0 mutual funds." yikes! then go to e-trade. we've got over 8,000 mutual funds, and not one of them has our name on it. we're in the business of finding the right investments for you. e-trade. less for us. more for you. the fund's prospectus contains its investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information and should be read and considered carefully before investing. for a current prospectus, visit etrade.com/mutualfunds. before investing. with an intuitive motion activated lid and seat,ad bold makes sure you'll never have to ask him again. it's been said that beauty is in the ewell...behold. der. behold water so blue it merges with the sky above. behold natural beauty above the sea, and far below. behold smiles so wide they stretch across the face of an entire nation. out of the mainstream even within his own party. a ruling said you can't restrict handgun access but can put limitations on guns. >> have you been following the post this week? every single republican on the committee voted against, even background checks, voted now against assault weapons. they're not really doing anything. >> there are complexities with the background checks bill. there are expectations in democratic leadership that when they adjust the bill there will be republican support. they had to go with the schumer bill because tom coburn pulled out at the last minute. yes, there's no republican support for an assault weapons ban though i think it's fair to say an assault weapons ban would be constitutional or would be for ten years without legal challenges. i don't know where ted cruz gets the idea that the second amendment and first amendment is absolutist. you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. he has this idea of the constitution he wants to impose on every one of his colleagues and does come off condescending in the process of doing so. >> cynthia, it looks to me like the gun legislation fight even despite it's only three months since the horror of new town has not moved left, if you will, toward gun safety. i'll use that term loosely. it's moved right. these people have circled the wagons like an old western and insisted most important thing in the world is to have guns. they're not afraid of a coup or military government. they're afraid of a popular government. it's that or they want to take on vigilante justice because they can't protect the government. now they're saying any gun, any time. by the way, sam, i don't see any resistance by this guy on limited gun ownership. not any. >> i don't see any either. the logical question for ted cruz is, can you own a grenade launcher? how about a tank? where is the restriction that he'd be comfortable with? are there no restrictions? i have no idea. >> cynthia, here's senator feinstein raising the question of escalation. how far do you go? he asked him to respond to this. his interpretation of the second amendment seems to be there's no weapon the government should prohibit from owning and carrying openly. let's listen to senator feinstein on the very point sam raised. >> you use the word, prohibit. it exempts 2,271 weapons. isn't that enough for the people in the united states? do they need a bazooka? do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? i don't think so. >> cynthia, a bazooka. what is the limit for this crowd? what you can carry? >> the gun lobby would say, yes, chris. and if sam sees that there are some republicans who are willing to sign on to reasonable gun legislation, i'm happy to hear that, because i haven't seen it. let's remember that on the judiciary committee, there were no republicans who voted for a proposal that would say, if you traffic in guns, if you're convicted for gun trafficking, you get a very long prison sentence. i believe one republican voted for that. >> it was a republican. >> grassley. one republican. so the gun lobby is so extremist, let's remember this, chris. the national rifle association thinks it's okay that if you're on the terror watch list, you can buy a gun. bloomberg calls that the terror gap. the nra says, yes, but that's just fine. let people who are on the terror watch list buy guns. why the republican party has signed up to that kind of extremism is quite beyond me, but most republicans have. >> who's the boss here, sam? is it the nra bossing the republican party around because they deliver a lot of the votes and maybe some of the money? certainly the members? or is it the republican party simply embracing the nra because they think it's like the evangelicals or any other group or neocons can they use and exploit for electoral victory? who's winning here? who's bossing? >> i think it's a combo of both. the nra's power as been about its membership. a lot of it goes back to the lore of the '94 election when the assault weapons ban was passed. a ton of democrats who voted for that measure lost their seats. since then it's been assumed you take tough gun votes at your own political peril. at the same time, there's a new pattern that's emerged where republicans are afraid of being primaried in their own party. why, i guess in their mind, would you allow anyone the opportunity to run against you on the issue of guns? on the issue of background checks, to clarify one thing, tom coburn was 95% saddled with chuck schumer on a bill. they're disagreeing over record-keeping aspects of it. senators like mark kirk are going to very, very, very likely be there regardless. >> how many republicans do you think will vote on the floor for any kind of background check strengthening? even that? not the 30-round limit or 10-round limit on the magazines. not the assault weapon, but just a minimal step of a background check enhancement. how many republican senators do you expect right now, sam, will vote for it? >> well, of course, it depends on how they adjust the record-keeping language. i would guess they could get four to five, maybe a little bit more. >> of the whole senate? >> republicans in the senate. it's going to be close. >> 1-10 is a high mark. that's a good statement about the republican party. 1-10 senators might go as far as a background check. senator feinstein and other democrats pointed out in the hearing today the first amendment isn't absolute, either. it doesn't cover child pornography. cruz stayed focused on his one single point he brought in. let's watch him again. >> is it the view of the senior senator from california that congress should be in the business of specifying particular books or for that matter with respect to the fourth amendment, particular individuals who are not covered by the bill of rights? >> sir, congress is in the business of making law. the supreme court interprets the law. they strike down the law, they strike down the law. the tests in heller with respect to unusual weapons, to other things, i think do not cover -- in other words, they cover an exemption for assault weapons. >> is that true, cynthia? the supreme court ruled in favor of assault weapons ban, as pointed out a few moments ago. >> exactly. >> i guess you can have the right to carry in d.c. which i don't agree with, but you can do it. >> there are absolutely no rights in the bill of rights that are absolute, as sam said earlier, and the assault weapons ban was in effect for a decade. no one said, at least the supreme court didn't say it was unconstitutional. heller has come along since then, but heller does not say all assault weapons must be legal. it says that authorities may, in fact, pass laws restricting gun ownership. >> in fact, that bastion of liberal thinking, justice scalia said that you can't have regulations on guns. i mean, i don't understand what the argument is about. conservative members of the court saying it's okay for regulations, what are we talking about? >> the crap will sell down there from texas. people in texas watching tonight believe you can walk into any saloon, the law branch, local pub you go to, chinese restaurant. anybody who wants to walk in carrying, as much firepower as they want to and sit down next to you at the restaurant and drink all night with their guns there. anybody who's comfortable in a situation like that is an idiot. thank you, sam stein. thank you -- maybe there are some idiots down there, but why they voted for this guy, cruz, beyond me. he gets worth every night. coming up, cpac, conservative political action conference, rolled into washington, d.c., today. birthers like donald trump and louie gohmert will be there. so will sarah palin. not governor chris christie. he might just actually win the white house next time. can't have him at cpac. what does it say about a party that has room for the characters on the extreme right fringe, the birthers, but shuns practical conservatives like chris christie? in rome, pope francis started the first full day of his papacy by visiting a shrine to the virgin mary. devotion we know for latin-american catholics. the first hispanic pope is a testament to latinos around the world. the same group who helped put president obama into office this past november. kept him there. there could be a historic first in new york. we're going to meet mayoral candidate, herself, christine quinn, hoping to begin something big-time. the first woman to be mayor of new york. here's another republican in need of a civics lesson. new york congressman jim bridenstine says the supreme court doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. really? his flamed, or rather flawed reasoning is in the "sideshow" today. also flamed. this is "hardball," the place for politics.