the weapons of choice. hy allow them? this bill does not take a weapon from anyone. it simply talks about the future. it's as if you possess one, you have to keep it safely. if you sell it to anyone but a family member, they have to have a background check. it effects clips and ammunition feeding devices so people that want to go into a theater and kill 100 people, they cannot do t. i do not see that as being bad. i did not see that as harming america. we have so many guns. no nation has more guns in their civilian society then we do. you can compare murder rates. you can compare it with the u.k. and australia. you'll see a few double digits and then you'll see thousands in america. how is this a bad thing to do? i have been in this political career in a tumultuous city, a diverse city. i have seen bright, young police fficers. everyone thought they had a rilliant future. they were walking down 3rd street when a gang member with an ak-47 and shot them. how many times does this have to happen? it happens all

i have a knowledge of weapons, including military weapons. shootingarticipate in or hunting anymore. i had a young boy and i devoted my life to him. the same day that jesse passed away, five days before that my mother passed away. jesse had an interest in military. jesse had an interest in guns and asked a lot of questions about them. strange enough the night before he perished, he was looking at a survival magazine. in that magazine, there were three weapons on one page. one was in bushmaster, one was a glock, and one was a sig handgun. i had to go back the following day to look at that. but i quickly looked at it that night but it was an assault weapon and two handguns. he asked me about the weapons and i explained what they were used for and their capability. it was a high-velocity high- range cartridge used by the military. his response was to the weapon or gun used to kill people and i said yes, jesse, that is what it is used for. jesse had a bebe gun and i got it for him for christmas. i taught him gun safety and he was proficient with

and why they're getting weapons. now you have all of these bad actors there. we all agree on that. this would be that interim step. it would be the ability to take information, train them to u.s. standards in a very quick way. equip them with the right kind of equipment to get back into the fight so we regain and reestablish that support from opposition. when this falls, we're going to snead opposition folks to help us square these weapon system. not as the pentagon would tell you, 70,000 troops. that would be a mistake. i wouldn't be for that. in order for that not to happen we have to immediately go in and try to square the confidence of these opposition forces and do it in a way that protects u.s. national security interests. you don't want to arm the bad guys. but we do want to have some influence when this is over so that they can help us secure both conventional and chemical weapon stockpiles. q. when history looks back atwhe do not know the end yet-- but when history looks back is it possible they will say if

weapons." madam president, i ask unanimous consent that that article be included in the record from "the washington post." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: this is a dangerous and unfair fight and the cost t costs to the united s are significant. russia and iran are aassad's lifeline in this brutal fight. iran continues to use iraqi airspace to flight fighters and large quantities of weapons to syria to help assad with the killing. as many as 50,000 syrians, militiamen in syria are being supported by tehran and hezbollah, according to a "washington post" report. meanwhile, russia continues to ship heavy weapons to assad, including a senior obama administration officials have stated, the very helicopter gunships that the regime is currently using to bomb and shatter civilians. as the united states and the international community stand idle, the consequences are clear -- syria will become a failed state in the heart of the middle east threatening both our ally, israel, and o

a weapon. you can't have the weapon without the enriched uranium but you can have the uranium without the weapon. iran is enriching uranium. is hasn't yet reached the red line that i described in my speech at the un. they're getting closer, though. and the question of manufacturing the weapon is a different thing. the president said correctly that we have on these issues that are a little arcane and detailed but on they say issues we share information and we have a common assessment. we have a common assessment. in any case, iran gets to an immunity zone when they get through the enrichment process in our view. and whatever time is left, there's not a lot of time. every day that passes diminishes it. but we do have a common assessment on the schedules, on intelligence. we share that intelligence and we don't have any argument about it. i think it's important to state that clearly. i think that people should get to know president obama the way i've gotten to know him. i think you've just heard s

