tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 2, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states and what procedural hurdles remain. and gun owners of america on calls for gun control following the charleston, south carolina church shooting. good morning. front page of the "washington post"s the airlines probed over pricing policies and the justice department looking into whether the airlines have colluded to keep airfares high. and mixed message and no progress in the greek crisis. the labor department releases latest numbers on unemployment. the jobless numbers will show a slight drop in those out of work. and the washington times is reporting that vice president joe biden is leaning towards a
potential presidential run meaning he may challenge hillary clinton. we want to begin with a con tkpwaeugs with gun and gun ownership. a new study looks at how many americans own a gun and a third have at least one gun. we have divided our phone lines differently for the first 40 minutes. we want to hear only from gun owners and here's our question, why do you own guns? 2,027,488,000. and 2027488001. skwroeufrpb us on facebook and send us an e-mail at journal
@.org. he's been looking into some of these numbers. thank you for being with us. >> hi, steve. thanks for having me. host: a surprising number. one in three americans own guns. where did you come up with this figure and what was your research like? >> we conducted a national represent tative survey of all u.s. adults. 18 18 /* anyone from the age of 18 and we asked them good gun ownership so they answered that they own at least one gun. you got to keep in mind that this is a question for each person, not the household survey. so they said yes to gun ownership that they own at least
one gun then they were classified or categorized as a gun owner. host: what about their attitudes towards guns? >> we did ask them about how they perceived -- first of all, we asked them whether the gun was given as a gift and when the gun was bought. did they buy the gun before 2000 or after 2000, and also how they use a gun. whether they use it for hunting and also we asked them whether they attended safety classes and whether they think of themselves as responsible gun owners. so we found that 16% of the gun owners thought themselves to be responsible gun owners. host: as an adjunct health profuser you asked the question whether or not doctors view guns as a public health issue. can you elaborate on that point. >> well, you know that question
was not included in our survey though but that's a very important question which is highly debated of course. the responses vary across the state and country depending on which state they're in. because some of the states did not allow them to ask begunershipbeguner ownership. it varied between states. so, we found that in alaska, 62% of the adult population owned at least one gun which was closely followed by arkansas where it was 58% and in north dakota it was 48%. so even though we reported national gun ownership of 29.1%
there are states where gun ownership where it's minimal. delaware is 5.2% and rhode island is 5.8%. we don't see a hom phopblg news number across the country. host: study showing that one in three americans own guns. we want to have a conversation with you about why you own guns. if you're just tuning in the 2,027,488,000. for eastern central time 8,001 in the pacific and mountain time zones. you talk about the attitude that gun owners have towards their firearms. can touch on that point too. >> we also wanted to elaborate a little bit about whether they
have taken a safety class, what they use their guns for. so basically those who reported that they use their gun for hunting among all the gun owners were just 6%. 6% said they'll be using the guns for hunting. whereas safety classes were attended by only 10% of all owners and only 16% reported that they were -- they consider themselves to be responsible gun owners. you would think that all the rhetoric begun safety and all that would result in hydraulicer numbers who would be -- who would have attended safety classes and who consider themselves to be responsible gun owners. but that was not the case. host: professor, what surprised you the most in researching this topic? >> well, first of all, the
association between social gun culture and the gun ownership. we expect that to be the strength of the study. statement even after, still it came out to be highly significant. so we didn't expect the strength to be that big, but we sort of expected that to be significant, but it was still very striking that social gun culture which is of course we know it's pervasive in our society it's important and now we know that it is going to be a very important factor, possibly the reason why most of the gun laws have been not that much of
a success. >> thank you very much for sharing your research and analysis. by the way it's also available online at columbia.edu. james is first from kentucky and again the question why do you gun guns. good morning. caller: well why do i own them now? i just own them -- i've got several rifles and couple of handguns and i just use my handgun now when i go into the woods just for protection of coyotes or things, and i own my rifles i bought them for -- i used to deer hunt many years back and i used it for that. and ijust originally bought them just the fun of shooting, having
fun shooting. >> do you worry about your own safety? is that another reason or just for hunting? >> yeah, yeah. i keep my pistols home. i don't take them with me anywhere when i travel or nothing. but i do keep them for safety too in case somebody was to try to come in my home, yes. >> have you had any threats on that front? >> no. never. >> thanks very much for the call. this is a tweet from fred who says, why do i own a gun? because it's my duty as a citizen to protect myself and household and that extends to my community. mike is next joining us from maryland. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning, thank you. i don't own a gun for concerns of safeti. i bought my first gun about two years ago and the only reason
why, i didn't grow up in any gun culture or anything like that. the only reason why i bought a gun was because we are overrun with deer in this part of the country and it has become such a menace they are destroying just about everything in our development and we come home and we have 20 to 30 deer in our yard and we're living in a suburban area. people are getting hurt. i have one neighbor lady who drove and hit a car. when she had it repaired on the way back to the auto dealership she hit another deer. it just crazy in this part of the country. >> are you killing the deer? >> yes, that's what iy i got a gun.
i've never been a hunter before but i am now. >> hello? can you hear me? hakem: report /* >> morning. caller: you have a question. >> the question we're asking you, why do you own a gun? caller: because i choose to. i've owned a gun since i was a preteen ager. i'm also a korean veteran. couple of my guns are museum pieces. one's made in stainless steel a piece of art, a mechanical piece of art. it's a beautiful thing. i rarely use them but if i do i go to the range and just shoot for pleasure. >> okay, couple of headlines from washington, d.c. the development yesterday is the president announcing new
embassies in havana and washington, d.c., that time has come. a cuban flag will wave from its new embassy and american flag will fly in havana. from the l.a. times the water situation continues to be a big story out west and the water cuts meet the state's goal for the month of may. the star ledger has the story about the justice department investigating whether or not airlines have been colludeing to keep airfares higher. and monumental shift would not be an easy task in texas as they're full of tributes to the confederacy. john is next. good morning from new york city. again, we're hearing from gun owners only. good morning john. >> good morning. thanks so much thank you.
actually the gun factories the money that they have they have to get and i think this is -- i think that we need a strong third parties to be in place. we need stronger debates on guns. everything in this country gun is only good for republicans and democrats, no third parties. i think this is not so right of the thanks so much. host: history was made for the first time in 40 years. cameras allow inside the white house for those on the tour. first lady announcing it on
instagram and some of the first photographs available on a number of social media sites. it becomes an instagram hit. front page and in this photograph in the shadow of the portrait of president john f. kennedy. outside the white house new measures taking shape. this is part of the temporary measure to avoid those who are trying to get inside the white house illegally. and new security effort by the administration and secret service, a long term solution is still in the works. back to your calls on gun ownership in america. bob from plymouth, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i own a gun to protect my flock of sheep from dogs. unfortunately it's mainly people's pet dogs that don't keep them restrained. host: how many guns do you have
bob? caller: i have five. host: what type? caller: to be honest a couple of those are historical guns from world war ii that i don't even really shoot. the main gun that i use is a 22 that's all you need and then i have a couple shotguns for hunting. but -- host: how specifically do you use the gun? caller: only thing i use the gun for are in the past was on a dog that were eating my sheep. if you ever seen a sheep eaten by a dog they start on the behind quarters and they don't kill it and i lost 15 sheep once from one dog incident. so it's devastating to a flock of sheep. people don't even realize just
dogs just chasing sheep will cause them toand it's not a major problem but i've had five incidences over the years where people's dogs have damaged my income. host: we'll go to henry from prairieville, louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. host: you're on the hair. go ahead, please. caller: oh okay. i own guns mainly because they were passed down through my family and we just enjoy having them and shooting them at targets. don't do a lot of target practice anymore, but recently i feel like i need a gun i say recently within the last 4 or 5 years i feel more and more like i need a gun in my house for safety for my family. i had two incidence where one
time i didn't see the person, but the house was broken into and someone was in the house. it became a reality even though i didn't feel like i wanted to have to use the gun, i felt like i was glad i had the gun because i had small children and my wife in the house and i felt like if it got to that point i would use the gun to protect my family. host: have you ever othersed it though to protect your family? caller: i just had it. i never did fire the gun to protect my family, but i wouldn't want a situation to occur in my house where someone broke into my house and had a gun and i didn't. to not be able to protect my family and just wonder what might happen to them if i didn't have the ability to protect my family. host: do you have a sense your
gun rights are secure or do you think washington is trying to take some of them away? caller: i feel insecure about everything right now in america. i do not feel safe with the way things are going. i don't feel safe at all. i would like to know that washington's concerned about americans being safe above all and i don't feel that way at all. host: henry, thank you for the call. at marketwatch.com there is a survey look at where guns are most prevalent beginning with tennessee and the list of the top ten states. number one is alaska. this is the headline. check it out at marketwatch.com. and listen to bob joining us from lincoln park, michigan.
caller: good morning. the thing about having guns there's many reasons to have a gun. but the main reason is what the constitution and the founders intended which is to protect the people from the government itself. and that's the main reason to have a gun, especially these days the way the liberals are going trying to take the guns away. host: bob thanks for the call. next is theron joining us. good morning. caller: good morning. currently own four guns. the first one was when i was 12. i used to do some hunting then. but never much into hunting. i didn't own a gun for me. in the 90s i became more politically aware and in
libertarian politics. when i moved to georgia our house had been broken into when we lived in virginia. when we moved to georgia we had it broken into by a neighbor. so i owned two pistols and then a shotgun extra rifle. i've never shot the shotgun. it sits in a closet unloaded. i got a rifle i keep downstairs unloaded and then the two pistols i keep primarily in my car. since i have a carry permit i sometimes carry them with me depending on not what i'm doing and where i'm going. it's mostly protection because the police can't be anywhere and mostly for my protection and the protection of my fellow citizens she find myself in a situation. i guess the last thing i'll say -- host: have you ever felt that threat? caller: no, i haven't. i've never been in that
situation. host: do you feel safer now that you own a gun? caller: i just feel good that i can protect myself my family and maybe if i had to find myself with a circumstance i could protect my fellow citizens if the cops weren't there. there's a lot of people in washington, d.c., the only people who can legally own guns think i shouldn't and that's the other reason i own one. host: thank you for sharing story. there is a state by state breakdown because it's up at the states for most of the gun legislation and a look at gun restrictions frank is next from miles, michigan.
caller: i own a gun for deer hunting. i've been hupting since i was a young boy and i'm in my sixties now. can you imagine if we didn't have guns in this country what a boring place it would be. it would really hurt our economy if people really think about with all the ammunition, guns and all the other stuff that sells for hunting. because i'm an avid hunting and so are my sons. all my kids own guns and i have concealed weapons permit and do i carry a gun with me a lot of the times living in the country you need to have one because you don't see very many police out in the rural areas. host: where is miles, michigan by the way? caller: it's in the southwest
corner of the state close to the indiana state line. notre dame. host: do a lot of your neighbors have guns? caller: all my neighbors do because everybody is avid hunters. a lot of deer hunters and turkey hunters. that's mostly what i use it for. again, a study 1-3 americans own at least one gun and we are dividing our phone lines this morning just for those gun owners themselves. here's where you're most likely to own a gun later this morning we'll turn our attention to donald trump macy's the late toast dump trump. it has no tolerance for discrimination based on his comments of mexicans coming to the u.s. calling many of them
rapists. this is from a gun because the takers have one. jim is next. good morning and welcome to the program. you're on the air, good morning. caller: hi, this is jim. host: go ahead please. we'll move on. unfortunately we had a bad connection. let's go to dean in pennsylvania. good morning dean. caller: good morning sir. host: how are you, today? caller: i'm good. how are you? hakem: >>, thank. caller: the second amendment says i can own a gun. has anyone ever read the second amendment? it says the country and the preservation of the country is
necessary due to the malitia and it shall not be infringed. it doesn't say a thing in there about duck hunting. teddy roosevelt went to san wapb hill that with you a militia group that he raised and led. that was not part of the regular army and they've been important in the history of this country for years and that's one of the things the banning of guns in the clinton administration with their war on the militia groups it was all questionable. it's perfectly okay to own a gun and i would estimate the gun ownership is about 50% or one in two not one in three. i think that's way low. it's legal and i can. we're a free county whether anyone likes it or not. host: do you think that freedom is being more restrictive.
