republican congressman bob barr of georgia, a current nra board member and a chair of the liberty guard. good morning. guest: good morning, great to be with you all. host: first we want to get your reaction for the two house passed bills that would tighten background checks, what do you think? they -- guest: they certainly garner a lot of support in congress and the senate, perhaps not enough to pass under the current operational rules which include a filibuster, but neither will stop the problem in america, which is criminals use a lot -- utilizing firearms for illegal purchases. extending the background check as hrh does and, if you read it carefully it can be construed to or used to extend the period for a background check indefinitely because you have a 10 day business day window, initially which does not include holidays or weekends and then the petitioner, the proposed purchase -- purchaser, applicant what have to submit a petition, and wait an additional 10 days. you are talking about a month. to require a citizen of this country to have to wait a month, at least a month before they can exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right is outrageous, and highly inconsistent with the reading and the purpose of the second amendment. the so-called gun show loophole which was never a loophole. when congress passed it any years ago, they looked at it from a rolloff standpoint and regulated those sales that were properly within the jurisdiction of the federal government, that is commercial sales. it was never the intent of the congress to have to regulate sales between private individuals. a private individual selling a firearm to another private individual have to go to uncle sam and get uncle sam's permission from the fbi before they exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. they should not. at the heart, both pieces of legislation are constitutionally inconsistent with the constitution, and neither will address the problem of crime in america committed by criminals. by definition, every citizen who goes to purchase and has his or her name submitted for a background check is a law-abiding citizen. now, yes, are there problems in the system, yes. let us address those problems, not essentially throw out the entire system. host: to be clear, are you saying that you are against these two pieces of legislation, or against the whole background check system as a whole? guest: no. the current system, overall works well. are there problems and do some things slip through? yes. will things slip through if this legislation goes through, certainly, there has never been a perfect piece of legislation, so, what i'm i am -- what i am against is all of the time and effort spent passing these types of measures when there are legitimate and constitutionally consistent measures such as tightening up the requirements for reporting into the system into the first place, providing penalties for individual bureaucrats in positions in government that do not stand the information in properly. to reinforce the way that the nix system works, and people -- who are regulated by the federal government, even if a young salesperson receives approval from the fbi for a sale to go forward, if there is something that bothers them, they do not have to allow the gun to go forward. and, there was a reasonable suspicion or that the people will commit a crime with that, so they are liable for it. there already effects in the system if in fact people tasked with carrying out properly do their job better than they sometimes in the past have. host: representative barr, georgia representative lucy mcbath spoke about a background check legislation and white needs to become law. here is what she said. [video clip] >> i am completely grateful for all of the hard work and for all of the efforts that has been placed into making this happen today, and i would just like to take my hat off for a moment, the hat that i wear as a member of the united states house of representatives and to think each and every one of might -- thank each and every one of my colleagues in leadership. as a mother, who lost her child to the gun violence that every of us has been fighting so hard to eradicate, speaker, i want to thank you. mr. thompson, thank you for allowing me to be a part of championing this life-changing legislation. i spend time with you, i came down to charleston after emmanuel, and i am more grateful to be able to help you pass this legislation, because no one deserves that kind of pain and anguish that people are suffering, especially those who have come to god and sat in church and lost their lives. senator blumenthal were, senator murphy, chairman nadler, thank you. you have been championing this legislation long before i got here, and all of the times that i sat in committee hearings, waiting for this legislation to pass, and watching you time and time again put forth amendments that were shot down for this moment to be able to be here with you, thank you for that. and, as a mother and survivor, we thank you. there are so many survivors and family members who have been waiting and waiting. and, today we have the real possibility to make a difference and save lives. i thank you, on behalf of all of the organizations, leaders, and frontline volunteers that have been championing for this moment. thank you. [end video clip] host: how do you respond to people who say that this legislation is needed? guest: i am not going to respond to someone's personal tragedy and emotional appeal. but what bothers me, in addition is looking down the road if these pieces pass and you bring forward a mother, or a father, or a husband, or wife who has been unable to purchase a firearm because of these vastly extended periods of time and they come before congress and say i lost a loved one because you the congress passed a law that did not allow me to exercise my second amendment rights to protect myself then that would provide for me a similar type of emotional appeal and opposition to what the congress is doing. it cuts both ways. host: let me remind our viewers that they can join in on the conversation. if you support the house bill that has been passed to increase gun background checks we want you to call 202-748-8000. if you oppose the two house bills that were passed to increase gun background checks we want you to call at 202-748-8001. keep in mind that you can always text us at 202-748-8003, and we are always reading on social media and twitter and facebook. representative barr, chuck schumer has said that he will bring this bill to the senate floor. do you see there being enough support from democrats