Home
Official Profile
Congressman John L. Mica (R)
Location: Florida (7th district)
Affiliation: Republican
Website: http://www.house.gov/mica/
Rating: 92%
You must be logged in to rate this politician.

Do you have a question for Congressman John Mica?
WATCHING
79947 users are watching.
( latest 20 shown below )
William Brock Doug Olvey Linda Harward anaslattershaqu aifseng Frank McCallum Gary Bradford Paula Howe sevosampr Holland Homa Sapiens ndobornyrolan aJohn Kimberly Kaeser Reita Anderson john piccirilli Maynard Curtis eappleapple Holland Emily Varola Wolf Rankis Larry Coleman ricrhon ken Diane Corr

Participate in the discussions below, or Ask a Question!


 
Other
Ron Johnson Posted 1 year ago
Do you remember when a Republican could express rational, moderate views and get elected? I suppose you will not be able to frankly answer this, but that will be an answer in itself.
Agree 4
Disagree 0

Harvey IL Locksmith Posted 10 months ago
wonderful!!
Agree 3
Disagree 0

Harvey IL Locksmith Posted 10 months ago
So Beautiful
Agree 2
Disagree 1


Other
William DiGennaro Posted 1 year ago
Which presidential candidate would support a Draw Muhammad Contest?
Agree 4
Disagree 1


Other
Army Vet Posted 1 year ago
I don't have a problem with using the NICs system to check and make sure you aren't selling a weapon to a criminal. However, I DO insist a law should be made that makes it illegal, and a 5 year prison sentence to ANYONE that develops a data base of people that own weapons. THIS INCLUDES ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES!
Agree 7
Disagree 2

Mike V Posted 1 year ago
Absolutely!!! This treasonist administration will save the data for future proscetution of illegal laws!!!!!
Agree 5
Disagree 3


Other
Charles Heckman Posted 2 years ago
whistleblower and veterans' appeals
Agree 5
Disagree 0


Other
Michael Rogers Posted 2 years ago
the question is what are you trying to do by restricting guns or ammunition to the citizens? and the bad guys don't pay attention to laws.
Agree 5
Disagree 2


Other
Benny Davis Posted 2 years ago
Can someone please point out to me, where in the U.S. Constitution it proscribes for the taking away of ANY rights, including, but not limited to, the individuals right to keep and bear arms? I seem to recall the Bill of Rights coming about as a restraint on govco. It seems to me, if govco were endowed with the power to abrogate and/or infringe on the rights that were not to be infringed upon, the exclusions, exceptions and limitations would have been included in the language which spelled out the rights being protected. If not included, it's excluded. imo
Agree 10
Disagree 0

Garry Newby Posted 1 year ago
A President that went behind Mexico's government's back giving head chopping murderers AK-47's, Barrett .50's and everything in between. These weapons have been responsible for over 400 deaths and counting.

Dealing with these gun shops for over 25 years that were forced to sell these weapons in bulk to criminals they all said the same thing. The second those weapons left their shops they were gone without any way what so ever of being traced. A week after being exposed Obama told Mexico American gun owners were to blame for their high crime.We know who the criminal is
Agree 4
Disagree 0

Benny Davis Posted 2 years ago
Worth a look! Recommend signing up for the whole series. https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/federalist-papers/lecture-2?utm_campaign=federalist_papers&utm_source=hs_automation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=16411171&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--JP3RnbJZB0NQNrgv8ARUAdtabdY2-vAzBVpx32jSuMUKlotPqFMQhqkm8iTB6mRLn8vbA1fpRDoYeHORfm7daYQrpnA&_hsmi=16411174
Agree 3
Disagree 2

Benny Davis Posted 2 years ago
The Amendment process is the method for making changes to the Constitution vs judicial activism/fiat, executive order, congressional collusion or a combination of one or more of the foregoing, etc.
Making lofty arguments for purposes of duping the public at large in hopes of maintaining their ignorance and complacency also doesn't cut it.
Agree 9
Disagree 0

Kevin Brookshire Posted 2 years ago
There are always "limitations" or restrictions to that of "rights" and how our laws effect them. None of them are unlimited or "free" of this for a reason!
"Constitutionalism and the rule of law are cornerstones of the Constitution and reflect our country’s commitment to an orderly and civil society in which all are bound by the enduring rules, principles, and values of our Constitution as the supreme source of law and authority."
Agree 5
Disagree 1


Other
Jon Weiss Posted 2 years ago
I have called written, and e-mailed my Congressman, Senators and the White House to ask a simple question, so far no responses from any of them. I have asked Reid's office as well, and still no response. The silence has been deafening.
My question is this...
"I have been a gun owner for over 40 years, I've never violated the law, I served 22 years in uniform defending the Constitution, the only time I ever sought to do harm with a firearm, was under the orders of the very people who now seek to deny me rights under the Constitution. So why do they seek to deny me these rights now?
Agree 1K
Disagree 15

