Gun Control | 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates
What do the Republican Candidates Believe About Gun Control?
Y= supports gun control N= Does not support gun control
Ben Carson: N *
Ben Carson Is Right About Nazi Gun Control
If the Nazi regime didn’t think Jews with guns were a threat, then why did the Nazis ban Jews from owning guns?
There has been a great deal of ridiculous outrage over some perfectly defensible comments Ben Carson made last week. During an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Carson was asked to clarify something he’d written in his book, “A More Perfect Union”:
German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior … Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.
History Is Even Stronger Than Ben Carson’s Telling
But Carson is only telling half of the anti-Semitic Nazi gun-control story. In addition to the disarmament that took place in the late 1930s, for about five years in the early-to-mid-1930s the Nazi Party had engaged in a massive nationwide seizure of weapons from political opponents. The Jews were predictably among the targeted groups…
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/12/ben-carson-is-right-about-nazi-gun-control/
Ben Carson Defends Claim That Holocaust Could Have Been Prevented If Jews Had Guns
“It’s not hyperbole at all”
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson staunchly defended his assertion that the Holocaust could have been “greatly diminished” if Jews had been armed with guns in an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.
“It’s not hyperbole at all,” Carson said. “Whether it’s on our doorstep or whether it’s 50 years away, it’s still a concern and it’s something that we must guard against. That’s one of the real purposes of having a constitution. I think the founders were really quite insightful into looking at possibilities and understanding what has happened in other places and trying to put together something that would prevent that from happening here.”
Carson’s doubling down came on the heels of a comment on Thursday in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,” Carson said. “I’m telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first.”
Carson’s comments incited controversy and echos sentiments expressed in his just-published book, A Perfect Union, in which he cites Nazi gun control as a reason for the Holocaust.
“Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance,” Carson writes.
Critics argue that Carson’s placing blame on gun control immediately prior to the Holocaust as the cause of the event itself is misguided and inaccurate…
http://time.com/4069415/ben-carson-defends-holocaust-guns/
Law-abiding citizens have right to guns without registration
He “used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns.” He said, “I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, We have to keep in mind that law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights.” Q
Source: Breitbart.com, “Martial Law,” by Tony Lee , Mar 10, 2014
Extremely pro-2nd Amendment; never let anyone tamper with it
The baton of freedom is in our hands. We must make absolutely sure that we will never let the right to keep & bear arms be removed from those who follow us in this nation. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am extremely pro-Second Amendment. I will never let anyone tamper with that right.
The real reason that they put the 2nd Amendment there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves.
I used to think guns needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns.
I truly believe in Second Amendment rights. I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, I do think we have to be intelligent.
We need to engage in a discussion about, “Is there something we can do?” [about keeping guns away from criminals and mentally ill people.]
Source: Ben Carson’s Facebook page, cited on 2016committee.org , Feb 18, 2014
*Semi-automatic weapons ok in countryside, but not cities
Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show this past week, Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.
Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: **”It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”
Source: Andrew Kirell on mediaite.com , Mar 3, 2013
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Gun_Control.htm
Ted Cruz: N
Ted Cruz Schools Gun Control Advocates Everywhere On True Meaning Of Second Amendment
2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was interviewed by Guns.com at the NRA’s Annual Meeting and Exhibit in Nashville, Tennessee last Friday–and discussed what the Second Amendment truly means and how public opinion is trumped by the Constitution.
“When you asked about the role of public opinion polls, when it comes to constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says,” Cruz said. “It doesn’t matter what might be popular at the moment.” Cruz commented that throughout history, various regimes have stripped guns away from their subjects; and while these actions were popular at the time, they were “an inevitable prelude to tyranny.”…
Cruz went on to add that the United States was founded on a “radical proposition” that our rights don’t come from government, but from God. Adding to his point, he referenced Thomas Jefferson, who said that the Constitution acts as “chains to bind the mischief of government.”
“The entire reason for the second amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting,” Cruz said, while noting that those are great activities. “But that’s not what the second amendment is for.”…
Ted Cruz on Gun Control:
Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions
Ted Cruz has led the way in defense of our right to keep and bear arms.
Authored a brief on behalf of 31 states supporting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
Argued against unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions
Honored by a 2008 resolution passed by the National Board of the NRA, thanking Ted for leading the States before the Supreme Court in the DC gun case, and noting that his “efforts made this victory for the American people possible.”
Source: Campaign website, www.tedcruz.org, “Issues” , Jul 17, 2011
Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
Congressional Summary:
The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed before 2013.
Shall not apply to qualified or retired law enforcement officers.
Proponent’s Argument for voting Yes: Sen. BLUMENTHAL: This amendment would ban high-capacity magazines which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982. I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police, prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families of those killed by people who used a high-capacity magazine.
Opponent’s Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.
