Justice Stevens' comments on the second amendment, take us right to the big announcement by new York -- former New York major Michael Bloomberg, he's giving $50 million for gun control, is that... See More
Justice Stevens' comments on the second amendment, take us right to the big announcement by new York -- former New York major Michael Bloomberg, he's giving $50 million for gun control, is that significant? I mean, when you compare that to the NRA, raising $256 million in 2012. Bill? The NRA has 3 billion to 4 billion members, Americans who care about this issue. The idea that Mike Bloomberg is going to buy gun control by money, I think, is ridiculous. Cc1: Getting ordinary Americans who support strong background checks to become actively involved. He's got moms, mayors. Is he the right face for this, Jeff Zeleny? Absolutely not. In fact, that's the exact question, during the senate debate on this, in the months please stand by. Thought that's the new York City mayor. Perhaps should he give his money and somebody else should be the front of this. Well, he's the best, and by that, I mean the worst face for gun control. Believe me, my friends at NRA high-fived when they heard about this. The NRA represents law-abiding gun owners, like myself, they don't represent criminals. They don't event represent gun manufactur manufacturers. Why mayor Bloomberg is turning his figurative gun on people like me when there are criminals out there. His efforts on this issue have been measurable failures. They have been failures, donna. I don't care what his face looks like. First of all, I think he should be praised for what he's doing with his money. He's trying to stop gun violence in America, 70% of domestic abuses now can get firearms, because there's no serious background checks. He's trying to save lives, and if saving lives is a bad thing, well, god knows we're in serious trouble. Look at his efforts. He duped mayors into thinking they were actually going to fight illegal guns. When they all found out actually they were going after law-abiding gun owners, they said that's not what I want to be a part of. Okay, we're going to move to another standoff instead of this standoff right here. If you all watched Nevada this week, there was a pretty remarkable scene, you saw militia members standing off against the bureau of land management, they took a couple of heads of cattle from a landowner out there who had not pay grazing fees. Look at this, these are the militias. Standing off the blm packed off. This is what harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, said about this. These people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They're nothing more than domestic terrorists. I repeat, what went on up there is domestic terrorism. Bill kristol? Not sure I would use that phrase. He's not a hero, Bundy and the people who rallied against law enforcement agencies that were authorized to do what they do. He went through court for 20 years. He kept losing court cases. But, what about the precedent that's set here? The blm backed off, we don't know what they're going to do next. They backed off in this situation. First of all, that was the right thing to do to try, you know, to simmer things down. Remember, this is the 19th anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing. So, this notion that Mr. Bundy has no other recourse than violence is -- anti-government violence is absolutely wrong. He has been waging this battle for two decades, he's lost. Everybody else is paying their grazing feeds. He should pay his fees as well. Reluctant to compare Bundy to timothy Mcveigh. I think what harry Reid was despicable. I agree with bill. There's a rule for civil disobedience. I'm not sure this is the best quality example of it. This is a guy who didn't start out to start a revolution, he just wanted to pay his grazing fees. But everybody else's paying their fees. I want to turn to Ukraine, you saw the headlines this morning in "The New York times." "In cold war echo, Obama strategy writes off Putin." "White house looks past Ukraine to restrict Russian influence." Jeff, tell me what you learned about what the white house is thinking of Vladimir Putin? In light of what's happening in Ukraine. No question, that's on the mind of the white house now. He's a Moscow expert. He's right. This is not how president Obama intended this to go. He talked about during his campaign, forging a new relation with Russia, obviously that's not possible. So, they're not icing out Putin, or saying we'll never have a relationship. But they know they won't have a constructive relationship and the white house is not pushing back against that story at all this morning. They know. They are saying more sanctions are in the wings right now, more economic sanctions. Bill kristol, a little hard to write off the Russian leaders, I mean, sometimes it's not really your choice of what happens. What harry Truman in 1947 and 1948 is help anticommunism in Greece and Turkey. The tough stance of sending troops back to Europe. Eventually a huge defense buildup, that was the cold war. If president Obama goes in that direction, more power to him. But I don't think he will. What else could he do? This is remarkable. It seems like after Russia has played us on Syria, Iran, on crimea, finally the white house, now we're going to fight. Now you have gone too far, and I think the mistake, all along, we could be friends to begin with, a mistake that bush made, a mistake Hillary Clinton made. And a mistake president Obama clear clearly made. I hope now we're finally taking Russia and Putin more seriously. First, we got to solve Ukraine. Thanks to all of you. We'll be right back with more.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.