Danny Hughes Posted 2 years ago
The reason the Gov. is so hell bent on taking our Guns is as simple as the nose on your face. To make us succumb to whatever it is they want us to do as their slaves on any given whim at any given moment. does that answer your question?
Agree 7
Disagree 1

Anna Hoffmann Posted 2 years ago
Not everybody is like you sir incase you have not noticed.
Agree 5
Disagree 3

Wolf Rankis Posted 2 years ago
The term "law-abiding" citizen is self defining, How can any rational person think that by taking the guns from these people that the criminals are not going to have their probably illegal weapons. Fists and feet kill more people than fire arms. It has been clearly shown that States with LOW crime rates have High gun ownership. States with LOW GUN ownership have very HIGH CRIME rates. Go to Manhattan or Los Angeles sometime. I'll bet you wish you were armed.
Agree 194
Disagree 1

John Breland Posted 2 years ago
Homa Sapiens, do you remember the days when folks recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and mere privileges? No one has a Constitutional right to drive a car on public highways. They do, however, have a right to carry the tools of a militia as a check against tyranny.
Agree 107
Disagree 3

ryukidn . Posted 2 years ago
Because it's very difficult to take over a country when all the citizens are armed ...
Agree 15
Disagree 0

Homa Sapiens Posted 2 years ago
Easy answer; they do not seek to deny you those rights at all, in any way.
Remember when you used to be able to drive your car without insurance? Remember when that law changed? Do you remember WHY it changed?
Same type of issue. Use your brains.
Agree 65
Disagree 18

Matt Lehman Posted 2 years ago
What's rights do you think are being threatened? A background check doesnt stop you from owning a gun.....unless you gave up that right by being a convicted felon. A gun liscence doesn't take away your right. You don't need to buy your weapon at a gun show. Restrictions on cartridges doesn't hinder your right to own guns. Shoot, even an assault weapon ban doesn't do it. You have thousands of other makes and models to choose from. You haven't made your case that your rights are under assault.
Agree 7
Disagree 18

Mer Luchador Posted 2 years ago
because soon all of their murderous criminal lies, theft, cronyism, and all out treason will be revealed.
At that time they want to make sure they can dominate you.
You, especially you, the trained soldier who can fight and TRAIN others to fight.

now you know.
Agree 145
Disagree 0

Congressman John Mica Posted 2 years ago
Congressman Mica responds to TellDC user question about gun control.

Agree 346
Disagree 1

Nick Thompson Posted 2 years ago
I will favor background checks as long as they are applied fairly and uniformly. For example, the same background checks should be used to issue voter ID cards that confirm you are a legal, non-felon US citizen before you can vote in US elections.
Agree 16
Disagree 4


Other
Linda Harward Posted 3 years ago
Isn't it possible to get an injunction from the Supreme Court to stop Obama! Cease and desist all the unconstitutional acts until it can be sorted out by the whole SOTUS?
Agree 615
Disagree 1

Danny Hughes Posted 2 years ago
We the people have the authority and the right to put a stop to Obamies ink pen and cell phone rule of so called law. Majority rules and at last count WE are still the majority! Exercise your rights before you have none left to do so with.
Agree 13
Disagree 0


Other
bold truth Posted 3 years ago
Why has the modern Democratic Party institutionalized the breaking of six of God's ten commandments (at least that I can count)? I especially find it interesting that this administration's policies have fully embraced breaking 6, 7, 8, and 10 as a way of life. I doubt most of America understands the word "covet" yet Obama encourages Americans who don't have it, that they deserve it, and then they take it or he and his administration take it (steal) from those who do have it, by force.
Agree 480
Disagree 3

Ron Johnson Posted 1 year ago
We have a secular Constitution. Try Iran for a theocracy.
Agree 5
Disagree 0

Kevin Brookshire Posted 2 years ago
You do realize that the 10 Commandments were for the Hebrews in the Old Testament, RIGHT? So are you? And you really should consider the "who to blame" scenario on and the taking of things away or denying it to others. Last time I checked, it was the GOP and the Conservatives "TAKING" away many things. I believe their response was, "they don't deserve IT!"
Agree 5
Disagree 6


Other
William Marshall Posted 3 years ago
Dear Mr. Mica

I have voted for you since you have ran for congress. I have asked a question a few times. However, is it not possible to get the House at least get something done with the Senate? I don't think we can wait for a new administration to come in.

So i am begging you, can you please replace the speaker! He is not an effective leader and he has been given a chance and failed miserably.

The outcome of this will greatly depend on how i vote in November.
Agree 106
Disagree 1

Garry Newby Posted 2 years ago
When he was reapointed as speaker you should have realized it was business as always for the enablers.
Agree 370
Disagree 0

Tomaso Paine Posted 3 years ago
They ruled it legal a while ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/supreme-court-health-care-decision-text.html
Agree 5
Disagree 1


 
Invite your friends!