and republicans to get it passed through the senate? guest: not at this time. as i believe you probably already discussed with your previous guests, ms. brown. there is a move by the senate majority, the 50-50 majority that is controlled by the democratic party, there is a move to do away or at least a lot of support to do away with the filibuster so these important measures can be passed by a simple majority. in those circumstances, the chances for these measures passing the senate would be greatly heightened. but under the current rules, that require 10 additional votes in order to cut off debate and move to a vote, so effectively requires a 60 vote majority to move this legislation forward for a vote, i do not see that happening at this time. host: let us let some of our viewers take part. we will start with don from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. just a couple of things. first of all, as i read the second amendment, there are two words that all second amendment people seem to ignore is the words well-regulated. and also, when i hear people complaining about this bill will do nothing to stop gun violence. well, my question to you is what whale? i support the bill, but i do not think it goes far enough. i do not know what your guest would propose as a solution to gun violence or do we ignore it? host: go ahead and respond. guest: i did propose an important measure or change in policy, and that is to hold bureaucrats' feet to the fire. those men and women in state, local, and federal government to make sure that the current background system works so that information that would be a prohibitive factor for a person to buy a firearm gets into the system on a timely basis so you do not have people who are ineligible to purchase a firearm such as convicted felons that they are able to slip through, because somebody did not put their name in the system that should have, and there has been legislation proposed in the past to tighten up the way that the current system is operating. that would help. also, of course, you have to keep in mind also that ffl's, gun retailers are prohibited from selling a firearm to somebody who is not eligible, even if they pass the system if they believe that a person is trying to purchase it for another person that is a straw purchase. that is illegal. it is also illegal to transport firearms across state lines for the purpose of the legal resale or actions. so, my point to your call and i appreciate his interest in these matters, it is important. the main problems that we currently face in all levels of government is ineffective, enforcement of existing laws. firearms are the most heavily regulated commodity in trade and business nowadays. there are hundreds and thousands , if you include all the state restrictions and local restrictions, that have to do with firearms. they are very highly regulated and we need to do a better job of attacking the root causes of crime, and better enforcement of existing laws. host: kathy from gainesville, new york. caller: good morning. i had two issues that i would like to state. in terms of closing the loophole and extending the number of days when they have to wait for the background check, i just see that is so backwards to proper management. the problem is that even with computers we cannot get the background checks in time. why doesn't -- lawsuits are taking years, background checks could take years, fix the problem, leave the law alone. they have a problem. the trouble in charlottesville, if the government got the background check in a timely manner, that would not have happened, why does it have to come against our constitutional rights. a second point, my concern about the background checks is what the criteria are, like who can change it? i do not think anyone should be proud that 3.5 million people did not get to get a gun. maybe 1% of those it was based on something that was incorrect or incorrect information. i do not like it, so i oppose both of them. host: go ahead and respond. guest: with regard to the intermediate question, what prohibits a person under current law from purchasing a firearm, there are a number of so-called prohibitory elements within federal law already. if they have been convicted of a felony under state or federal law, they are prohibited from lawfully purchasing or possessing a firearm. if a person has surrendered their citizenship, if a person has been dishonorably discharged from the military. if a person has been adjudged mentally defective or deficient, weird language. there are a list of elements that prohibit a person currently from purchasing a firearm. with regard to the caller's first point, it follows and i think very correctly from the point i was making before, which is with all of the laws currently on the books we need better enforcement of the laws, particularly by people in government who are tasked with making sure that information gets into the background check system on a timely basis. there have been a number of incidents where horrific crimes have been committed because somebody in government failed in their duty to uphold the law and make sure that the information was placed in the system. additionally, even if these pieces were to be passed and signed by president biden, however many months or years thereafter, there is another mass shooting, the response by the democrats and others who support this legislation would not be, well, we passed the law and it has not been effective so we will do a better job of enforcing it, their response would be, we still do not have enough gun control laws, so we have to passmore, and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to look down the road and see what in fact those additional measures would be. there is already talk in the congress, by some democrats to pass a law that would require a registry of all firearm owners, similar to laws now that require registration of automobiles. none of this is going to end gun control advocates' efforts. they will be at this until in their mind they think they can reach nirvana and there is not going to be any gun crime any longer. host: betty from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. i am from chicago, and i am so tired of babies getting killed in chicago. and, when nothing was done about those little babies in connecticut, i do not know what it is going to take for the people to wake up about the guns , and for this man he keeps saying the democrats. it is not a democrat or republican, this is a problem for everybody's children. i am scared for my kids to go out. i wish he would stop saying that nothing will be done. thank