i think that the assault weapon in particular is a weapon of war. and i don't believe necessarily that anyone, other than police or military, should own a weapon like that. it puts my people in danger and great jeopardy. it puts the citizenry in great jeopardy. i reject the notion that it's a sporting rifle. i believe it's a weapon of war and intended to kill as many people as efficiently and effectively as possible. >> chief montgomery and chief riddenour -- chief montgomery, in your case, you're a brookfield police chief, incredibly highly decorated vietnam -- two purple hearts, am i right? >> yes, sir. >> nobody needs to tell you about guns or indeed the military comparison. and yet both of you, i think, do not support an assault weapons ban. explain to me why with all your experience you don't think it would be effective. >> i think what doug mentioned regarding the ability to fire 30, 50 rounds at a clip is what we want to inhibit. we want to make sure that doesn't occur. and i think by limiting the magazine rounds, that resolves at least one i

but who has control of those weapons?s within the government and which brigades of the army, and as you see discipline breaking down, as it appears to be doing, among the syrian army, albeit slowly, certain brigade commanders might be acting on their own and might ultimately act on their own firing chemical weapons. then there's the rebels, we've heard again and again we don't know who the rebels are, who the supporters of democracy are, and who the islamic extremist are. all the evidence suggests that chemical weapons were not used today, shep. but few would bet against somebody at some point using them somewhere in syria. >> shepard: the white house, the state department, and pentagon have all pushed back to varying degrees against the syrian government's accusation that the rebels launched chemical weapons. the white house spokesman, jay carney, today said the white house has no evidence to support the claims. but jay carney did issue another warning to the syrian government, which reportedly has one of the world's lar

now we're talking chemical weapons. the concern, because dealing with chemical weapons is a very, very difficult thing to do. you can't just hit them from the air. has to be something that has to go on the ground, to take out or at least try to secure. so certainly this could ratchet up talks about syria. but it already on the agenda and something that both israel and the united states have been very concerned about, zoraida. >> something else on the agenda, of course, is the peace process. how is the president planning to push that forward? >> it's certainly a concern of the president's, and also secretary of state john kerry. we are hearing now that the secretary of state will be coming back here on saturday to speak privately with prime minister netanyahu about the peace process, trying to figure out what it is that can be done to get the peace process started again between the israelis and the palestinians. you know it's been stalled for many years now. a lot of concern that it is going to die. but we are going to s

we are talking about semiautomatic weapons, weapons that are capable of select fire -- >> dana, dana -- >> no, i'm not going to let this go anymore, piers. >> you're just -- >> stop conflating. >> general stanley mcchrystal, general stanley mcchrystal used the phrase, forget us, forget van, forget me. one of the great military commanders of the last 20 years in america says these were military style weapons. so is he wrong? do you know more about these weapons than general mcchrystal does? >> general mcchrystal is also of your same ideology so i want to put that out there first and foremost. there is a deliberate effort to conflate the types of firearms. i do not own a military style assault weapon just because what, a firearm looks scary, you call it military assault? do you realize that one of my children has a bebe gun that looks like an ar-15? is that going to be considered a military style assault weapon? it sounds silly and -- >> adam lanza killed -- wait a minute. wait a minute. adam lanza as we now know in the space of 300 seconds, using an ar-15, killed 26 people, dana. >> h

weapon. we've demonstrated where these assault weapons can have different slides put in there which essentially make them act like fully automatic weapons. these weapons are generally able to be sprayed fire. i think we'll see more of these amendments. is an effort to nip it and tuck it and create exception after exception. i really resist this effort. i urge a no vote. >> clerk will call the roll. >> mrs. feinstein. >> no. >> mr. schumer. >> no. >> mr. whitehouse. >> no by proxy. >> ms. klobuchar. >> no by proxy. >> mr. franken. >> no. >> mr. coons. >> no by proxy. >> mr. blumenthal. >> no. >> ms. hirono. >> no. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. cornyn. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. lee. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. cruz. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the votes are eight yeas and 10 nays. >> the amendment fails. not necessarily because of this last amendment. i was thinking of some of the discussions of what kind of firepower people need in their homes. on