Reference: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act; Bill S.Amdt. 714 to S. 649 ; vote number 13-SV103 on Apr 17, 2013
Opposes restricting the Second Amendment.
Cruz opposes the CC Voters Guide question on the Second Amendment
Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues. The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: “Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms”
Source: Christian Coalition Voter Guide 12-CC-q10 on Oct 31, 2012
Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty.
Cruz signed Letter to Pres. Obama from 50 Senators
Dear President Obama:
We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:
The treaty violates a 2009 red line laid down by your own administration: “the rule of consensus decision-making.” In April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the UN General Assembly.
The treaty allows amendments by a 3/4 majority vote. When amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the US to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept.
The treaty includes only a weak, non-binding reference to the lawful ownership and use of firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. It encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry
The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is “ambiguous.” By becoming party to the treaty, the US would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear.
The criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They will steadily subject the US to the influence of internationally-defined norms, a process that would impinge on our national sovereignty.
The treaty criteria as established could hinder the US in fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as Taiwan and Israel.
We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the US does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the US as bound to uphold its object and purpose.
Source: Letter to Obama from 50 Senators 13-UNATT on Sep 25, 2013
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Ted_Cruz_Gun_Control.htm
Click on image to enlarge.
Marco Rubio: N
New gun laws are ineffective, so don’t pass them
Q: The mayor’s coalition that is trying to get stiff gun control has put out an ad in Florida that says Rubio would “let criminals and the mentally ill get guns without a background check.” Would you expand background checks?
RUBIO: My position on guns is pretty clear. I believe law-abiding people have a fundamental constitutional right to bear arms. And I believe criminals and dangerous people should not have access to guns. There are laws that protect those two things–but many of these [additional] gun laws are ineffective. They don’t do those things. They either infringe on the rights of law-abiding people and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. And I’m troubled this debate is about guns. It should be about violence. Violence is the problem, guns are what they’re using. We are missing a golden opportunity to have an open, honest and serious conversation about these horrific violent acts, because everyone’s focused on passing these laws that have proven ineffective.
Source: CNN SOTU 2013 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Apr 14, 2013
Has a concealed weapon permit, but does not carry a weapon
Q: You say you have a concealed weapons permit; do you carry a weapon?
RUBIO: I do not, but I have a concealed weapon permit. I don’t [carry] because I spend most of my time in airports and in the Capitol where you’re not allowed to necessarily carry those around. But let me say this to you: all Americans have a right to that–all Americans have a Second-Amendment right to buy a firearm, to possess one for both self-defense and for sport. And we should be very careful about anything that infringes on that. Now, if someone has an effective way to protect that right and to prevent criminals from getting access to weapons, certainly I think everyone is open to that.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2013 series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Apr 14, 2013
Deal with gun violence, but do it constitutionally
We were all heart broken by the recent [school shooting] tragedy in Connecticut. We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. But unconstitutionally undermining the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.
Source: GOP Response to 2013 State of the Union Address , Feb 12, 2013
As Speaker, failed to push law allowing guns at work
Rubio’s inclination to compromise where others might have opted to stand on principle and lose is also a matter of interpretation. “He talked the talk, but he didn’t walk the walk,” the NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer complained after Rubio’s house failed to pass legislation permitting employees to bring guns to work.
Source: The Rise of Marco Rubio, by Manuel Rogi-Franzia, p.137 , Jun 19, 2012
2nd Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy
Like the rest of our Constitution, I believe the 2nd Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. I believe the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. The right of citizens to defend themselves by bearing arms is a fundamental human right that should be protected.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.marcorubio.com, “Issues” , Feb 3, 2010
Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
Congressional Summary:
The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed before 2013.
Shall not apply to qualified or retired law enforcement officers.
Proponent’s Argument for voting Yes: Sen. BLUMENTHAL: This amendment would ban high-capacity magazines which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982. I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police, prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families of those killed by people who used a high-capacity magazine.
Opponent’s Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.
Reference: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act; Bill S.Amdt. 714 to S. 649 ; vote number 13-SV103 on Apr 17, 2013
Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Rubio opposes the CC survey question on right to bear arms
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: “Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms”
Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q10 on Aug 11, 2010
Dear President Obama:
We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:
The treaty violates a 2009 red line laid down by your own administration: “the rule of consensus decision-making.” In April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the UN General Assembly.
The treaty allows amendments by a 3/4 majority vote. When amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the US to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept.
The treaty includes only a weak, non-binding reference to the lawful ownership and use of firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. It encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry
The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is “ambiguous.” By becoming party to the treaty, the US would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear.
The criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They will steadily subject the US to the influence of internationally-defined norms, a process that would impinge on our national sovereignty.
The treaty criteria as established could hinder the US in fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as Taiwan and Israel.
We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the US does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations. As members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the US as bound to uphold its object and purpose.