you so much. host: go ahead and respond. guest: the lady makes an important point that neither i nor any people i know would disagree with and that is none of us should have to live in a city or environment where they are afraid to let their children go outside for fear of being shot. or, sometimes now we have seen this in chicago in recent years, and some american cities like detroit where children inside an apartment or inside a home or hit by a stray bullet fired by a gang member or somebody else committing a crime. in some areas you do not need to be afraid to have your children go outside there is a danger within the house, and this is, i think not so much a failure of insufficient gun laws, but a failure by local authorities to support law enforcement, to give law enforcement the tools that it needs and to do a better job of identifying criminals prone to commit gun violence than is currently the case. if in fact, for example, the parkland shooting a couple of years ago. if in fact all of the red flags, which were there, had been acted on and there were laws allowing them to be acted on that tragedy would have never happened. in most of these instances it has nothing to do with federal gun laws, it has to do with local and state officials not providing the support for law enforcement and recognizing problems early on rather than waiting until it is too late. host: brianne from -- brian from illinois. go ahead. caller: yes. i have a problem with this. they are whittling away our rights constantly. i lost my rights and 2002, but that is another story. in chicago, they put that woman up there, she lost her kid and that is terrible. but there are kids being shot every day in chicago. there are kids being shot every day in new york. you have this new autonomous zone with the floyd memorial, a guy was shot there. you had an washington, d.c. were two teenagers were riddled to death in a truck in washington, d.c.. these are criminals with guns doing this. so, what the democrats are doing is beyond me. these are black children being shot in the cities, you know? i am sorry that the white woman -- i am white, i am sorry that her child was shot by a crazed individual, but maybe if somebody was there with a legal gun could have stopped this. you understand? all of the stuff that is going down now, people have lost their minds and the democrats are the worst thing for this country that i have ever seen in my life. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i really do not think denigrating mothers and grandmothers who have lost children by saying boo hoo, that is not appropriate, these are real tragedies. simply because somebody who has lost a relative may see a different solution to the problem than i do, i would never downplay or denigrate them. i think that is highly improper. host: michael from texarkana, arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning america, and seized. i am a disabled veteran and i served in combat. here is something, the elephant in the room. look at the country that has very few weapons in their society, do not have mass shootings. i believe in the second amendment. everyone had a flintlock rifles and pistols. then, do that when it was written. they had no idea about automatic weapons that we had today, weapons that could fire 800 rounds per minute and mow down people like slaughtered cattle. you need to get a grip. secondly, these open carry people. if i am a bad guy with a gun, you are my first target, how dumb can you be. if i see you carrying a gun, you are my first target. i learned that in combat. you need to look at the elephant in the room. restrict people -- restrict multi-firing weapons. go back to the flintlock rifle if you want to fire the cash follow the second amendment. guest: that shows a serious lack of any sort of common sense about what the second amendment means. it is not restricting the right to keep and bear arms only to the firearms available 250 years ago. as the supreme court has said in the heller division in the d.c. case -- decision in the d.c. case in 2008. if you read what was intended by the language, it means those firearms are available to the citizenry and that right shall not be infringed, those firearms that are in normal usage and procession by citizen -- possession by citizens. that does not mean flintlock rifles, that is silly. with regard to the earlier point which is equally wrong, fully automatic firearms are not available to citizens in this country other than in very specific highly regulated circumstances. so, a fully automatic ar-15 platform rifle or other rifles like the ruger mini do not fire automatically and it is illegal for the average citizen to possess one. as your caller may know from having served in vietnam as he said, that a far better rifle to use for close in shooting of individuals are shotguns. yes, an ar-15 platform rifle, a very ergonomically appropriate rifle for the human being to use , you can fire fairly rapidly, but she so can any number of other firearms. the law we are seeing proposed to outlaw ar-15 and similar rifles, similar to what they passed 20 years ago and then only had a 10 year lifespan, those firearms are being sought to be banned because they look mean. we have gone through that before. and, it is silly to say an ar-15 should be banned, but another rifle of equal caliber and firepower should not be because it does not look mean. we should be getting away from that, and apparently for a lot of democrats in the congress, we are not. host: regina from apollo, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. former representatives barr, i remember you are a representative, i am opposed to any more gun legislation so i want to make that clear. but, a few years back, you mentioned how bureaucrats are not keeping up with the instance -- national instant check system. and, senator korman had legislation to clean up that national instant check system, i believe right after the man that was discharged from the military , he was discharged dishonorably because he was involved with family abuse. he went into the church in texas and shot -- you know what i am referring to, correct? and then he was stopped by a gun owner who actually was smart enough and quick enough to kill before that man could do more. what i got from that whole scenario was, is there anyone else sponsoring legislation that moves the bureaucrats to do anything about this? or do we play the same game of the national instant check system is way behind in the check ups and delays. i understood that that would delay your ability to get a gun because they cannot keep up now or, wh