. >> if iran decides to go for a nuclear weapon, that is, to actually manufacture the weapon, then it probably, then it will take them about a year. i think that's correct. iran right now is enriching uranium. it will-- it's pursuing it. it hasn't yet reached the red line that i had described in my speech at the u.n. in any case, iran gets to an immunity zone when they get through the enrichment process, in our view... in our view. and whatever time is left, there's not a lot of time. >> warner: the president continues his trip tomorrow to the west bank to speak with palestinian leaders, then back to deliver a speech in jerusalem. >> ifill: i spoke with margaret a short while ago. margaret, it's good to see you. this is the president's first foreign visit of his second term. why israel, and why now? >> warner: that's a good question, gwen, because as i think we know from the campaign, president obama never did visit israel as president and got quite a bit of criticism and question about that. so the white house and the president decided this was the perfect time to come, to demonstrat

pape -- weapon. it is certainly not in the u.s. view. >> one nch the reasons i think this is particularly important though is president obama has made it clear there's only one thing that would bring him into the syrian conflict. he's been under a lot of pressure from a lot of different sides. the real use of chemical weapons to move to hezbollah or hamas, he repeated that again during his public talks in israel. that means that he sort of committed himself. so if they determine that this was just tear gas or a pesticide or something he was -- has to be able to say that doesn't count, that's not what i'm talking about. gwen: the president spent part of the day with king abdullah of jordan. ne thing very interesting he said -- >> what we are saying, that the arab spring is behind us, we in jordan are looking now at arab summer for us all, which means that we all have to roll up our sleeves. it's going to be a bumpy and difficult road, but i'm very encouraged with the process and i am sea -- am very ex

how does anyone know that chemical weapons have been used? how do you verify 100% that they have been used? >> there are western groups around aleppo where these weapons were apparently used. they'll be able to send evidence out in the next couple of days. the traces of this on the skin will be obvious. there are doctors that know what they're looking at. they'll figure out what kind it was. i think it was a fairly light chemical weapon, maybe chlorine. early reports are saying this. so i think we'll know pretty sure in the next two or three days. we'll have people being taken out to turkey, and i think diane feinstein is absolutely right. if these weapons were used we've crossed the threshold. syria is completely a mess now, chaotic. the resistance groups, opposition are broken up into little pieces. you have al qaeda there. we simply cannot let it happen that al qaeda gets these weapons or that the regime turns them loose on their own cities. something is going to happen very soon. >> bob, why can't you just bomb these sites? >> well, they'

the weapons of mass destruction which the weapons inspectors knew weren't there.verybody knew they weren't there. the weapons we had given him in the past, we never talk about those. we never talk about how we are the ones who helped these dictators around the world. as far as assad and syria goes, you know, i think as americans now when we're told anything, somebody comes on and says there are report that is maybe this, maybe ta. we have to have the most skeptical, critical eye and err to what we are being told. >> that's my problem with it. here we go again. we were told saddam had chemical weapons and was about to use them. now we're told assad has. many say this is a pretext for going in and going into some kind of advanced war with assad. >> yes. >> how do we know who to believe here? >> well, you start by not believing the people who lied to you before. the american government lied to its own people. honestly, i don't know of a worse lie one could tell other than a lie to take a country to war. to make up things to take people to war. that's got to be the mo

to make the weapon, you need two things. you need enriched uranium. you need a weapon. irap gets to immunity zone when they get through the enrichment process and argue. >> earlier president obama toured one of israel's iron dome missile battery that shot down estimated 90% of the rockets launched against the jewish state in the november 2019 battle with hamas in the gaza strip. mr. obama penalled to help israel premier the qualitytative military essential over the neighbors. >> the current agreement lasts through 2017. we directed the teams to start working on extenting it for the years beyond. >> netanyahu near the end of the two-men 42-minute news conference paraphrased what the president said to place definitive, lengthy time frame in the commitment. >> in addition to the aid, including the defense funding for israel in the difficult times, he has announceed we will begin talks on another ten year process or arrang arrangement to ensure american military assistance to israel. >> no progress announced in effort to revive a two-state solution for the israelis and the

weapons inspector finds that iraq got rid of its weapons of mass destruction shortly after the first find wmd, i was supposed to find the truth. i did not fail to find wmd. i succeeded in finding the truth. >> you're telling us in addition to having no wmd stocks before the war, for the reasons you gave, saddam chose not to have those weapons. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> those are stunning statements. >> it was a terrible mistake. the cia had said we would find stockpiles that we didn't find. it was a disaster. >> you believed it was true at the time? >> yes, so did they. they shouldn't have. i mean there were a lot of people in the agency, in the community, that knew some of this information wasn't, you know, as solid as it was being presented to me. >> it's not just an intelligence failure. it's a failure to the very highest levels of decision making in america. george w. bush and richard bruce cheney would have gone to war