caller: i think they're doing everything they could to restrict it host: one of the iruse are background checks. and anyone with mental issues should not have a gun. caller: that's fine. every mass shooting we've had in the connecticut schools and the aurora theatres out in colorado those are in gun free zones. the people that did that may have did not deranged but not stupid. the guy in dallas that attacked the police station, he lasted ten minutes and he killed no one. the deranged people go to gun free zones. and i don't see how anybody doing a background check if you were a ph.d. type psychiatrist how are you going to determine if someone is crazy from one interview that takes ten minutes? hakem: thanks for the call.
you may remember the name lynn russell. she's the former anchor on cnn headline news to stop in albuquerque, new mexico. she was shot three times late tuesday night during an attempted robbery at and al ba kirk can i motel. they survived the armed robbery attempt when her husband shot and killed the intruder. lynn russell saying that she and her husband were robbed at a motel six just outside of albuquerque. they decided to go to a motel to rest. they had gone to the car to get something when a man put a gun to her head and demanded her valuables. her husband came out and fired the shots that killed the intruder. story available online. channel seven in albuquerque, new mexico.
next is margie joining us from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: how are you today? caller: i'm a senior citizen. i'm fine. my husband and i have a gun. he keeps it in the bed. we live in a small mobile home. we're retired and we had an attempted break-in. they broke the front window at 4 o'clock in the morning. and we have a little dog. there was glass everywhere in the kitchen and the dog start barking and they ran off. and i called the police and they said what they do is kick in the window. if nobody comes they go around and kick in your door. we were certainly glad to have it. i didn't sleep well for two years after that. but let me say, that a gun not
only for protection but i'm very elderly and in world war ii my father who was a great hunter and fisher kept meat for us by hunting deer, quail, dove so forth. meat was rationed. you couldn't get so much. host: when did the intrusion take place in your house? how long ago? caller: it's been about two and a half years ago. and we live 200 miles from the mexican border near corpus christi, texas. and there are great problems with dope coming across the border. and they are always watching for that and some of these people
who are on dope get desperate and they do anything to get money to keep up their habit. that is true. i'm not saying i'm a republican but there are problems. very difficult problems in this part of the country because because of the traffic over the border. and we also travel with a done in our r.v. we have given up traveling now. but we have had one and we got stopped for a taillight being out in louisiana and the police were they wanted to know why we had a gun and i said because i'm 87 years old and we're afraid to travel without it because if you
have problems you never know -- like a flat or bowout you never know what you're going to run into. i think they should do something about letting people have guns who have criminal records and who are off their rocker because that is a problem. and we have many gun shows here in our big building here in town. they have one nearly every other weekend or something like that. host: margie, thank you for the call from texas. we appreciate it. ray has this tweet. trap shooting and hunting and family safety. i've never lived in a home without guns. one in three americans own a gun. we want to ask those gun owners why you own a gun.
later this morning we'll turn our attention to the gun owners of america. larry pratt will be joining us and we'll ask about donald trump a surge in the polls. an editorial on cuba inside the "washington post". new embassy and same dictatorship dictatorship. mr. obama himself is eager to visit havana. so far the u.s.-cuba is looking entirely one sided. gary is joining us next. good morning from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have several hunting rivals that i've used for quite a long time and i also carry a pistol. i've been retired for 20 years.
i live in the second least pop late county in pennsylvania. i mean, when i say rural it's rural. and i have bear out front. they come up to my front door and i have on occasion shot at one just to keep them from copping around and i also traveled to philadelphia to visit my family and i have a full head of white hair. to me that's a target. when you look at what's going on in the major cities with gun violence, it's not the legal gun owners using them it's the straw purchases. but anyway, i have my rights which is provided by the second amendment and i will protect myself. host: this is a tweet. please ask about their training when they say they own a gun. what kind of training have you
had? caller: when you talk about training i have no had no formal training. the only training i've had is when i go to the gun range i use the protocol that's provided there and i also understand -- i'm 80 years old. i understand what safety is. i carry a pistol like i carry a watch and a wallet. i know how to provide safety. host: this next editorial in the interest of full disclosure c-span has been advocating cameras in the court and this morning an aidorial saying time for t.v. in the supreme court. last week in a span of 24 hours the supreme court issued opinions in cases involving three of the most profound issues facing the country, same-sex marriage, healthcare
reform. the solution writes the "new york times" is simple. televise the court proceedings. c-span has been broadcasting since 1979. again, that editorial this morning from the "new york times". back to your calls. kurt is next joining us from washington. for gun owners only. why do you own one. good morning, kirt. caller: i actually own three. i own a .22 rifle because it's for srervermont control and i own a pistol for personal and pamly protection.
host: have you ever used the pistol for personal for family protection? caller: no, i have not. and i hope that day never, ever guns. i've only shot at paper targets and pop cans and beer cans. host: dave in jupiter, florida. caller: good morning, sir. i have a concealed weapon permit in south florida which in many cases is necessary if you're concerned with your safety especially at night if you leave to go get gas at one of these gas stations. i also have several other pistols and many shotguns and deer rifles. originally from california and now at south florida. i thaop believe a ten day waiting period and instant background check might be something i could live with. that's the way it was in california. it's still that way. right now i can go up and buy a
weapon with i believe just an instant background check in florida. but the waiting list i have no problem with. the problem with gun control people they do not acknowledge that the vast majority -- i'm talking the vast majority of gun owners are responsible people and they are not committing the crimes. now this instance in south carolina, the mother lawfully bought a gun and gave it to his son. now you're hearing about new gun control and why is that? they need to ask people in congress and president why they're focusing on that. every gun used in detroit in south chicago and baltimore, los angeles, all these big cities down in south florida used in crimes are not bought at a gun store. they're got -- maybe a few, but most of the cases it's just simply a lie to say that people
are going into gun stores buying gun and committing this horrendous gun violence. it bothers all these people that are calling in. sounds like a lot of them are older folks who live in rural areas. i don't live in a rural area. i live in a congested urban area. but i go out to the gun range with my boys and we target shoot and we have a great time and they learn gun safety and they learn about guns and what they're for and what they're not for. people that are using guns in bad ways are not taught that. the gun control people want to make blanket bans because they are afraid and they won't address the root causes. host: check out how much money
the nr a gives to politicians and then follow their votes on the gun sense issues. the prayed i did campaign has a state by state breakdown because the laws do vary. this is the most recent score card from 2013 pointing out that the brady campaign have teamed up to compare the laws of all 50 states. together according to the brady campaign website we ranked all 50 states based on 30 totalsy approaches to regulating guns and ammunition. john is neglect from pennsylvania, good morning. turn the volume down. good morning, joan. caller: are you asking for joan?
hakem: i'm going to put you on hold. we'll colorado back to you. let's go back to you. good morning, daryl. actually joan is still there. so go ahead. you're on the air. caller: alrighty. host: we'll move on. if you have a comment, go ahead, please. caller: hello! host: go ahead, please. caller: hi. i have lived in arizona. host: we're getting feedback and not able to hear you. let's go on to daryl in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, daryl. caller: yes this is daryl from
pennsylvania. my view on this is the idea of the government stepping in to control our guns is a slippery slope. there's a lot of people out there that own guns for different reasons but when you start with one rule and the next thing you know nobody can get their hands on a gun. all i'm saying is yes, i do believe there should be a way to stop insane person from owning guns but if you go to any city a gun can be purchased for a couple hundred bucks just like dope i guess. it's not the idea of the guns it's the people using them. and you need tougher gun laws for people who use the guns i believe. i've used guns my whole life. ever since i was raised on a
farm. a lot of people won't understand living on a farm what it's like. you need to put animals down. there's just lots of situations where guns are needed like that. i don't think that putting controls on the guns is the answer it's the idea of legislation on people and violent crime. god bless the people from south carolina. thank you for your time. host: another viewer saying my god given right does not end at your state's border. vice president biden leaning toward a presidential bid when vice president biden's team is leaning in favor of joining the presidential race next month.
it would dramatically confront the contest in addition two more republicans expected to enter the race. last night bernie sanders with a crowd estimated nearly 10,000. you can follow the campaign on our website including the interview with bernie sanders on why he is running for president and all of it available any time at www.c-span.org. couple more minutes with your phone calls. good morning. caller: yes, our family has guns. the only thing we do with them is hunt. deer hunt and duck hunt. i'd like to make a comment if you don't mind. remember when they called us a
nation of cowards when are we going to check on where all the guns went to the mexican drug cartel. hillary clinton raising $45 million. the story inside u.s.a. today. the most raised in the presidential campaign cycle. glenn is joining us from et ton, new york. caller: it's about 21 miles south of ithaca.
1966 when i joined the military. i spent 8.5 months in vietnam. my government made me a deadly individual. i could shoot before i joined the military and after i got done shooting in the military i was an expert. host: how often do you use your fun? caller: i had my own rifle range. i bought the top of the mountain so no one would mess with me. i'm an old guy. i love to shoot. kyle was the great patriot but it was a guy by the name of carlos hedgecock. he was the greatest sniper in history. i shoot these cowboy shoots and
military stuff, but i practice every day. i declare a hand gun from either gun and hit what i'm shooting at from 25 feet and. host: rural areas have a high suicide rate and violence as a result of guns. you can send your tweet at c-span wj. historic 5-4 decision to give up on repeal efforts and help to strengthen the law. clinton trying to find her place. nearly 3,000 he phaeulz and the analysis from peter baker. our last call is from richard joining us from minnesota. welcome to the program.
