. well there needs to be a serious overhaul first of all you need to use some things pass some legislation to help with the v.a.'s unaccountable culture we for a long time in pushing a bill called the v.a. accountability management act makes it easier to fire some of these poorly performing senior managers it looks like that that act is going to be part of this bipartisan package so that's good then all to me i think you're going to have to change the way v.a. delivers health care we believe and why we've been so supportive of things like the veteran choice act that it's more efficient to give veterans more health care options in the private sector aside from the v.a.'s ineffective single payer system and then also really getting in a new leadership team there's

a lot of vacant. positions at the top of the v.a. and across the v.a. i hope that president obama makes it a top priority to fill those positions now rather than later is that legislation going to pay as soon. well right now there's a conference committee to between the house and senate to work out the differences between the house and senate bill it is our hope that there are some issues resolved particularly of the senate side of the legislation. in the conference committee particularly related to spending tightening up some of the requirements for for veterans who want to use health different health care options in the private sector and then some of this other superfluous stuff within the legislation we'd like to be see either stripped out or or watered down if something else comes out of conference committee spending is in control then unfortunately i don't think our group would view that as a win for veterans and probably wouldn't support that piece of legislation now and

thank you so much for your time and your service and continued great work thank you keep of your good work thanks dan we'll check in with you frequently on this issue and now joining me is the author of my go all been his new book is entitled to have it right here in the second amendment a biography he's also president of the brennan center for justice at n.y.u. school of law he served as director of speech writing for president bill clinton from ninety five through ninety nine my goal y.b. goal is book a biography well it's really the story of the second amendment and the story of how it's changed how it's evolved how the way we look at it has evolved you know we talk about the constitution but it turns out that the way we understand it at any moment is not really kind of based on the pristine text but it's always the push and pull of political debate and that's even true for the controversial second amendment mostly in the last twenty to thirty years right for

a long time we know when paid any attention to it. people didn't pay attention to it the supreme court consistently didn't rule that it recognized an individual right to gun ownership it was never cited in cases or anything like that we had it was written into the constitution to protect principally the thirteen state militias. when they were worried that the new government the central government would be too strong and would crush those militias and obviously larry over the years we had plenty of guns in america but we also had plenty of gun laws and gun controls there were. talk in the book about the wild west there's a wonderful photo of dodge city kansas the great western town and it looks like a movie set it's the main street it's a dusty main street with saloon doors and in the middle of the street from the eight hundred eighty s. is a sign that says welcome to died city firearms prohibited so we really we

didn't think about the second amendment so much in those days and maybe the shortest amendment ever his the way the told thing reads a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the n.r.a. headquarters they leave out the first part they the only state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so this to be debated forever the supreme court's been divided on it it throughout the washington d.c. law is was it a poorly written amendment. a game you know the eloquent man who wrote we the people or the first amendment did know did us no favors with the second amendment with all those all those commas and clauses and of course the question is you know what does that part about the militia have to do with the part about the right to keep and bear arms and you're right larry the supreme court only ruled that the second amendment recognized in the individual right to gun ownership in two

thousand and eight was really recent and so you know it took many years of pushing to get that by the national rifle association and others to try to untangle with that amendment meant and as you say they vote they actually have an edited version of the amendment up on their wall in their headquarters no we say guns but it doesn't say guns it says arms so if i were to read that i get to have an atomic bomb couldn't i well back in those days that a lot of people in the military had swords and you could have an atomic you could potentially have a bazooka or an atomic bomb you know the gun rights people will say that they really can't be limits of any kind but that's not really how the courts have ruled it turns out that even though it it's a right it's seen to be a right there are limits on that right just that is there are with with the first amendment or anything else and you know we've now been wrestling about what that means and you know if they if there's an assault weapon that's a can have

a one hundred rounds of ammunition you don't need that to protect your home you don't need it to go hunting is that really constitutionally protected to be able to have that now washington d.c. passed a law tough law the supreme court threw out the law right right and it was a law that stated nothing. well you're right so that was a pretty little narrow law is it basically prohibited having a loaded handgun in your home and the supreme court said that's the ultimate self protection weapon and there's a constitutional right to have that in your home a handgun but they have not yet ruled on whether you can carry a gun and so now you see for example in a place like texas where there's the open carry movement where they're walking around carrying assault weapons bringing them into fast food restaurants or target stores trying to prove that it's their second amendment right i'm not entirely sure

that's what james madison had in mind we're talking with the on the michael walsh on his brilliant book the second amendment the biography is available everywhere will be back right after the. please take me very hard to take. you on here. that that clip that hurt me we're looking. at least. please. please.

please applause. right to see. first street. and i predict pictures. on our recorders twitter. and instagram. could be in the.