that's >>> ten years before we failed to find chemical weapons in iraq, bashir al assad is using weapons in syria. >>> tonight you're going to hear from the roommate of a campus killer. he came face to face, eye to eye. he lived to tell about it. possibly prevent the murder of other students. plus, congresswoman michele bachmann, now she claimed that president obama's wasting your money on his lavish lifestyle. where exactly is she getting her information? where are her facts? we tracked her down today and asked her and wait until you see how she responded. we begin with breaking news, news that could, could just trigger military action by the united states in syria. the news tonight, the possibility that the regime in syria, which has already shown itself capable of doing almost anything to its own people, might be doing the one thing that triggers military action, might be, might be using chemical weapons. crossing a red line that president obama himself laid down. they have, they have used chemical weapons, that would leave the president with a major challenge as he heads tonight to i

when the chemical weapons come from not really trust where would these chemical weapons come from well obviously. well there are a few a few here about one hundred and sixty five cargo full of weapons coming into syria from qatar and. sue turkey then you don't have to ask the question these borders are open and turkish and the qatari and the sooty been moving all kind of weapons into into syria but but but it actually is a help i leave it to us to geisha or to in trouble washington is and the west made it very clear that if assad used chemical weapons i'd be harsh consequences now even the western media is reporting the fact that these rebels could have well used chemical weapons so what sort of reaction we get from the west. if it's true well that's the that's the exact the exact my exact point the president of the united states just have one and something if that assad used chemical weapon whatever the opposition use a chemical weapon then what the president of the united states has to do about that why doesn't he mention the opposition that they're the one who's using chemical or us

they conduct weapons test. they say outrageous things like they are going to -- i forth the rhetoric used a week ago about wiping out the u.s. forces if they conduct a joint exercise. they said they are going to strike us here in the homeland. they use this rhetoric and actions they take to scare people or get a reaction from the world towards one goal. and that one goal is very simple, to get the world to say fine north korea regime, you can keep your weapons and we'll accept you for who you are. that's their goal. i don't know how we can negotiate them out of that position at this point. they decide do we want to be kadafi or hussein. and once we have the capability of striking the u.s. at the homeland, they will have no choice but to accept us and everything they do between now and then is to delay or buy time. that doesn't mean i also hope one day they will wake up and say this is bad for us. i just don't think a government like this can survive if they had to get rid of their weapons and engage the world i

the assad regime said the rebels used chemical weapons. the rebels say the assad regime has used them. each side has incentive to accuse the other of using the weapons. how do you prove who actually used them? >> well, that's the whole b problem. the intelligence is awful on syria. we are not in touch with the groups that are fighting. we are in touch with the exiles, not the regime. beneath neither side can be blamed. but once the chemical weapons come out that's the beginning of chaos and there is no choice. put a blockade on the country. stop weapons from going in. don't let the artillery be deployed. you can check this from the air. you can counter it. anything to prevent, you know, especially saran from being used would put this in another realm. >> the rebels say they don't have the capability of using chemical weapons. do you buy that? >> i do. but what you really worry about is the assad regime loading chemical weapons onto a missile. we have seen them recently bomb inside lebanon. you can understand all of the neighbors are rightl

hence the name assault weapon. but in fact i believe this exception concedes that there are at least some americans who should be allowed to possess these weapons for purposes of defending themselves, their families and their communities. so i would ask my colleagues, why should this exception be limited only to retired law enforcement officers? is it because we believe they have some special competency and training to use these weapons to defend themselves and others, or is it because we think they and their families are worthy of special protection? i want to be clear. i think every law-abiding american has a right to choose how best to defend themselves and their families. that's why i strongly oppose this legislation. i wholeheartedly agree with the authors and the sponsors of this legislation that the weapons this bill would ban can and are used lawfully for self-and family defense. so the purpose of the amendments, and i have a number of them that i will offer, is to highlight the dangers of a blanket ban and