we talk to gun owners about why they and you have a gun. thanks for joining us. caller: you bet. very good. the reason i own guns and most people do is for hunting. most people that own guns don't use them on crime. criminals only use them and the way to solve the crime problem with guns is every time a criminal uses a gun he's automatically in jail for ten years and the average sentence in america for convicted murder in jail is 7.5 years. that's creating the problem when you let murders out all the time you got problems. you got to keep them in there. anyway, guns have been part of the united states forever and most people like i say, don't use them for crime. that's my thoughts on it. thank you very much. host: richard, you get the last word. thanks to you and all your calls and comments. we spent the last 40 minutes or so talking to gun owners on why
you own a gun and the survey concluded 1-3 americans have at least one gun. coming up later we'll talk to larry pratt. he's the head of gun owners of america. up next we'll look at last week's supreme court decision allowing same-sex marriage to be implement. but what is next for gay rights activists. as the "washington journal" continues. this second day of july. we're back in a moment. here are just a few of our featured programs for the three day holiday weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span friday night at 8:00 eastern radio personalities and executives at the annual talkers magazine conference in new york. saturday night at 8:00 an interview with "new york times" chairman and publisher and
executive editor on the future of the times and 9:30 eastern members of the church committee, former vice president walter mondale and gary hart on the ground breaking efforts. martin ford on how the increasing of artificial intelligence could make good jobs obsolete. saturday night at 10:00, history professor on why the bill of rights was created and the debate it spurred. and sunday, live at noon on in-depth join our three hour conversation with best selling author and government accountability institute peter schweitzer schweitzer. and on american history tv on c-span3, friday evening at 6:30 the 70th anniversary of the united nations with keynote
speakers jerry brown and house minority leader nancy pelosi. saturday night at 8:00 hear a classroom lecture on the revolutionary war and how individual personalities, supplies extiming often influenced the influence of major battles. on real america a look back at a 1960 film featuring actor and performer joe brown about a nationwide search of old circus wagon and to restore them for a july 4th parade in milwaukee. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> this summer book tv will cover book festivals around the country. in the middle of july we're live at the harlem book fair, the nation's african-american literary event and at the beginning of september we're live from the nation's capital
for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next topic gay rights and anti-discrimination laws. kevin is joining from new york. he's the executive director of lambda legal. thank you for being with us this thursday morning. >> happy to be here. host: your reaction to the supreme court ruling and what's next when it comes to gay rights? >> well my reaction it's a wonderful ruling. i was in the courtroom last friday when the court announced the decision, and i am amazed at the breathe of the decision and beautifully written and justice en kennedy really understood what the issues were and what it
means to have our relationships recognized and i'm happy to say that since the decision comes down couples have gotten married in i believe everyone of state so we now have marriage equality nationwide in country. every state and every territory that everywhere that is covered by the united states constitution. host: there were 13 states that restricted guy marriage and some of those states including texas to keep that restriction in place even though they grudgingly accept the supreme court ruling is the law of the land. so discuss the next level challenges that this is going to face. >> well so there are going to be pockets of resistance. we've seen that in a handful of counties in places like texas and louisiana, but if you follow the news on friday there was lot of talk from a lot of states and
most of it has collapsed. we are talking about civil marriage here and we're not talking about religion or church or temples or anything like that. and and the supreme court has the final say and civil marriage meaning the states have to provide marriage licenses the law of the land. will he have to bring some enforcement action to force people to follow the law? we may, but i think that the opposition is continuing to collapse even in the states that made the most noise many, many, many counties are issuing licenses and marriages have been performed. the dust hasn't settled. there will be a little more work to do to make sure the promise is available to everyone in the country. but what we're also going to see over the next couple of months is an ability for groups like
lambda legal to retune our efforts and to put more focus on other work that we've been doing all along, things like employment discrimination which is a huge problem for lbgt people across the country, safety from violence and the ability to organize erb use effecting lesbian and gay elders and h.i.v. and epidemics. and healthcare helped out immensely by the supreme court decision on thursday in the a c. a. case. we'll be extremely spweusbusy as we use this court decision to further our fight. >> i want to talk about some of those issues including other areas of discrimination. one other point, there is some states louisiana where the attorney general says, the court
can say when this takes effect. is it effective immediately and what would you say to states like louisiana and now state's attorney general saying we'll look before we implement the ruling by the court? >> they don't get a long time to look the at this. it is the law of the land when it is declared by the supreme court. now there are a number of lawsuits pending around the country lawsuits put on hold because the supreme court was reviewing the cases out of the 6th circuit. we have already moved forward in a number of those in north dakota we got a ruling, the fifth circuit yesterday issued a ruling so what the attorney general of louisiana wants is another court order from a lower court, i can pretty much guarantee we'll get that order within a matter of days.
there isn't going to be anything for louisiana to hide behind when it comes to providing civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. host: the ruling came down, jordan laurence, senior legal counsel with organization for the alliance for defending freedom, here's what he had to say. >> what i fear as we saw with the very with the very strong reactions to individual business owners who express a view that marriage is only defined as one man and one woman, is laws is used to compel them to dissipate in ceremony that's they don't agree with or force them to make message about marriage and the definition of marriage that they don't agree with. as justice kennedy said just moments ago in the courtroom, constitutional rights are not up for popular vote. so popular laws cannot take away people's right to freedom of
speech speech, freedom of press and assembly and choose their own jobs. we hope this decision will not be use as an excused to ostracize or demon tphaoeuz people. host: kevin, your reaction. >> people absolutely have the right to hold their own views. there is a lot of publicity or the day before about a court clerk in i'm going to say south carolina but i could be off by a state of two. a county clerk who resigned from her job pause her religion doesn't allow to her give marriage licenses. i think that's too bad for her, but that is in fact one of the
conditions of the job. if you are going to have a narrowly held set of beliefs that don't enable to you do a government job then it is not the job of government to discriminate against other people accommodate you. it is your challenge to find a job that you are comfortable with. so i think we'll see some settling out of some of these issues. but what we've seen so far has been extremely smooth that despite a lot of tpwopl people have gotten married and we are not getting reports of real problems or opposition. so the number of states that are still saying no dwindles every day. it will continue to. again, we're talking about civil marriage. we're not talking about religion. we're not talking about clergy members or other religious
leaders. this is purely a civil matter. and, yes, there will be skeurplishes around the edges of what does this mean as society changes some people are quick tore changes some people are quick to embrace it. some people don't choose to. but overall, the law is clear. host: as you know, churches have a tax-exempt status. so if they refuse, you indicated to legally marry in the church gay or lesbian, do think in any way that their legal status would be jeopardized? guest: absolutely not. no, i don't think that is an issue at all. it is very clear that each faith in this country under our constitution has the right to determine its own tenants, its own believes. and there are many religious bodies who have been performing ceremonies for same-sex couples
for many years now. there are many who have not. and many of those perhaps never will. but that does not go to any issue about tax-exempt status or their status as a religious institution. they are completely safe from this. this is, again, i keep repeating myself, but it can't be said enough, this is about civil marriage. this requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and it requires states to recognize the marriages validly performed in other states host:. do gays -- states. host: do gays and lesbians face discrimination in the workplace? guest: absolutely. we do impact litigation on lgbt civil rights issues, and we have help desks and all five of our offices nationwide. there is an 800 number and also e-mail. and consistently, for as many
years as i can remember, the largest number of calls or intakes, e-mails, whichever where the common that we get are about employment discrimination. the majority of states in this country do not have laws that provide specific protection for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. there is no federal statute that provides these protections. we have been working in the courts to try to create protections under the u.s. constitution and under sex discrimination laws. this has been more successful around gender identity and transgender issues. it is still in its very early stages around lesbian and gay related discrimination. what we need is a big legislative push and a lot of states and federally to add protections.
as a lawyer, it would be very helpful to the work that i and the people at lambda legal due to have stronger laws that make it clear. at the same time, many, many municipalities and counties across the country have amended their local laws to provide protections. these aren't as great as state or federal laws, mainly because they don't have such strong enforcement mechanisms. but they do provide people with the means of redress and they do make it clear what the public policy is. i think over the next years, we are going to see a big push from the lgbt community and our allies to expand these laws and to provide protections for people and more and more places. host: and i want to get the phone calls in just a moment, but let me just follow up on lambda. here is essentially a summary of what that legislation does. a bill that prohibits
discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, with exemptions for small businesses and religious institutions. and you are not a supporter of this bill, why? guest: well, there are a couple of issues. i should start by saying first of all that i don't think anybody thinks that a bill like this has a realistic chance in congress at this point in time. if you look at the sort of gridlock on the hill and the divisions within and between the two branches of congress, i am just not seeing it happen. i am certainly not saying anything move until after the elections. and then i don't know. it depends on what the elections look like. but there are a couple of concerns. one is that the bill is narrow. and i come and a lot of people, like to see a broader civil rights bill that covers not just housing -- i mean not just
employment, but housing and public accommodations. and on one of the issues is the scope of the religious exclusion within the bill. as i said earlier churches and other religious bodies are exempt from having to provide marriages. they are also exempt from employment discrimination laws when it comes to jobs or work that is ministerial that has to do with the tenants of their religion. the question in our country that we grapple with with these laws is well, what is the scope of what is a religious body kind of job? when we live in a country where a norma's numbers of health care providers, for example, -- a norma's numbers of health care providers, for example, -- or
discriminate in the provision of services. lots of schools, colleges have university -- religious affiliations and they discriminate in hiring, whether it is faculty members or people who work in food services or people who are guards at the front gate. and i think we need to have a very carefully crafted test that makes distinctions -- text that makes distinctions. again, if someone is a priest or a rabbi or a minister absolutely, the religious authorities have a broad right to determine who qualifies for that. but if someone is a groundskeeper or works in food services or teaches a class or is a nurse or a doctor, i don't think that the exemptions should be as big. so it is a pretty technical area of the law. there is a lot of debate about this. we have seen also on state levels, not just in congress,
the religious freedom restoration act. issues in indiana earlier this spring, there is talk in louisiana of the same kind of thing. this is going to be a very hot political issue with a lot of debate and needed in the coming years. host: to our lgbt audience, the line to call in is (202) 748-0003 for. our guest is kevin cathcart, the executive director of lambda legal. we will go to hell and joining us from michigan -- helen joining us from michigan. good morning. caller: i am just calling about the marriage between two of the same sex. i believe in a civil union, but i do not believe in -- marriage. marriage is between a man and a woman and they are going to have
to change the dictionary to put what marriage means. and i don't believe at all it should be called marriage. a civil union, yes. but not marriage. thank you. host: to her comment and this question, kevin cathcart, from another viewer saying, can you assure us that there will not be lawsuits by gay groups against churches for refusing to marry gays? your response. guest: sure. i think i can assure you that we will not see lawsuits against churches for refusing to marry same-sex couples. because, as i have said, we believe at lambda legal, and i think i can speak for all of the legal organizations in our community, we are very clear that what we are talking about is civil marriage. so, i feel like that is a red herring. i know some people have genuine fears about it. i know the right-wing drags it up every time.