i marinate join me on into impartial and financial reporting commentary contribute and much much. only on the best and. well. science technology innovation all the list of elements from around russia we've got the future of covered. the michael walden his brilliant book the secular monk a biography is available everywhere books are sold likely end up not the heller case the n.r.a. didn't bring that debate. no you're right larry they did not bring it it was actually brought by a small group of libertarian lawyers who thought the n.r.a. was too timid the n.r.a. actually tried to block the case because they were worried they might lose but they

had sort of prepared the ground. so that when the case did go up to the supreme court it was a five to four ruling it was justice antonin scalia in a way it was his first really big ruling that he'd that he'd been the lead author of and it said that it was just following the original intent of the founding fathers. and you know there's a big debate i don't actually think it follow that original attempt but it was a big moment at the supreme court for that reason alone how come nothing have a chance how come the n.r.a. remains so entrenched in congress that they can't get they can override that court ruling. well you know the n.r.a. is a big group it's got a few million members but think about a.a.r.p. or some of these other groups have many more. the n.r.a. strength doesn't really come from money it comes from the intensity of an ira members who will vote for or against a candidate just based on whether of

a fact that they are where they stand on guns and gun rights now i don't look i don't think that the american political system needs more single interest groups but the there's no substitute for organizing and public argument by people who want stronger gun laws you know if you remember last year after the harbel horrible massacre of those children at newtown there was legislation in front of the senate that was bipartisan it was called mansion to me it was just to strengthen background checks it had the support of ninety percent of the public in all the polls and it failed even though a majority of the senate voted for it it was filibustered so that was more that was not a matter of the constitution that wasn't a matter even of public opinion it was a matter of political will and that's ultimately what's going to have to happen so if you if you swept the country with a vote can't do can't will couldn't we were appealed

a second amendment. well it's very hard of course to change a provision of the constitution and i'm not sure it's really necessary because what the if you look at the real history of it and how it's been treated and read throughout most of the country's history it wasn't about this unlimited right to carry a gun it was about balancing that individual right with the public good and public safety that's what those militias were in the seven hundred ninety one and so it ought to be possible to have strong gun laws and to and to have it under the constitution but that will take a change in the way at least some people think about what it means but a way and everyone should read this book i love your history of how it all began in concord in the beginning instance in the late justice chief justice warren burger a conservative appointed by president nixon declared once that the idea that the constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms is one of the

greatest greatest pieces of fraud ever perpetrated on the united states public by a special interest group he is saying that the n.r.a. is guilty of fraud. you know and what's amazing is you're right that warren burger was a rock ribbed conservative though he was appointed by richard nixon and he was reflecting when he said that in one thousand nine hundred one what the consensus view was it's really a recent thing to have a change of this kind in what we think this provision means look the n.r.a. they backed scholarship they moved public opinion they backed politicians who ran for office they really reorganize themselves around the idea of the second amendment as being this individual gun right and they were very successful and people who don't like it should be thinking about how to organize and keep arguing and keep fighting over a long time just the way the n.r.a.

did i'm interviewed leaders of the n.r.a. over the years over many years i've been interviewing people for fifty seven years and their biggest fear is i gather is they think that the country's going to come and take your guns away right right they're very worried about having their guns seized you know that people talk about black helicopters coming in and seizing guns and you know look we have three nobody i don't know of anybody who wants to do that and we have in this country three hundred million guns practically nobody is going to seize all those guns you know some people have said hey look this heller decision whether you think it was right or wrong at least it should reassure people that nobody's going to take away all their guns. that i don't i think that could be its consequence but i worry that it leads instead to kind of second amendment fundamentalism where it takes on a life of its own and and people think that the constitution says you can't have

any gun laws at all which it definitely does not what do you think in this book will surprise people the most. it's a great question i think there are sort of surprises for liberals and surprises for conservatives i mean one of the surprises was for me was just how important those well regulated militias were to the founders that it wasn't just throat clearing that was a what they were really worried about but the militias back then. you mentioned lexington and concord in the minimum and they were unlike anything we have now every adult man ventral every adult white man was in the militia their whole life and they were required by law to own a gun we didn't have an army we didn't have police that was how the country protected itself and so it was such a different world that to me was a surprise yes there was an individual right but it was to fulfill the duty to serve in the militia i think another surprise is just how recent this change in constitutional doctrine has been a lot of people are very surprised by that and it's also kind of

a surprise even after this case the district of columbia versus heller that you mentioned dozens of courts all over the country have been asked to strike down gun laws and they've refused they've actually up held the gun laws they've said you know what sure there's an individual right but there's also society has a right to protect itself so those chords are disobeying the ruling of the supreme court well they would say they are following it because the supreme court said yes it's a right but there can be limits they didn't really say how many limits there they said they would argue and these are federal courts all over the country that they're they're not does a bang but some of the backers of gun rights some of the n.r.a. people they've likened it if you can believe this to massive resistance was which was you know which was that the south did after brown versus board of education that they say that these judges are are in fact resisting what the supreme court

