Your assumptions are based on the idea that the military will be on their side. Perhaps a good discussion to have but in the USSR Gorbachev may have thought the same thing. That didn't happen though.
And that is not my point. My point is that as a Republican, Kasich, with some hairbrained idea of 'bipartisanship,' thought that he'd offer up on a silver platter to Clinton, something that was going to lose and even a large part of the Democrats at the time, didn't want. That is way beyond anything I would support and he has never, to my knowledge, made any apology or explanation.
So regardless of the scenario you or I or anyone else here would conjure, he violated his oath of office when he thought (wrongly by the pure facts of that case) that he was being 'bipartisan'. I don't care for any smarmy people that think along those lines whether they are right or wrong but especially when they are wrong and on the wrong side of their Party platform.
I have written many op-eds in the NW Ohio area on this subject and gun clubs all across this area know Kasich's view well and will be delighted if he is defeated, as will I.
“I have written many op-eds in the NW Ohio area on this subject and gun clubs all across this area know Kasich’s view well and will be delighted if he is defeated, as will I.”
Amen Brother!
I have written many op-eds in the NW Ohio area on this subject and gun clubs all across this area know Kasich’s view well and will be delighted if he is defeated, as will I.
____________________________________
Who else do you have in mind to win during this very important time period?
And what the military does will be the deciding factor in any such scenario. The 2nd Amendment is largely irrelevant either way.
"I have written many op-eds in the NW Ohio area on this subject and gun clubs all across this area know Kasich's view well and will be delighted if he is defeated, as will I."
Yes, far better the noted gun rights stalwart Ted Strickland (who is also worse than Kasich on every other issue) get another term.