there has been a lot of stuff floating around on blogs about the war on christianity and the sort of thing. which of this case has absolutely nothing to do with religion. as to the question about civil unions, i think civil unions were an important step along the way as we work fighting for -- were fighting for same-sex equality, but i don't think that should have been the end of the road. i think the dictionaries actually have changed. it was more than 10 years ago now that same-sex couples started getting married in massachusetts. and places like iowa and california followed fairly quickly. connecticut, vermont, new jersey, new york, washington dc. and so, it is not as if marriage equality is new in the united states. there are hundreds of thousands
of married couples. up until last october, we had marriage equality in 19 states. we went up to 37 states over the course of the last year. the impact of the supreme court decision is felt really in the 13 remaining states because in a great deal of the country marriage equality has been the law for anywhere from six months to ten and a half years. and lots and lots of people have already gotten married. and this has not hurt opposite sex marriage. it has not led to a change in the divorce rates. it is not bad for society. people have been lost in massachusetts for over a decade now -- been watching massachusetts for over a decade now on whether dyer outcomes would have happened, and none of them have. if anything, the institution is
strengthened by more people willing to participate in it. host: the key vote in the 5-4 decision, he also weighed in on the decision of religious freedom. here is part of what justice kennedy appointed by ronald reagan, by the way, had the same. -- had to say. let's go to greg, joining us from north carolina. the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, sir. mr. cathcart, can you tell me please, what grade level and what age does your organization go down to to counsel students
as to what their sexual orientation maybe? -- may be? and my second thought is, when you do get to that level, do you consult their parents? guest: well, we do not counsel students about their sexual orientation. we are a legal orientation -- organization and we bring lawsuits and your advocacy and legal issues. so that said, we do work with younger people. often with people in high school who are trying to create gay-straight alliances in their schools, or who are the victims of harassment and violence in their schools. and, yes, one of the challenges in working with younger people is that you need their parents to be on board because people under the age of 18 are unable to actually hire lawyers, make contracts, so that we can only
work with them in terms of lawsuits if the parents are willing to sign and back them up. host: where is the name -- does the name of your organization come from? guest: that is a question that has come up for years and years. in the early days of the gay movement in the united states, right after the stonewall in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when you couldn't put the word gay and lesbian in the title of things because it would scare people away, people were unwilling to get mail from gay and lesbian on the return address. you couldn't necessarily put ads in the newspapers. a lot of organizations in this country picked up the word lam bda, which is a letter in the greek al capone, having to do with signifying change.
i am excellent not all that good on understanding greek, so i'm not 100% clear on how it became the word. but it became a common code word. so there were lots of organizations, democratic clubs book stare club -- bookstore clubs, a lot of organizations that gay people in the know would know if that something was named lambda, it would be a lgbt organization. but when lambda legal was founded in new york state in -- or attempted to be founded in 1972, the state actually denied us nonprofit status. and there was a ruling quickly overturned, but the initial ruling said that the organization served no valid charitable purpose, even though our bylaws are very closely
followed by bylaws of other legal defense and education organizations that have been founded in prior years. so there was a lot of discrimination. it is kind of hard to -- almost hard to comprehend what it was like in the early 1970's compared to today. there is still discrimination, but there is so much more visibility, political power. there are supreme court victories. i am here on television talking about these things. that wasn't the case when lambda became the name and the word to make it possible for people to begin to organize. host: our guest is kevin cathcart and are topic is discrimination battles ahead. billy is joining us from miami, florida on our line for lgbt viewers. good morning, billy. caller: hello, good morning. mr. cathcart, congratulations to you. i read many things -- an e-mail
that you have said or read. i have three really fast questions for you. i lived with a partner for 23 years and we owned a home together, we paid a mortgage, we owned a business together, and we paid all these taxes and social security. he passed away in 1999 after 23 years together. i am wondering is there any movement about me collecting his survivors social security benefits? because i think that is where this country is sustaining itself by all the money it doesn't have to pay gay people. host: billy, hold on the line. we will get a response of an follow-up with you. guest: so, you raise a really important issue, which is what happens now that the law has changed -- what happens to people who do not have the ability to take advantage of this new law.
and i can't give you an exact answer because this is a question that is being litigated right now. lambda legal has a case against the social keep -- security administration and i think we are going to see issues like this, not just with social security, but with other kinds of pensions that have time limits. i will say i'm not optimistic that we are going to get the government to look back more than a decade and try to assess relationships and intent and all of that, but we are -- we are in litigation right now and you can actually follow this on our website www.lambdalegal.org. that is the one that affects the largest number of people in this country. there are issues even for people who get married today because in
order for a spouse to qualify for social security benefits you have to be married for at least nine months. and we have had cases in recent years of people who were together for decades, were finally able to marry and then one of the partners died and they want to married for the requisite nine months. it sounds like a neutral role, and it is in some ways a neutral rule if you have a neutral playing ground and everyone always has the same opportunity to follow that rule, but same-sex couples have not. just as you did not have that opportunity. and so there will be ongoing efforts, both litigation and policy work, to get institutions like social security, like the veterans administration, and other government entities that provide significant benefits to recognize the reality of
people's lives and the fact that we were not able to marry ought not to be held against us. that said, i'm not optimistic about the 1990's. host: and let me quickly follow up and go back to your follow-up, billy. does this also involved private corporations and how they provide benefits to one spouse in same-sex marriages? kevin cathcart? guest: well, yes. i mean, what happens is if private corporations provide benefits on the basis of marital status, then the law of the land is that all marriages are equal. and they should not be making distinctions across different marriages. they don't get to decide, well, we will provide pensions for people where both partners are of the same religion, but not in mixed marriages. they don't get to make those kinds of decisions. so, you know, i don't anticipate real problems in the private
market. there are a lot of businesses in this country who have been ahead of this curve. there was a lot of business support for the lawsuits that one up to the supreme court. there were briefs signed by an amazing array of corporations and law firms and other kinds of businesses in american life. and one of the reasons why -- i will give you two reasons why businesses happens so supportive. first of all, businesses want to hire talent. and they want their policies to enable them to get the best people possible. and secondly, many businesses operate across a lot of different states. they may be national or regional, and it is really helpful for the business climate and for business leaders to have consistent laws so that it doesn't change from state to state. it is really a problem for
businesses who operate nationally when they have staff who are married in one state and then they want to transfer them to another office, but if they move to that state, their marriage is not recognized. so that won't be the case today, since last friday. but that has been a real problem. and so you can't have an effective national presence and national workforce. and that has led to a lot of thinking on the part of businesses, which led to a lot of support for a lawsuit and a lot of briefs were filed and a lot of work has been done. host: let me jump in and go back to billy, who has been on the line for miami. caller: my second -- and by the way, what you said, mr. cathcart, taking our money that not giving it back, that is really self-serving of the government, if you ask me. i think that is why social security has lasted because they have that full of money that
they don't have to pay out. kind of like, like i said, self-service. my second question is -- if we want to married, how can i am meant my partner's death certificate? and also, can you be married because of the law host thomas lee -- posthumously? guest: no, i am site is a you cannot be married posttest muesli -- posthumously. there is paperwork that has to be signed, so there is not a way anywhere in this country to sort of reach back for people who did not, unfortunately, have the opportunity to get married. as to your first question, or your middle question, i can't sort of give legal advice over
the camera here because i don't know enough about the situation or the state law, but if you have specific questions or if anyone has pacific questions who is listening, again, www.lambda legal.rog. from our website, you can get the phone number for the regional office that covers you. we have offices in new york, chicago, los angeles dallas, and atlanta, georgia. you can call and talk to someone at our helpdesk about your specific situation. we also have some faqs about this decision and where marriage stands that have just gone up over the couple of days -- over the last couple of days to provide the most complete information to people. and some of that information on the website will probably answer a lot of your questions. host: a lot of people still want to weigh in, but i want to go back to the issue of
nondiscrimination. right now, only 22 states provide full nondiscrimination protection for gays and lesbians and bisexual employees. do you see this changing as a result of the supreme court ruling? guest: i hope to see it change. it is not going to change very quickly. because most state legislatures are out of session for the summer. and in the fall, i think there will be a revived debate. it is very particular to live in a place were you have the right to get married, but you could be fired from your job for doing so. i am hoping we see a real push from the public landing on state legislatures to pass the laws that we need to protect people. host: let's go to bill and patriots, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i live here in ohio and we had a referendum here in our state. and we voted against gay marriage. ok? it was passed here in ohio.
now the supreme court has said that our votes don't count. ok? but what gave them the right because the constitution doesn't give them the right to make up rights that are not in the constitution. host: kevin cathcart. guest: well, the u.s. constitution gives the supreme court the authority to make the final determinations on what the u.s. constitution means and what it covers. and, yes, we live in a constitutional democracy, which means that everything is not put up to a public vote and that everything cannot put up to a public vote. and the court has determined that lesbian and gay people are covered by the constitution. our rights to relationships are covered by the constitution. and that therefore, the constitution prohibits states from putting these rights to a vote. so, yes, this is a new
understanding of the constitution based on the decision of friday. but, you know, people bring up all the time, well, this wasn't in the constitution. actually, marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. the fact that corporations are not deemed to be people are not in the constitution. -- is not in the constitution. but the cuts -- constitution has evolved over the years and it has evolved with a growing understanding by supreme court decisions over time as to what it means. and the court found that those referendums are unconstitutional. that the laws that were put into effect -- some by voters, some by state legislatures -- are unconstitutional. and the federal constitution sort of sets the bottom line the floor below which no state can go. host: we have a few minutes left with our guest. if you are listening on c-span radio, we are talking about gay
rights, the supreme court ruling, and the next legal battle in the discrimination against asian lesbians. tom is joining us. malibu, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i am in california, so we have ready much in our legislature covered all of your speaker's concerns. i have a good friend who is gay. he is right-wing. he is right conservative. but we have the same attitude. who cares about what people do? it is their business. now, i have a problem with -- [indiscernible] the state of california voted down gay marriage not once, but twice. the last time it was overturned, it was overturned by a gate judge in san francisco. and to me, someone's personal private sexual preference has no
business granting or detracting. we are all americans and i have never seen any type of gay discrimination in california. what bothers me is the attitude of a lot of these folks who say i am gay, deal with it. i don't really care until somebody gets a little obnoxious like that. i also have a question regarding the -- your organization possible name. and i don't -- organization's name. and i don't mean this to be a concern, that i had heard of an organization for men and boys, which is mason led to your organization. is that a connection? thank you. guest: no, i think what you are talking about is an organization -- i don't even know that exist today -- that was called namda. the "na" stood for north
american. no connection whatsoever. it is true that california does have significant loss. california is a leader in the country -- laws. california is a leader in the country and providing protection for people. but what is important about friday's decision is we live in a very mobile society, and the fact that someone lives in california at some point in their life, or in new york doesn't mean that we will always be in that state. and it does not work in today's world to have a kind of patchwork of laws so that if i'm in new york, i could be married but if i go to texas, i am not married, but if i go to california, i am sometimes married, and if i go to another state, i sometimes am or am not. and the constitution has
determined that that patchwork fails under our understanding of the 14th amendment to the united states constitution. so even people in california who have the benefit of significant legal protection have additional protection because of friday's decision. because people travel, people have children, people can get sick while they are traveling and end up in a hospital. something can happen and it is critically important that our families be recognized and respected no matter where we are. host: our last call, from birmingham, alabama. our might for lgbt viewers. denis, good morning. caller: yes, my question is -- even in the definition for the man on the line, lgbt bisexual. i know polygamy is illegal, but are you discriminating against
someone that is bisexual? shouldn't they have to make a choice on which america fair bisexual and they are attracted to men and women -- on which -- on who they marry -- guest: -- they cannot marry multiple partners. so i don't consider that discrimination. i consider this decision a huge step for in recognizing the reality of life of hundreds of thousands -- actually millions -- of people in this country. gay people in relationships, gay people starting relationships gay people in long-term relationships who deserve to have legal recognitions and protection of those relationships. like our earlier caller, i think
it was tom, i'm not sure, from florida, that people can get retirement benefits. the same package of rights and responsibilities that any other married couple has in this country. it was a great day and a great step forward. host: kevin cathcart is the executive director of lambda legal. thank you very much for your time and your perspective. we appreciate your joining us here on c-span. guest: well, thank you. happy to be here. host: just a few blocks from where we are at at the washington navy yard, a lockdown is now in place. also, security has been heightened outside the u.s. capitol and in front of the white house. no firm word on what exactly is happening inside the navy yard but of course, this was the scene back in 2013 when a gunman killed 12 civilian workers just a few black from nationals park. this is the scene this morning. some of the footage courtesy of wjla. you are seeing the feet outside the navy yard, in lockdown at
this hour after reports of shots being fired at the scene. those are unconfirmed reports and we'll have an update throughout the course of the morning. we are going to talk about the issue of guns with larry pratt the head of gun owners of america, as "washington journal" continues this morning. we are back in a moment. > the c-span> cities tou is traveling across -- tour is traveling across the united states as we learn about the history and literary life of omaha, nebraska. >> omaha had a reputation in the african-american community as a
city that when you came in, if you were black, you needed to keep your head down and he needed to be aware that you weren't going to be served in restaurants, you wouldn't be able to stay in hotels. when the club begin their operations, the idea -- they used the term social justice because civil rights was not even part of the language at that time. the idea that civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater community of omaha or the united states, that they were kind of operating in a vacuum. i always like to say that they were operating without a net. it were not those support groups, there were not be -- there were not those support groups, there were not there prior experiences to challenge the segregation. >> we look back on the union pacific and how the construction of stations helped omaha's economy. >> -- one of the premier road companies of america.