weapons. the proposal bands 157 different models of assault weapons and magazines containing more than 10 bullets. the measure now goes to the full senate. >> people on their way here, [indiscernible] others are on their way. we will have the appropriations bill on the floor. last week, we had a bipartisan vote for illegal trafficking and firearms. we had another bipartisan vote for the safety and nachman act. -- enactment act. we have three of the four. they are required to enhance the safety of our children in schools and close loopholes in the background check system. complete actions to the senator feinstein's proposal, please limitations on high capacity ammunition magazines, and i think everybody has given as many statements as they want to give. i will yield to the senator and then we will go right to the -- the senior senator of california and the senator from texas. >> i will not speak any more on the legislation before us unless senator feinstein forgot what i said. >> none asat -- n

weapons are flowing into the regime of the time. if we discussed the threat to iran stabilizing, weapons would also be a threat to the united states and its interest in the region. host: independent line, florida, welcome to the program. caller: welcome, gentlemen. i would like to posit, if i may, we are talking about netanyahu and israeli intransigence when it comes to the peace treaty. i am at a loss. hamas still has on its charter the destruction of israel. we know that abbas has indicated that he wants to retire. when the israelis left the security zone of lebanon, they got rockets. when they left -- when they left gaza, they got rockets and kidnapping. is the trip piece on the west bank? i am concerned they will be getting them on the west bank, sooner or later. the gentleman from the wicked ptl leaks with her this iran and was it as real as the work to be? host: the president spoke specifically about hamas, a perfect segue from your point. here's more from the president from this past week. we will get your reaction. [video cl

ten years after we found chemical weapons in iraq, possibly using the chemical weapons that we know he has right now. >> you're going to hear from one very brave and lucky young man tonight. >>> michelle bhrks achman, she claims that president obama is wasting her money on his lavish lifestyle. we tracked her down and asked her to see how she responded. basically, she wouldn't stop walking or running, almost. we begin now with breaking news. news that just triggered military action by the united states in syria. the news tonight that the possib possibilitity might be doing the one thing that could trigger american military action. might be using chemical weapons. crossing a redline that president obama himself lay down. now, they have used chemical weapons, that would leave the president with a major challenge as he heads tonight to israel. now, the suggestion that kem wall weapons might have been used came just a few hours ago today from mike rogers, a high probability to believe that chemical weapons have been used. chief white house correspondent is already in israel. she joins us n

weapons and is blaming it on the rebels.is impossible that the rebels could get ahold of chemical weapons. it is possible that some fell into the opposition hands. but whoever used chemical weapons, if in fact that is verified, that would be a significant change in this conflict and it would underline both the risks to the civilians of either side using chemical weapons in the syrian conflict, or, that those weapons could fall into hands that take them out of syria for use by terrorists around the world. that should be a top american priority, preventing that from happening. martha: and i believe, correct me if i'm wrong, earlier in this conflict, the administration here basically said that that was something of a red line. you know that they were this discouraging any use of chemical weapons but that that would change this game so to speak? >> yeah, well, red lines come and go for the obama administration. we'll see. i think obviously we need hard facts here as to exactly what's going on. i think it's difficult to effect th

it's clear that we don't want to see the use of chemical weapons and we don't want to see chemical weaponsall into the hands of dangerous terrorists that are all over syria, unfortunately. and that is one of the items on the agenda. it's very clear that's at the very top of the agenda. >> but i'm not hearing confirmation that those have been used at this point. you're not confirming that. mark regev, thank you so much. >> yes, that's correct. >> okay, thank you. thank you, and of course we'll be following developments in israel all day as the president is on his first trip there as president of the united states. >> ahead on "starting point" it is the return of the twinkie. the iconic snack cake coming soon to a store shelf near you. we have the blessed details. >> and don't forget to watch cnn's new show "the lead" hosted by there he is -- >> the blessed jake tapper. >> dashing jake tapper today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. i have a cold, and i took nyquil, but i'm still stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't unstuff your nose. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid g