Source: Letter to Obama from 50 Senators 13-UNATT on Sep 25, 2013
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Marco_Rubio_Gun_Control.htm
Rubio: Gun control ‘would have done nothing’ to prevent Oregon shooting
GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday that many of the gun-control proposals being advocated wouldn’t have prevented last week’s mass shooting in Oregon.
“Many of the proposals that are out there now on gun control would not have prevented that attack or some of the others that we’ve seen in the past,” Rubio said on NBC’s “Today” show.
“Unfortunately, in cases of mental illness or in the cases of someone who just wants a gun to carry out a crime, they’re not going to follow the law,” the Florida senator added.
Rubio’s comments come a day after Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton outlined her gun-control plan during a town hall on the same program, including pushing back on assault weapons and calling for new regulations on private gun sales.
Other Democrats have called for new action on gun control after a 26-year-old man fatally shot nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., before shooting himself. The gunman had five pistols and a rifle at the school, authorities said.
It’s just the latest in a series of mass shootings in the United States that have garnered headlines.
But Rubio on Tuesday said the laws under discussion would have made little difference.
“Guns are what they’re using to commit the violence,” Rubio. “In many of these cases, the laws that are actually being proposed would not have prevented them. For example, these were not assault rifles. These were handguns that he had purchased.
“The laws that many are proposing would have done nothing to prevent these attacks,” Rubio added on NBC, suggesting the country focus on seriously addressing mental illness and examining why those who are not mentally ill are driven to violence.
Donald Trump: N
PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.
It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:
Enforce The Laws On The Books
We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.
Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.
Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.
Donald Trump on Gun Control
I am against gun control
At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump took issue with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian-thinking lawmaker who set some Internet fundraising records with his 2008 presidential bid. “Ron Paul cannot get elected, I’m sorry,” Trump said, calling him “a good guy” who has “zero chance” of getting elected. The remark about Paul prompted some boos and screams from some in the audience, some of them Paul supporters out in force to help their candidate win CPAC’s presidential straw poll for the second year in a row.
In his CPAC speech, Trump sounded many themes popular with Republican conservatives. “I am pro-life,” he said. “I am against gun control.”
Source: USA Today report on 2011 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Feb 10, 2011
Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns
“It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.”
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Gun_Control.htm
John Kasich: N
John Kasich on Gun Control:
Cool off before making new gun laws after Littleton
Although he voted for the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons, Kasich said that lawmakers should have a cooling-off period after high-profile acts of violence before trying to pass new laws. Kasich noted that the two students who killed 13 people and themselves last month in Littleton, Colo., violated 19 existing gun laws. “There were already a bunch of laws,” Kasich said. “The kids didn’t pay attention to the laws. I don’t think new laws will solve all the problems.”
Source: Omaha World-Herald, “Kasich Tours Iowa”, 5/23/99 , May 23, 1999
More parenting better than more gun laws
Kasich said that the better response [to the Columbine shootings] may not involve gun control. He said parents could do more to help their children feel safe if they could choose where to send their children to school. He also advocated legislation that would allow businesses to provide more flexible working schedules, a change that he said would give parents more time at home with children. “In most homes, both parents work and nobody has the time to spend with their children anymore,” he said.
Source: Omaha World-Herald, “Kasich Tours Iowa”, 5/23/99 , May 23, 1999
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours [instead of 72 hours].
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999
Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Kasich opposes the CC survey question on right to bear arms
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: “Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms”
Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q10 on Aug 11, 2010
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/John_Kasich_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/John_Kasich_Gun_Control.htm
View’ Hosts Gang Up on Gov. Kasich Over Gun Control
On Wednesday, the co-hosts of ABC’s The View repeatedly ganged up on Republican presidential candidate John Kasich over the issue of gun control. Throughout the heated interview, Kasich stressed that mental illness was the root cause of many mass shootings that occur across the nation but the show’s cast repeatedly called for greater restrictions on gun ownership.
After Kasich highlighted efforts to expand mental health services for those in his home state of Ohio, co-host Joy Behar demanded the Republican explain “[w]hat are you going to do about guns? Let’s cut to the chase, come on.”…
The Ohio governor explained that we need to “enforce the laws” currently on the books but directed his focus at the need to overhaul our nation’s mental health system:
Secondly the whole mental health data system has to be up. States need to be held accountable for it. But here’s the thing that we notice with all of these folks. Because I’ve spent a lot of time trying to help people who have mental illness. You know what we find with all of them? The families are broken down. The communities are broken down. The neighbors are not there.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-meyer/2015/10/07/view-hosts-gang-gov-kasich-over-gun-control
Cool off before making new gun laws after Littleton. (May 1999)
More parenting better than more gun laws. (May 1999)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms. (Aug 2010)
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kasich.htm#Gun_Control
Comments are closed.