it was founded in 1862 with the pacific road act signed into law by abraham -- president lincoln. then they were charged with building the transcontinental trail would -- railroad. so they started here, or moving west, and central pacific started on the west coast and was moving east. and they met up in utah. and that is really what propelled us even father. we become that point of moving west, one of the gateways to the west. >> see all of our programs from omaha saturday at new eastern on c-span2's "booktv." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back larry pratt, the longtime executive director of gun owners of america. they give you much for being with us. guest: thank you for having me.
host: guns, of qwest, back in the news. first, your reaction and observation. guest: that was so tragic, and from everything i have been able to see, those were some of the loveliest people. the relatives reached out to the shooter and extended forgiveness. that was characteristic, apparently, of the charleston reaction. it was quite a contrast to ferguson where people lost their businesses through writing and fires. so, i think it says something for a positive about those people, in particular, and probably the culture of charleston, south carolina. that being said, the pastor had been a state senator. and he was a very strong advocate for basically disarming the american people. he didn't like having guns around. and under the law, he was able
to say, no guns in the church. well, i know a fellow who was at a church years ago and they were attacked by people with rifles. and he was able to use his handgun that he was carrying two scare them off -- to scare them off. the police save -- figure he saved perhaps as many as 100 lives. just one person and that church was able to defend himself and others. host: the "washington post" reporting that it was a legal loophole for dylann to get that gun. guest: i have not seen a definitive report on how it actually got it. what i think happened is that his dad gave him money and he went out and bought the gun and he passed a background check. so when we rely on the government for almost anything, we are taking a certain amount of chance.
in this case, it is the government's system letting him go right to the cracks. and there was this anti-gun policy in the church, so nobody was able to protect themselves. arguably, had one person had a gun, it might very well have changed the equation. as it did in colorado springs. maybe 10 years or so ago. host: you can join in on the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for victim of gun violence. (202) 748-8001 for gun owners. (202) 745-8002 for all others. our guest is larry pratt of gun owners of america. during the eulogy last friday, here is what the president had to say. [video clip] president obama: gun owners should believe that a handful of gun safety measures should prevent every tragedy. it will not. people of goodwill will continue to debate the merits of various policies.
as our democracy requires. and there are good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete. but it would be a betrayal of everything reverend -- the reverend stood for, i believe if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. host: the president referring to you and others on both sides of the debate. how would you respond? especially his line, comfortable silence. guest: i think the president actually, left out something we found a significant because he said this kind of thing doesn't happen in other countries. he later walked it back slightly but -- excuse me, that is just not correct. the most horrible mass shooting
occurred in norway when a young man took his gun and killed -- well, with his gun, he killed some 80 people. nobody was able to resist. he was shooting fish in a barrel. just outrageous that people are so disarmed. and the assumption is is that is a good defense, and that is really a shame because it is not. all but one of our mass murders since 1950 in our country have occurred and gun free zones. host: so where do you strike the balance? guest: by making it more dangerous for bad guys to come in and choose a gun free zone. get rid of the gun free zones so people can protect themselves and others around them. host: as you know, senator manchin of west virginia, a state that prides itself in the second amendment, trying to put in legislation that would
increase the background checks. good idea? guest: no, it is not a good idea. already, we have seen in the laster, maybe 11 million background checks run. 14 people were asked a convicted for lying on those forms. they don't prevent crime. what does prevent crime and reduce crime is the ability of people to defend themselves. and they are looking at the telescope backwards. they need to realize that there are extra difficulties there -- they are going to impose on people getting a gun isn't going to cut -- communicate and affect the people intent on mayhem. so we have to facilitate its making it easier for people to defend themselves. there are times when police are able to respond in maybe five minutes. they might be at the same all or something like that -- mall or something like that. if you don't have any way of protecting yourself and there is
a dirt bag locking ratcheting people. -- walking around shooting people. host: how many guys do you have? guest: i don't know. host: -- guest: i am always careful. i tried to be situationally aware so if i see anything that i am not sure about, i just turned around and go back into the office. -- turn around and go back into the office. and i think that is typical of gun owners. i have many owners tell me that they would let somebody speak ill of their mother, they would go to the other side of the street, they would do just about anything to avoid a confrontation with a had to end up using their gun. because that i -- they know that is going to rule their whole day. host: how often do you carry your gun? guest: as often as the law permits. host: from winchester, virginia with lawyer pratt. good morning. caller: good morning. larry, i want to say --
[indiscernible] this was right after the shooting in south carolina. and i wanted to comment because i noticed how visibly upset she got when he basically tried to enter a question over on over and she was basically trying to get to the change your viewpoints and how you feel about gun safety in america. you kept telling her you fell to the same way. that if americans, you know, if one person in that church had a gun, that it could have stopped him. and that is the right way to look at it because it is like what you just said a second ago. the difference in the way the people of south carolina reacted based on the differences in ferguson. they burnt things down. they were violent. and the way these people reacted? they offered forgiveness for a man who massacred innocent people in a church? that makes no sense. the differences in the way the people reacted.
there are feelings involved. something just didn't sit well with me with the south carolina thing. something seems off. this guy control stuff in this country is getting bizarre. -- don control stuff in this country is getting -- gun gun control stuff in this country is getting bizarre. do you think that means criminals are going to think oh, wait, it is a gun free zone, so i'm going to leave my gun in the car? guest: i appreciate your comments. i think what we are dealing with is the advice that comes to business owners or schools or where ever regarding liability. and what if somebody in self-defense manages to world an innocent person -- wound an innocent person? i am aware of one case where that did happen. the person, by the way, have been dead had the defender not
had a gun to take care of the attacker. so they don't have lots of instances they can point to to make us do a second thought about whether people ought to be able to defend themselves. the fact of the matter is people defend themselves quite responsibly. we know from government surveys that when guns are used thousands of times a day, maybe 4008 self-defense, mostly it is to say, i have a gun. -- maybe mostly in self-defense, mostly it is to say, i have a gun. so i would credit american gun owners. our fellow americans. with a great deal of responsibility self-control, especially when you are in a dangerous, violent situation. to display that kind of control i think we underestimate each other. host: there is this breakdown of gun violence over the last 30 years. pointing at their has been 70 mass shootings over the last
three decades. in most of those cases, the killers received the guns legally. let's go to dave intel hasek florida. caller: good morning -- in tallahassee, florida. caller: good morning. i have been in law enforcement for 37 years. i was a street cop for 26 of those years. and 20 years, i worked a high crime area. i would just like to say that hundreds of times, i worked cases where lawful gun owners defended themselves and others against violence crimes and against that situations where weapons were used. and they stopped the situation because they had a firearm. guest: appreciate your comment. and it is hard to argue with 37 years of experience. thank you very much for calling in and letting us know. you obviously saw many, many,
many situations. and it is encouraging that what you are saying comports with the aggregate data that we have been able to gather from surveys done by the federal government. yours is a common kind of report. and i'm glad to have it in the first person. host: how many members are there for the gun owners of america? guest: we have about 300,000 active members and another 700,000 who have liked us on facebook and are really part of our grassroots lobby operation. host: let's go to body. ohio. good morning to you. caller: yes, what i want to say is that our family -- we are victims of gun violence. our daughter was murdered 28 years ago by her ex fiance. and yet, i will tell you that gun free zones and gun laws are not the answer because bad
people do not follow rules and they don't follow the law. guest: that is so important point. there is a psychiatrist who worked for years and years here in the district of columbia much of the time at saint elizabeth's hospital for the mentally and criminally insane, and he found that the criminal be it insane or an illogical person, has a way of looking at things that is different from the decent people around him. the criminal thinks that if you want something, he can just go get it. and it is really not an issue that it blocks to somebody else. that is the criminal mind. and we have to get it into our heads that they really do think differently from the way the rest of us do. host: bonnie, first of all, your heartbreaking loss, that is a
horrible thing to go through was anything you think could have been done differently to prevent your daughter's murder? caller: yes. if she would have been armed. she might have had a chance. but if she had a gun in her purse, she might have had a chance. guest: if she hadn't been caught by surprise by the acts -- ex then that is plausible. if he is coming and he is obviously disturbed, angry saying frightening things, those would be good thing is to reach for that gun in the purse. host: bonnie, thank you for your call. we will go to dylan in south dakota. good morning. caller: good morning, sirs. i'm a disabled veteran from vietnam. and i can really understand the lady that just called. i feel like our whole country is
under siege right now, you know? and i'm very disappointed in our president. i have a flagpole in front of my house and it makes me wonder if isis is going to come over here. but i thought -- fought for the right for everybody to have their weapons, you know. and -- i know that in some of these rate cases, if the individuals -- rape cases, if the individuals have had weapons, they would've turned out a little bit better. thank you. guest: thank you for the call. host: let's go to cindy next joining us from texas. caller: yes, when i was growing up as a child, me and my two sisters had a gun pulled on us by a neighbor. and he didn't have any kind of criminal record or anything like that. and i was fearful for my life. but, you know, my rights have
been taken away from me, too. i would like to take my kids to the movies and not have to watch people walk past me with the guns, worried during the movie that somebody is going to shoot me. but, what if you are in a dark theater and a bunch of people have guns on them and one of the misfires? how many are going to be killed? don't i have the right to go somewhere -- you could put metal detectors in schools and theaters and restaurants. it is not the wild west anymore. we have rights too. i don't care if anybody has guns , but there are a bunch of crazy people who shouldn't have guns, who don't have any kind of record. and i want to be able to take my kids somewhere without somebody toting a gun across the shoulder or on their waist. guest: that is an extremely important point that the caller just made. in fact, from what we have been
able to find, an awful lot of the mass shooters, mass murderers, have gotten their guns and they didn't have a criminal record. others, like the one at sandy hook, i don't think he had a record, he killed his mother to get the gun, so he wasn't bothering with a background check. he started his criminal rampage with murdering his own mother. so i think that keeps getting us back to the point that if we cannot protect ourselves, we are not going to have a whole lot else to rely on. waiting for the police to come. we don't have episodes of people misfiring a gun at a theater but we do have, from colorado springs, i believe it was, -- no, it was nearer to denver, we have a guy who got his gun into a theater and chat up a whole lot of people who weren't able
to shoot back because the theater posted a sign that said no guns. apparently, that merger had walked by several other theaters before he got to the one that was posted, no guns. there is a lot of intentionality that these monsters go through. host: as we talk to you at this hour, and it is hard not to recognize the sirens behind us. just a few blocks to the washington navy yard. we don't have a lot of information, but we do know there is a lockdown in place. we do know that this is the same location where a shooting took place in 2013. this is the scene from nbc 4. there are reports of a gunman inside the navy yard. some say it may be a hoax, but security officials taking this very seriously. a sign of the times? guest: well, it is another gun free zone. as stunning as that may sound at a military installation, but no u.s. military installation allows guns to be on days unless they are in the possession of an active duty mp.