you said prevent -- our position is we're going to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. netanyahu's is prevent them from getting a nuclear weapons capability, which they have right now. there's a dramatic disagreement and there's an effort to push the american position to b b's position, in which case nuclear weapons capability. >> i want to see the exact wording because i think it >>> issue two. gun ban blow-back. >> gabby giffords deserves a vote. the families of newtown deserve a vote. the families of aurora deserve a vote. the families of oak creek and tucson and blacksburg and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence, they deserve a simple vote. >> in his state of the union address, president obama made an impassioned plea for gun control. >> they deserve -- >> this was backed up by a white house task force headed by vice president joe biden. biden's goal was to pressure congress to vote yes or no on full gun control legislation. this includes senator dianne feinstein's proposed ban on 157 models of assault-style weapons. this week senate majority

if iran decides to go for a nuclear weapon, that is to actually manufacture the weapon, then it probably take them about a year. i think that's correct. they could defer that a long time, but still get through the enrichment process that is to make a weapon, you need two things. you need enriched uranium, of a critical amount, and you need a weapon. you can't have the weapon without the enriched uranium. but you can't have the enriched uranium without the weapon. iran now is enrichingsuing it. it hasn't yet reached the red line that i had described in my speech at the u.n. they're getting closer. and the question of manufacturing the weapon is a different thing. the president said correctly we have on these issues that are a little arcane, they sound a little detailed to you, but on these matters, we share information and we have a common assessment. we have a common assessment. and in any case, iran gets to an immunity zone when they get through the enrichment process in our view, in our view. and whatever time is left, there is not a lot of time. and every day that passes diminishes it

bush master made the same weapon and called it something else.as trying to get at having a conversation about military-style weapons and the republican party is owned by the nra, and now we see the democrats are literally intimidated into submission. they are more concerned about their jobs than they are about the 87 americans that die each and every day from largely preventable gun violence. >> john: indeed you're right. it's worth pointing out that the 94 assault weapons ban was endorsed by reagan and the difference being by harry reid they weren't trying to get elected by anything. are we being too hard on him? should he have forced a vote on the assaults weapons ban as the president requested during the state of the union dress? >> we have loft the political momentum and opportunity around sandy hook not to speak of it disrespectfully and exploitively obama move forward with the executive orders 20-plus. we should have seized those moments. if this was about re-election and several states that could go to blue to red on the senate side we hav

there is such a flow of weapons. so i think it is right for the development of our policy to be graduated, for us to show our readiness to deliver increased assistance, the willingness of european countries and the united states to amend our policy as the, if the situation continues the deteriorate. but we have to do that in a way that commands general support, and we have to do it in a way that poses the least danger to the increased militarization of the conflict, and that's why i think this is the right balance to strike rather than to move to the position my right honorable friend has consistently advocated. >> mr. jack straw. >> thank you, mr. speaker. would the foreign secretary say that a fair summary of the position we've reached is that we are now providing or every kind of assistance to the military forces of the opposition short of explosives, guns and bullets that actually do the killing? and i have no objections to that. i think it's essential. but would he also acknowledge that in my judgment he's right

what a chemical weapon is?sense that the administration is going to start saying well, that is not technically a chemical weapon, just an agent that -- is that where we are heading? >> i hope not. we have a large body of reports over two again, i believe when you take the totality of all of those reports and there are must want approximately instances, multiple sources of information, led both dianne feinstein and myself and others, and now you see carl levin and john mccain, republicans and democrats joining together saying this is serious. this has serious national security consequences. not time to parse words. time to step up. not talking about the full scale military, 101st airborne intervention. we have small unit capabilities that could bring credibility to the opposition, back to the united states. which we don't have today. reengage our allies in the arab league, which we don't have today. and in theory, you get that credibility back. you show definitive force to disrupt the capabilities to deliver che

a poll showing 57% favor an assault weapons ban.sident obama in a state of the union address that we all heard and reported on the next day. those families deserve a vote. keith boykin, why can't the families get a vote on this? >> well, they deserve a vote. unfortunately they won't be getting one because senator hire reid can chose to remove this from the bill coming forward. by dianne feinstein is exactly right. this is exactly something that the public deservees a vote. and even if it doesn't pass, let's get on record where people stand on the issues. this is something a majority of the american people believe in. i think harry reid is making the wrong mistake. even if this is a tactical decision because he want a bill that passes, what democrats do too often is lead from behind. in the sense they don't try to push as far as they can and they negotiate against themselves. this is what what is happening now. harry reid is negotiationing against dianne feinstein. i think diane is doing the right thing. >> this is senator from conne