has said and we haven't heard from the supreme court yet michael where do you think it's all go on. i think that. unless and until the public gets angry and stays angry and stays organized that we're going to see chipping away at at these gun. gun laws with these rulings and in particular you have seen a great loosening of the rules about carrying guns everywhere and i at the same time i think that there are ways to fix the gun issue you know this year larry as many people were more people will be killed by guns than by cars in the united states no one level of course that's a horrifying statistic that more people are killed by guns but part of it is that fewer people are dying from cars than used to be why is that they didn't seize the cars they didn't declare cars to be illegal they made car safer they raise the

drinking age they put in airbags and seat bones and all kinds of other things there are ways to make guns safer so that children don't accidentally shoot each other criminals can't use them they involve technology there are all kinds of technological fixes that shouldn't be seen i don't think as violating the second amendment. and i hope that we don't allow these things to be blocked i interviewed the head of scotland yard once and he could not believe could not believe that americans can have guns he saw no need for people to have handguns. well it's you know we we talk about american exceptionalism and this is a form i suppose of american exceptionalism that probably a lot of americans don't even realize we're unusual other countries other industrialized countries do not come close to having the level of gun violence and

gun death that we have in the united states you know but it's an interesting thing although there are more guns than ever before they're actually fewer gun owners. people are hunting there's just the number of people owning guns is shrinking in their mind more more guns and the worry i have is you know it's one thing to have gun for hunting or maybe a gun to protect yourself people are buying assault weapons and they have it's kind of fear which i think is a paranoid fear that the government's going to come that there's going to be territory that there's going to be civilizational breakdown and that's very hard to argue with because it's such a different world view than i think where you know what most of us probably have a pessimistic about it all. i am on hold as to whether i'm optimistic or pessimistic but i think the one one bit of. positive news i suppose is that you now have with mayor michael bloomberg and his focus on this

issue with former congresswoman gabrielle giffords with a number of the other groups really in this for the long haul and with financial resources you know the politicians have a tendency they bring up a gun bill and then if it fails they panic and they run away and i don't think that that's acceptable i think that this is got to be a debate that goes on and on and on over the long term just as it is for the n.r.a. you know i i like in the book i quote abraham lincoln when before he was president he was in the lincoln douglas debate and he said with public sentiment anything is possible without public sentiment nothing is possible public opinion he's shapes public opinion he said. is more important than a judge or a legislator because they make it possible for the judge or the legislator to rule you got a win in the court of public opinion before you can win is

a court of law so that's what the gun safety folks have to do too since the public opinion is primarily against guns i mean most americans would vote for strong gun laws shouldn't a presidential candidate make this a foremost issue. well you know the n.r.a. members are so focused they'll vote for you were against you just on this and i you know. i don't think we need more single interest groups in the country but i think that candidates for president and other high public offices they kind of need to show a little courage i think and just talk about it not overthink it not be afraid of it i was i noted recently that hillary clinton in one of her first speeches recently did talk a lot about guns you know president obama in his first four years barely ever talk about it you know maybe that these massacres that were getting all you know we're just becoming used to these horrible school shootings and massacres maybe maybe

some politician will will see that there's a sort of silent majority of people who are fed up with it memory fails we didn't come up in the presidential debates i don't believe that it did i don't believe it did you not amazing it is amazing and. you know it was it was buried deep in the vault but these recent shootings have ever minded us of this is the first time we've had this kind of debate on gun issues in a long time and it's the first time since the supreme court said there's an individual right so that's one and that's a new factor that everyone has to grapple with thanks michel thanks so much good seeing you again. same here laurie great to see of the book is a sentiment a biography it's out now for my viewers up there i want to hear from you join the conversation on my facebook page.

dramas that can't be ignored. stories others refuse to notice. faces change the world. to picture. from rooms to the. local. t.v. . your friend post a photo from a vacation you can't afford college to different. the boss repeats the same old joke of course you like. your ex-girlfriend still tends to rejection poetry keep. ignore it. we

post only what really matters out r.t. to your facebook news feed. economic pressure take it for. her. to think. long. term in office now right in the heart. of what if the public signs to. play. play play. play.

play. play for rebels the u.s. president has just congress to call a billion dollars in aid for syrian opposition fighters to help train them and provide equipment and. the. president signs a trade deal with the e.u. along with the leaders of georgia it's the very same agreement which ignited the february revolution and on conflict crane's the findings. just won't fly a long delay in opening a calamitous five billion dollar a port in berlin is blamed on a fake engineer given a key role in the project.