so if something is happening or has happened at the navy yard, the victims and the potential victims have to just hope that the mps are able to get there in time. host: let's go to eddie in mexico, tennessee. good morning. -- in knoxville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. there are supposedly millions of one owners in this country. there are a whole lot more of us than there are doctors. and i understand that doctors kill approximately 150,000 people every year with medical accidents. but you never hear anything about that. guest: that is right, because they are accidents. and as a result, it is treated accordingly. overly that information gets into the database and they don't do that the same way in the future. but if you will note, most of these instances -- and i said this just a moment ago -- that
people say, well, what if this happens? there is a lot of hypotheticals that are brought up against widespread gun ownership that we might be able to defend ourselves even now, perhaps at the navy yard, who knows how long it is taking or did take the mps to get there, but that initial periiod, the it -- period be it may be only five minutes, it can easily be five ten minutes, what do you do in those intervening seconds and minutes? i think that is why the idea of having people able to carry their own firearms is the way to go. and it has worked. we can point to lots of instances where it has worked. the church in colorado springs where they had two defense teams. one of the -- would be in the service, one would be out on the property. and when a gunman came onto the property, they were able to take
care of him. they were able to shoot him down , the killer who then committed suicide. and there was a -- where a shooter was going to take advantage of a note then sighed. he killed one person, but another fellow we had a concealed permit, he was able to stop that one of the mass murderer. same thing happened at a hospital in pennsylvania, when a doctor who had been wounded by a shooter was able to stop the shooter because he had a concealed carry firearm. so i can point to several many instances of people being able to protect themselves because they were armed. and we can also point to all too many, all those mass murderers have occurred since 1950, all but two in gun free zones. host: this is from one of our
viewers say, when you arm everyone in a room, the chance of being killed increases tremendously. guest: you have to point to where that has actually happened. the fact of the matter is that is not what happens. but what do know happens is that gun free zones are taken advantage of by killers. host: so are you saying we need more guns in our society? guest: oh, absolutely. we need to enable our people. there are many, many gun owners who would be very happy -- they have been trained, they would be happy to be able to protect themselves, and in so doing protect other people. they are really kind of disarmed and not able to do much at all except wait for those long, long minutes until the police can get there. host: but do we need guns with these clips that can chew. rounds they quickly -- that can shoot out rounds very quickly? guest: the movies sometimes give us all some prescience. when somebody is able to shoot
an attacker, the attacker may be on drugs. the caliber of the defender's done may not have been sufficient to take down the attacker. the defender may not have hit the attacker because when you're under stress, you are about half as accurate as you would have been at the leisure at the range, at the shooting range. so you have to allow for that kind of situation. missing, wounding, but not enough to drop the attacker. and if you've got -- the legal limit i believe in connecticut is 10 rounds -- and you've got three attackers, chances are you are going to run out of bullets before one of them gets to you. host: why do we need those types of high-powered weapons? guest: for our defense. and to enable the people to have access to the means of their own protections against a corrupt or to radical government. host: are you saying that the
government though, this government is corrupt? guest: the guns are there for any government that would do that. there was a local government in athens tennessee in 1946 that stole the ballot boxes. and the men of the town, a lot of returning veterans, came in with their rifles. you can google battle of athens and the movie that it is in will come up. this is an historically -- i don't know about all the dialogue -- but the basic facts are quite correct. how the people were able to keep the government from running as a bunch of tyrants. host: but with all due respect that was 70 years ago. other cases more recently? guest: yeah, there was one out west. a rancher was in court over a dispute over water use. he claims he has contracts with them for that water use. the feds got tired of the court
proceedings and they came onto his property and they were going to kill the cattle. it would've cost the guy $1 million. and they were fixing to release the cattle and free them near some pits. and one deputy sheriff asked the m -- their fingers were on the triggers. that trip his conscience. he lowered his gun, the other follows suitm and that's how it ended. host: let's get anthony, in north carolina. good morning. caller: there's a lot of illegitimate guns out there, on the streets that are not being bought through stores and being regulated. if the gun law says they are not allowed to have guns, the guns
will still be out there on the streets that people are using and criminals will still have guns. host: anthony, how old are you, if i may ask? caller: 16. host: thank you for calling inhost:. guest: many states only require that you get your gun registered , you have to fill out federal paperwork when you buy from a dealer. but many states have legitimate gun sales that are not a matter of the law. you can get them from neighbors and relatives and so forth. six states have said, you know what, the government deciding who can protect themselves and who cannot is not a good constitutional principle because it infringes on the second amendment. infringement is the keyword in the second amendment. we have six states where people can go in and buy a gun and put it in their purse, in their pocket, whatever. they are legal.
they don't have to -- they are legal until they use the gun for a criminal purpose. for mont has had a law like that for most of the last century. the law says it is illegal to carry a firearm for the purpose of criminally injuring another person. so at the end of the day, we have a good experience in the six states. maine, a democrat-leaning state for sure, added itself to the list of these constitutional carry no permits required. legislators are realizing that restrictive laws do not protect people, but armed good guys do protect other armed good guys or not armed good guys. host: another part of the debate, the confederate flag and racism in america. how much of a factor do you think those were in dylann roof's decision? guest: dylann roof is clearly a young man filled with hate. i don't know to what extent the
confederate flag was part of his ugly thinking, but the flag certainly was not the instrumentality of his carnage. the instrumentality was the gun that evidently he was able to buy at a store, passing the background check. if that is accurate information that is one of many examples that relying on the government's system to protect us is not social fire as we would like -- so surefire as we would like to think, and it would have been so much better for one of the congregants to be able to, even if they had missed at the start bag, i think he would have run off -- this dirt bag, i think he would have run off. that's what happened at these other shootings. once they realize there is somebody returning fire on them, they are out of there. host: the shooting in aurora, colorado -- the shooter clearly indicated he had mental issues.
she had gone to a psychiatrist. how do you prevent those who are mentally ill from getting a gun? what needs to be done that isn't being done? guest: what's not being done and needs to be done is to arm the potential victims. these people are going to slip through the system steal a gun like the guy up in sandy hook. he didn't bother to go through the legalities. he killed his mother and got the gun that she had. i think relying on a passive defense such as the background check is a big mistake because it takes the emphasis off the demonstrated need and ability of good guys to defend themselves if we have not made it illegal for them. host: albert, augusta, georgia. good morning. caller: yes, i am calling in, i am a tour vietnam-era veteran. i do not own a gun but i would
like to pass on to larry that i think the solution to this problem is to arm all the african-americans in the united states and i think larry should spearhead that program to get it started right away, since he is always talking about the good guys having guns. so i will take his answer off the air. thank you. guest: i take your point. i have made that very same point in a book i did 20 years ago called "armed people victorious." in two foreign countries where average people, in cone case by the guatemalan government, they were given guns to protect themselves against a guerrilla insurgency, and in the philippines the government was reluctant initially because it was a dictatorship, but people made their own guns and defended themselves when the dictator was overthrown and the military
quickly worked with the people to put down the guerrilla movement. what the caller is saying is absolutely spot-on. make it so the person at the scene of the potential crime is able to protect himself. i would be extremely happy to see a training program go in ok line forms over there, who wants to get training we ca do what te -- training echo we can do, if not what the guatemalan government did there is a discount. we can make it possible for people to get surplus weapons and use that for that very purpose. guest: rick says, to you advocate demonstrators -- do you advocate demonstrators like those in ferguson and baltimore be armed? are thousands of armed demonstrators realistic? guest: i think the demonstrators
reflect a different culture from what we saw in charleston. in ferguson, there was a report i saw in one paper that a group of young black men in their 30's, late 20's, went to a station and said, we worked for you growing up, you are our people, and we will make sure nothing happens to this station. they provided 24/67 guard for that station during the trouble. that shows again, armed people people working with other people, regardless of what their color might be can get things done. we don't have to rely on the government, because the government is not always going to be there when you want them there. host: marion from chicago. caller: good morning. one thing i want to say, when
you compare charleston with ferguson, it's a different thing altogether. when you have people that are supposed to serve and protect police murder a man on the street for selling cigarettes, we watch police shoot a man in the back, and countless young black men with no weapons are shot by somebody who is part of the government -- i'm surprised that everybody who comes on here always talks against the government. it's your own government, and they are part of it. guest: yes, it is our government. let's extend that idea. there are servants, they have
been called through the ages public servants. in baltimore, i don't know as much about ferguson, but in baltimore we know the police were told to stand down. the mayor actually said there would be an area they would just let the burning happen. that is contrary to good policing purposes. the police were told to withdraw, not preserve and protect. it was a political decision, and it was a disaster. host: dora is joining us from new york city, with larry pratt of gun owners of america. caller: good morning. i want to say that your argument defies credibility. how can you explain the fact that no other country, countries that do not have the second amendment, do not have the level of violence and repeated violence we have here in the united states? how can you explain that?
guest: i already mentioned the episode in norway, where one guy was able to kill 92 people over the course of a couple days. there have been other mass shootings. the charlie hebdo shooting in paris, where you can't get a gun to have with you when you are at work or wherever you might be. when you look at europe and figure it is about the same population as the united states, they have had a striking number of mass shootings. they are not immune. in fact, they are rather helpless when trouble starts. i would like to go back just a little bit further into the time of the second world war. what hitler did was to disarm the people of germany. he then was able to salvage the population. jews gypsies, and other political opponents pretty much at will, because he was confident there wouldn't be
anyone able to contest what he is doing. also, in all of europe other than switzerland, there is not a militia tradition where the people own their own military-type firearms and have some kind of identification with a militia that is also their servant, not just the police. that is a significant difference, that americans were born fighting for their freedom with their guns, and that sets us apart, other than switzerland, from all the other countries of europe. host: do you think the government is trying to take away guns, or something restrict access to guns? guest: the president is pretty clear, he doesn't like the second amendment. he would take away as many as he could. he has done a number of things administratively. happily, he has had to back off of one where he was trying to choke financing for gun stores.