those chemical weapons.eapons either used irresponsibly by the regime in any use, or if we see those weapons reaching the hands of other extremist actors who are on the ground in syria, and as you know, both hezbollah, al qaeda, as well as the iranian revolutionary guard, they're on the ground and active in syria, and as that so sigh it fragments, we're very concerned those groups will get their hands on those weapons in the syrian arsenal. >> what would israel do? >> of course, we would reserve of the right to act, to prevent that from happening. i might ask you a question, imagine al qaeda, imagine hezbollah with chemical weapons. what does that mean to all the people who have potential targets for those extremist terrorist groups? we can't allow it to happen. >> i want you to clarify, if you can, there seems to be a nuance difference between the prime minister and the president of the united states when it comes to a red line for iran. prime minister netanyahu speaks of early summer, a red line. the presi

the assault weapons ban, they'll try to add it in.ar be attached. >> if senate democrats do not have the confidence to in their ability to push through a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, what hope is there that anything could pass the republican house? >> reporter: very limited hope, actually, martin. and we can talk -- we can go beyond the gun debate into the immigration debate as well. it's going to be a similar kind of dynamic. i think one things democrats are going to tell you, martin, they need for president obama to come out to be more forthright, to get behind more vocally behind the assault weapons ban. it's unlikely that's going to make a difference with a gap of almost to votes or more than 20 votes, again, according to harry reid. they're going to want president obama to step forward and try to put pressure on folks. there are a lot of democrats, frankly, from rural states, from western states, midwestern states up for re-election next year not crazy about this ban. >> nbc's mike viqueira. mike, thanks ev

reaching into proliferation of some of the world's most dangerous weapons and chemical weapons. the threats for a long time. there is an iranian influenced that has brought consequences. i think the two leaders are tough to say tough choices and clear statements are needed now. the one senator feinstein also said that we know where chemical weapons are. about a dozen sites in central and northern sides. >> i trust that she has read well sourced good reporting. anyone who has followed these issues over the last couple of decades, they would have to have humility about ever knowing where everything is. that is certainly going to be the case in this regard. we need to know more. we need to have more people and more allies. dealing with any potential fallout that we can. bill: is breaking news, no evidence of chemical weapons used from the administration. that is the latest reports we have. stephen hayes, thank you so much to be inside that you bring to us. thank you, sir. >> thank you, bill. martha: they are saying that you may want to think twice before you pick up your favorite s

they have been seeking, the location of the weapons on the "b" yard. this intel may be the only way to prevent future attacks like the ones carried out by jeremy. >> i licked the blood off my hands to get away with the crime. >> but jeremy's brush with violence didn't start with prison. it was a brutal crime that brought him to corcoran in the first place. >> i have been in prison since the end of '99. i was originally arrested for murder in boulder creek next to santa cruz. before that i was living on the streets for approximately two years since i was 13 years old. just, you know, trying to survive on the streets and hanging out with the wrong people. we were downtown santa cruz at a youth shelter, and i was looking for a place to sleep, and i met somebody there by the name of 48. that was his street name. and my street name was storm. he said he had a dry place to sleep in boulder creek. so all we needed to do was find somebody with a car. and we found two people who had a car. it was a woman and her boyfriend. and her boyfriend was a chronic heroin

that's what he walked in with, with a weapon of war. and that weapon of war has no place on measuring's streets. and taking it off america's streets has no impact on one's institutional right to own a weapon. >> reporter: now, of course the vice president was flanked by parents of both children and teachers there at sandy hook elementary school, victims of those attacks. and one of them was a parent of jessie lewis. this is someone who has testified before congress before on this very same subject. and he said he is having a hard time trying to understand why congress in his view seems to be holding back on this legislation. >> my son jessie's life was taken by a cowardly deranged person with an assault weapon. no child deserves to be murdered or brutally slaughtered the way these children were. and quite honestly i'm really ashamed to see that congress doesn't have the guts to stand up and make a change. >> reporter: now, the mother of another victim mentioned without mentioning him by name referred to ohio senator rob portman saying t