he has been very ingenious about the number of approaches he has pursued. none of them legal, none of them constitutional. but i have to give the guy credit. he doesn't stop looking for ways. i wish we had more people like that on our side. host: a tweet from another viewer -- guest: i have never heard that statistic before. i would have to check that out. a lot of times we hear things like that, and it turns out it is not the case. host: jim from texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran, as well as the other gentleman who spoke. i had been brought up in the gun culture. that's what the united states is, a gun culture. when i was in service after vietnam, i was stationed in england. england is really a non-gun
country, and i got to tell you it's a night and day affair to be in a country where there is no guns compared to a country where those guns everywhere. i think the solution to the problem is to go one way or the other. either we have no guns or we have all guns. now, in texas we are kind of macho, and it's kind of like the thing, to have guns. but the thing is, it's like when we had the cold war with russia. they would not attack us, because we would destroy them in return. so if you have a gun, than the guy who has got a gun does not have the courage to attack you. guest: it makes a big difference. we have seen that with the spread of concealed carry laws, that when they go, when they are introduced in other states their crime rate, at a minimum
doesn't go up. in all the others, violent crime rate went down. florida was a rather stunning case. something like 40% of the decline in the murder rate, from above the national rate to well below. one other thing related to what you were saying. i think it helps me to understand that america, more than a piece of geography or an ethnic identification, which we really don't have is an idea. america is the idea that we are free men in charge of our government. there's only certain limits the government can go to before the free men remind them, you work for us. if you are in france, you are french because you speak french and have a french tradition. germany, the same. it sets those countries off from the way we are here in the
united states, where our ethnic background is polyglot, to say the least. what together -- unites us together is the idea of a limited government. host: larry pratt is executive director of gun owners of america. byron is our last caller. caller: i have had a concealed carry permit for years. i had a road rage incident one day. i was smoking leading ashes out the window. and a person said, he just had his truck painted and ashes were flying all over it. he pulled in front of me. i said to myself, i will never go disarmed again. i will carry. there's a lot of crazy people out there.
you never know what they will do. the only thing i had was a knife. if he reached in that window, i would have cut him. i called the cops, talked to them about it. they talked to him also. things happen, and sometimes you don't have a lot of choice. guest: right, you didn't have time to go out and buy a gun at that moment. i can see how your thinking has evolved. host: larry pratt, as always. thank you for joining us. your membership -- website is -- guest: take action and sign up at gunowners.org. host: an update on the reported shooting at the navy yard, a few blocks from capitol hill. the first report came at 7:30 this morning. we should report, there are no
reports of anyone being shot. so far, they have not found anyone inside the building. the area is secure and police continue to go from building to building. they have not found any victims or shooters. we will monitor the story. when we come back, we want to turn our attention to politics and donald trump. is his candidacy for real? our line for democrats republicans, independents -- you are watching and listening to "washington journal." it is thursday morning, july 2. we are back in a moment. >> three men and a woman believed to be members of a puerto rican nationalist gang who attempted the assassination
of president truman, opening fire from the visitors gallery of the house of representatives. five congressmen were hit. ben jensen of iowa, clifford davis of tennessee albert bentley of michigan, who was seriously injured. the gun wielders have the evil distinction of having perpetrated a criminal average almost unique in american history. flex the most violent act that ever occurred in the chamber. there were debates right after that, that we can't let this happen again, and we need to wall off the visitor's gallery with bulletproof glass so this could never happen again. the more members talked about that and thought about it, they said, that's a bad idea. this is the people's house and people can't be walled off from
the floor and what's going on. the capitol building is a simple and that makes it -- symbol and that makes it a target. the british burned the building in 1814. there was a bombing in world war i by a professor who disagreed with support for the allies. in 1979, a bomb set off by the weather underground. 1983, another bombing by a group opposed to reagan's foreign policy. in 1998, two policemen shot and killed. there have been instances over time yet the capitaol has remained a remarkably open building. >> the history of the house and senate its leaders, characters and prominent events. sunday night on c-span's "q&a."
>> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings, and news conferences. bringing you events that shape public policy. every morning, live with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists, and your comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a quick update on the unemployment rate. numbers were released today. unemployment has dropped to 5.3% according to the bureau of labour statistics. about 223,000 jobs have been added in the last month . the situation continues at the washington navy yard. it remains on lockdown, but
according to wtop no shooter has been found. police continue to search the area. the navy yard was the site of a horrific shooting in 2013, where more than a dozen civilian employees were killed. there is heightened security along the mall, and new security precautions outside the white house. we want to turn to presidential politics. this headline in the united states -- trump's poll surge is cheered by trump and democrats. for democrats, he points out donald trump is a kind of "divine intervention" -- news this morning that macy's has pulled trump apparel from
its stores around the country, in response to remarks by donald trump. here is what he had to say two weeks ago when he formally entered the presidential race. mr. trump: when do we beat mexico at the border? they are laughing at us, at our stupidity. now they are beating us economically. they are not our friends believe me. they are killing us economically. the u.s. has the, a dumping ground for everybody else's problems. [applause] thank you. it's true. and these are the best and the finest. when mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best. they are not sending you. they are sending people that have lots of problems. they are bringing those problems with them.
they are bringing drugs, crime. they are rapists. some, i assume, are good people. but i speak to border guards, and they tell us what we are getting. it only makes common sense. it only makes common sense. they are sending is not the right people. coming from more than mexico. it's coming from all over south and latin america, and it's coming probably, probably from the middle east. but we don't know, because we have no protection and we have no confidence. we don't know what's happening and it's got to stop. it's got to stop fast. host: those comments by donald trump two weeks ago when he entered the republican presidential race, now running second not only in iowa and new hampshire, but in a new cnn poll, behind jeb bush. in an interview last night with don lemon on cnn doubling down on his claim of what he meant during his remarks saying, "you
look at the statistics on rape and crime coming into this country, they are mind-boggling -- somebody is doing the raping don, somebody is doing it." let's get your phone calls on all of this as donald trump continues to gain in a number of polls. mike from arkansas, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a disabled veteran. if you allow me before we get to donald trump to make a statement. the gentleman on previously stated the second amendment numerous times. i never heard him say "in a well-regulated militia." i wanted to ask what well-regulated militia does he and every other gun owner in this country belonged to? zero. i own guns. i do not belong to a well-regulated militia.
now, to mr. trump. i think what mr. trump will force the republicans to do is address some of his concerns. he is in the polls for a reason. a lot of people, i'm going to call them teabaggers, and i don't mean that derogatory, they have that belief. whoever wins the nomination will have to address some of mr. trump's concerns. when they do, they will lose the election, because the majority of people don't agree with his policy . if they take his stance, which they will have to do to feed the base they will lose the presidential election, again. thank you for taking my call. host: a new development this morning according to the "washington times."
joe biden is likely to join the 2016 race next month according to some unnamed top advisers. s.a. miller says money bundlers seems is yes him among big obama -- see enthusiasm among big obama donors. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe he is surging in the polls because we are tired of weakness. he's brash. he may not be someone i would vote for, but we like men, people who will run and show some gonads, stand up for this country and stop apologizing to everybody's sensitive feelings. we want someone who can read the constitution, to respect the country, loved the country and loves the constitution we were given by our forefathers. host: you take his candidacy
seriously? caller: i take it seriously in the sense it will force everyone to answer questions they are all trying to tiptoe around. host: also reporting, new york mayor bill de blasio and new york city officials are beginning to review other business relationships with donald trump in light of his remarks. the statement from their deblasio saying, "we are reviewing the trump contracts with the city. donald trump's remarks were disgusting and offensive, and his hateful language has no place in our city." good morning, independent line -- caller: my name is harper ennis. i feel donald trump is surging. if he would run the country like a business. i don't think that's going to happen. i think what will continue to happen is on the issues that
really matter, how money is spent, both democrats and republicans, there's not much difference. they will focus on issues that polarize voters. they so business can continue as usual, like it has and there was really be much change. abortion doesn't really matter. same-sex marriage, it doesn't really matter. everyone is divided on that but i thinky they will keep focusing on issues that divide voters. the things that matter, how the country is run, i don't see that changing. host: thank you for the call. one of our viewers saying -- the latest from cnn showing him second behind jeb bush. harmon joining us from new
rochelle, new york. caller: thank you. imy niece my under age niece was raped by an illegal immigrant. the police did all they could, but he fled to mexico and that was the end of it. i also mention, her best friend was coming home from a church in coldspring, new york, was killed one early sunday by an illegal immigrant driving drunk in a head-on collision. i hate to phrase it this way but i saved the best for last. in thornwood, new york an illegal immigrant driving a pickup truck through a parking lot recklessly mowed down and killed a mother and her young daughter exiting a balleytt class. host: when did this happen?
caller: my niece was raped about 10 years ago, her friend about three years after that, and roughly five years ago it caused a sensation when the last one happened, when it found that the truck driver driving fast through the parking lot did not have a license, was working for a construction firm. this happened maybe three to five years ago. host: i just want to jump in. when you hear donald trump say what he said during his campaign announcement then the reaction that has followed, what is your overall sense? is he right? is he wrong? caller: illegal immigration yes. legal immigration, not a problem. from what i have read and seen, why hasn't it gotten more press? god only knows.
host: another viewers saying -- deborah joins us from new haven, connecticut. caller: good morning. in reference to mr. trump. you know, the reason why america is considered a very good country is because anybody pretty much can run with or without any money. that's why we have the electoral college in place just in case anybody who is too far out there has a possibility of getting in there. that is set up as a safety. just in case anybody crazy were to get in there. people don't understand the electoral college, why it is in place, but i certainly do, and i
feel it is a good thing. one thing i did not like -- donald trump kept saying "they are sending them." you can't make blatant statements. mexico isn't sending anyone. the age-old problem, if your country is not serving your needs to a degree where your life might be at stake, you try to go someplace else, whether it be legally or illegally. fithat's what you have so much illegal immigration, because mexico doesn't take care of its people. if you can help the government govern their people, we might have a shot at holding back all that illegal immigration. basically, we are making people -- we are just trying to do something for mexico, seriously
do something about that government. you can go in there, in iran you can take out their higher-ups and install who you want. why can't you do something similar in mexico to thwart that? all the fencing is not going to work as long as somebody in the states is willing to hire them. who is hiring them? the people who can afford to hire them. it was not an issue until all the illegal immigrants working in rich people's homes, when people got a whiff of it. but we have had this problem for a long time. it's time to change how we deal with it. help the government. do something with the government to keep people from coming here. they would not come here if their own government served their needs. host: thank you very much for the call.
this headline from "usa today." a similar headline from the "new york post." barbara is joining us from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i am calling -- i was a democrat. i am not anymore. i am a black old woman passed t 70, and i can see this country is going down. all these immigrants are coming over, and you hear inequality, inequality, and inequality is because if you only have 10 jobs and your country has to have those jobs, and you are bringing in 3 million people every year,
is not going to be any jobs for the regular people. number two construction jobs in the 1970's and 1980's used to pay $30, $40. they barely pay $23 now. the democrats get up and holler, inequality. we have inequality because you can't keep bringing in low people who don't have any education. these communities, the federal government is not giving these cities any extra money to take care all of these people -- of all these people obama is leading in, not one penny. we are trying to work, 10 to 12 hours a day on three jobs, and
to take half of our money and give it to immigrants. think about your own people. host: another viewer saying -- more calls and comments coming up in a moment. from the "miami herald," the president joined by vice president biden announcing that on july 20th a cuban flag will waive from a new embassy in d.c. and in american flag will wave in havana. guest: great to join you. host: how significant was this announcement? guest: expected, but historic. it has been quite some time, we have known the obama administration has been working with cuba, through a secret back
channel aided by the vatican. now, yesterday the official announcement the full restoration of diplomatic relations, including embassies in havana and washington, and the president announcing secretary of state john kerry will be traveling to havana over the summer to raise the flag over the embassy. certainly a moment many people who grew up in the era of the cold war would have been hard-pressed to imagine. host: a portion of what the president said yesterday -- the full address is available at www.c-span.org. president obama: i announced the united states and cuba have taken steps to normalize our relationship. as far as that effort, president raul castro and i directed to reestablish embassies. since then, our state department has worked hard to achieve that goal. later this summer, secretary kerry will formally travel to
havana to proudly raise the american flag over our embassy once more. this is not merely symbolic. this change will enable us to substantially increase contact with the cuban people. we will have more personnel at our embassy and our diplomats will engage more broadly across the island, including the cuban government, civil society, and ordinary cubans reaching for a better life. on issues of common interest like counterterrorism and development, we will find new ways to cooperate with cuba. i have been clear we will continue to have very serious differences, including america's enduring support for universal values like freedom of speech and assembly, the ability to access information. and we will not hesitate to speak out when we see actions that contradict those values. i strongly believe the best way for america support our values
is -- to support our values is through engagement. that's why we have taken steps to allow for greater travel, deepening commercial ties between the united states and cuba. we will continue to do so going forward. host: some criticism, not only from republicans -- one editorial. the "washington post," normally favorable to the president saying this is a new embassy but the same dictatorship. your response to that sentiment? guest: there's certainly has been staunch opposition from some hawks in congress who said, cuba has yet to give any significant concessions in the way of human rights. a long-standing u.s. concern. the obama administration
response, we have tried this embargo for decades upon decades and it's not working. if something's not working, you don't continue with it. another point to look at is the fact that congress can do a lot to throw a wrench into this process. not only is there the matter of the u.s. ambassador to havana who at some point the senate would have to confirm, there's also the fact lawmakers opposing this are already trying to gum up the works in terms of funding the state department will need for the embassy. there is legislation in congress now to stop any funding to expand the u.s. to dramatic presence -- and diplomatic presence in havana. host: the president in wisconsin earlier this week. announcing for individuals earning just over $50,000 a year or less, they would qualify for overtime pay. guest: i hate to break it to
you, we probably won't hear a lot new from the president. we will hear him try to present that plan in a directly to the people affected by it. a typical strategy from this president, to roll out the big policy in d.c., then take it to the states and explain to the average american maybe somebody working in a fast food or retail job currently exempt from overtime pay. this is how your income will benefit from this new regulation. we will hear the president talking about employers who she says have tried to exploit this loophole by deeming employees managers even though they are really salaried workers at a lower level. trying to explain how that is part of a broader middle-class economic message he has been laying out as the 2016 democratic candidates take up that mental. host: every time you go into the
white house, you cross the northwest gate. a new addition along the fence that lines the white house. photograph this morning. spikes being installed. a series of fence jumpers in recent months. this is what it looked like yesterday as the spikes were installed. what does this mean for security around the white house perimeter? guest: this is intended as a temporary measure. this will not be the long-term fix to the fence-jumping incidents that sparked so much concerned. rather, this is what they are doing until they can come up with a long-term plan the secret service and national park service responsible for this. they will come up with a new fence or extended fence something more permanent they can kill it -- protect the president's security. host: what is the president's schedule for the weekend? guest: the president will have a quiet day tomorrow.
the white house is not planning official activities, basically treating tomorrow as the holiday since the fourth of july falls on a saturday this year. saturday, we will see the president to his typical fourth of july activities with some fanfare. host: always appreciate you being with us here on c-span. thank you very much, and have a great holiday. back to your phone calls. the headline from the "washington post," -- next call is earl, from englewood, new jersey. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i teach history at a local community college. looking at this historically donald trump's candidacy speaks to a historical trend in populism that usually runs through many elections, all the
way back to candidates like william jennings bryant. his candidacy has taken it to an extreme, a very basic extreme when he attacks specific ethnic groups. his candidacy is basically all about donald trump. he is up in the polls now but he will flameout. at the end, he will not be around. to cut to the point, it is a clamshell. it is all about him -- it is a clown show. it is all about him, and not about anything that amounts to anything. host: who is your candidate in this race? caller: i do not have one yet. even though i am calling on the democrat line, you might assume i'm leaning toward hillary clinton. bernie sanders is offering her a
unique challenge, putting up issues she will have to answer to and speak to. but i don't have a hard and fast person quite yet. host: this is the story from the "washington post." 10,000 people in attendance at a campaign rally in madison wisconsin. we caught up with bernie sanders a week ago in denver on the campus of the university of denver. more than 5000 in attendance. you can watch the speech on our website, www.c-span.org. and, we are sitting down with all the candidates, we invited all the candidates to sit down and one was understand -- senator sanders. next is cameron, joining us from texas. independent line. caller: i have to immediately react to the last caller.
it is said tohear hear william jennings bryan mentioned in the same sentence as donald trump. that man was a statesman. as far as trump is concerned, he is a total phony. he throws out a few comments about immigrants. i would like to know how many illegal immigrants he has employed in the past, or he doesn't even know are in his employ. he is not some sort of outsider. he is a millionaire billionaire, whatever, and he benefits from these trade deals that let massive amounts of goods and labor flow. i think that this is an opportunist moment for him. i feel sorry for people who taken seriously. he's not going to do anything
about immigration. that's all i have to say about donald trump. i hope people don't go for that bait. host: joe in kentucky. good morning. how are you today? caller: fine, thank you. the previous collaller was spot-on. donald trump is a plant. don't forget -- forget about him. all the other candidates, forget them. they are all there to marginalize rand paul. i challenge my fellow americans -- send this man money so he can straighten out this country. don't be fooled by what you see on tv. all the polls are rigged. thank you. host: there is this -- guess
where mexico-bashing donald trump makes his suits? in mexico. you heard just a moment ago, he referred to those as rate pists and criminals. trump, you would think would disapprove of things manufactured in mexico, but he does it himself. a jacket from his clothing line bearing a "made in mexico" label. caller: good morning. i wanted to say, i didn't find anything donald trump said was offensive. he could have used better words but he is speaking the truth. that's the problem in this country. you are so afraid of hearing the truth.
everyone is walking on eggshells. host: your sentiment follows what we have gotten in some tweets as well, the political correctness in our society. where is he speaking the truth? house so? caller: he is stating the obvious. this president is doing absolutely nothing. host: can you see yourself supporting donald trump? caller: absolutely. a real guy, unlike the phony we have now. host: who did you vote for into this and 12, or did -- 2012, or did you vote? caller: i voted for the republican party in both elections. host: as chris christie enters the election -- next color is
james from providence -- next caller is james from providence, rhode island. caller: thank you for having me. with donald trump surging, it is notable. he is a phase the television -- face for television. but these are people who are supposed to change the country not exciting racism, bigotry, or separation of people. this is a nation of immigrants. trump himself is a descendent of immigrants. i don't hear him talking about canada's immigrants britain's immigrants, middle eastern immigrants. he doesn't mention the fact of all immigrants. if they want to come to this country, they have to follow rules and laws. and if he has something to say about the countries where immigrants come from, he should name that country and talk about
their efforts on their side of the border. to all my fellow citizens, stop the hate. let's try to fix the problem. let's not bring up past feelings or pass judgments on citizens. that's try to fix the problem. that's how we move forward. host: do you think donald trump was offensive in his remarks? caller: he was. he specifically named mexicans. the fact if she would just say all -- he would just say all immigrants, some are good people, bad people, but he specifically named mexico. i know people here in rhode island who are -- host: he didn't say all, we should be clear. he said there are also good people coming over, but he made the specific reference to ra
pists and drug users. caller: there's good people coming from mexico, but they are also bringing that people. he specifically named, if it is that they are rapists and drug dealers, they are not all, but he specifically named them in that form. the bad first, the good later to soften the blow. he left the stigma -- he does not by -- does not like mexicans, but he has mexican or puerto rican workers. if he had a better person for public announcements or something like that, it would be a lot better. host: thank you very much for the call.
in "the wall street journal," -- obamacare will irritate millions. one of our frequent tweeters doesn't like this -- let's go to helen in stamford, connecticut. caller: good morning. i am calling about trump. whether you like him or you don't like him whether you agree with what he has to say or you don't agree with what he has to say. he has a right to say it. as far as i can remember, we still have freedom of speech, don't we? do we still have freedom of
speech? for that reason, that's why i'm calling. people have got to remember, freedom of speech in this country. he has a right to say what he wants. if you don't like it, you don't bother with him. host: would you vote for him? caller: these companies going up against him i don't feel they are correct, either. host: would you vote for donald trump? caller: i'm not sure yet. there's too much time and too many candidates to go through. i was leaning towards scott walker. however, i don't know. but i still feel very strongly. it's not a question of politics. it's a question of freedom of speech, in my way of looking at it. host: another tweeter --
our twitter handle is @scpacspanwj. helen mentioned scott walker. as expected, governor walker will formally enter the race on july 13th, and the following week we expect to hear from governor john kasich of ohio. that would make 16 gop candidates for the nomination, a record amount. vernor joins us from capitol heights, maryland. can you turn the volume down? please go ahead. caller: hello? host: good morning you are on the air. caller: i just called in to say donald trump is a joke, and
anybody really taking him seriously has to be losing their mind. he only wants publicity. that is my comment. host: news nbc was going to cancel plans for the miss usa pageant, now reelzz tv, the ceo announces they will come to the rescue of the pageant. the ceo said, "as one of only a few independent networks, we decided to bring this pageant to american viewers everywhere." the pageant will take place in baton rouge louisiana. they made no mention of trump or the hot water he has found himself in since announcing his presidential bid. marie, joining us from colorado. caller: i was calling in to say when people say to the truth is
the truth. i believe donald trump spoke the truth, and the whole world knows it. some people want to close their eyes to it. that's their problem. i don't know a lot about him so i can't say if i support him 100% but so far i think he's great. i think america should boycott macy's and send a message. host: now or macy's doing the right thing? caller: i think macy's is wrong. americans should boycott macy's.
the last thing i have to say speak now, america, or forever hold your peace. would you vote for donald trump? caller: if i continued to hear things that are positive and good for america -- i have children and grandchildren i adore, and i want what is best for my children and grandchildren. if he stands for things that are good and truthful, i will stand with him. i think he is taking a big risk for the american people, and the american people should stand with him. host: next is jenny, joining us from santa maria, california. caller: thank you. i am calling in just two talk about the trump comments he made. i am not a registered voter. i have not voted all my life,
and i'm concerned about where the country is going. i am one of the low-information voters who sits back and watches -- i am hispanic latino mexican-american, whatever they call us now. we all don't agree with the immigration. i am an american. i believe in this country. the only thing i can say about trump is that he's speaking the truth a lot of people don't want to say. and i think that, he's speaking the truth. i'm tired of hearing pelosi say that i'm working for the american people, and she's working for the foreigners coming in. they are taking landscape jobs, construction jobs. i live in california, and i see everything going on here.
i agree with the previous caller. that's pretty much all i have to say. host: thanks for the call. marie says -- the front page of the "wall street journal" focusing -- below that, airlines facing in antitrust probe as the justice department is examining whether some of the big carriers colluded to keep airfares high. any quick update from the navy yard. we have been talking about the situation. the all clear has been sent out according to cnn. no shooter was found inside the navy yard property. of course, heightened concerned natalie because of the july 4 holiday, but that, of course, was the site of a horrific shooting. -- back in 2013. the situation is now returning to normal.