Profile photo of

Everything anyone needs to know about the true intent of this bill is contained in the details. What do the following have to do with gun safety or gun violence?

    Influencing Outcome of Sporting Event

    Unlicensed practice as an insurance professional

    Unlawful transaction of health coverage as a health maintenance organization

    Willful Failure to Return from Furlough

    Securities Act violation

    Unlawful Misbranding of Food Fish or Shellfish 1


    Mineral Trespass

    Unlawful Use of Food Stamps

While clearly opposed to the above listed items (and many more like it in the bill itself), I fail to see how previous involvement in any of the above activities necessarily has any relevance to gun ownership, unless a gun was used in the commission of any of the listed items (in which case there would be a gun-related conviction anyway).

There we have it, boys and girls. the true reason for the bill – to find as many outright, blatant excuses for prohibiting US citizens from having any contact with firearms of any sort, under the “law” (according to the totalitarians). It’s an evil, evil world out there. And there will suddenly be a large number of technical non-law abiding citizens out there in Washington who currently legally own their weapons, but want to pass them to their children or grand children, or even another still-legal gun owner in perhaps just a swap of one weapon for another – BINGO! Felony offense. Permanent prohibition from any gun ownership (once they get out of prison for their felony offense).

The gun-grabbers can sit there, on camera, look straight into it with every bit of sincerity and say, “This law does absolutely nothing to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own a legal weapon.”

Key words: (1) “law abiding citizen” and (2) “legal weapon.” Anyone that violated one of the above list items (and many more in the actual bill itself), is not a “law abiding citizen.” For the rest of their lives, per this law. But those with absolutely clear records aren’t affected, one might way – so what’s the problem? Yeah, right. Those people can still own a “legal weapon.” What are those? Anything that’s left over after the new law makes everything else NOT a legal weapon.

I suspect we’re gonna see CW2 before they’ll ever convene, let alone conclude a Con-Con.

I want to be absolutely clear that I am not advocating the following. At the same time, I’m honestly surprised something like this has not happened well before now. Clearly people are thinking about it in detail, or Mike Vanderboegh wouldn’t have written this, and wouldn’t have as many responses to it as he did. I just happened across this several years ago by following a link that I THOUGHT went to something entirely different (and quite innocuous). In fact, I had never heard of Mike Vanderboegh until accidentally finding this back then. Still, I will not be surprised if something of the sort comes to pass. There are a lot of P.O.’d vets and others that are just plain fed up, with the skills, motivation, and abilities to probably pull at least part of it off. And it’ll really be “on,” at that point.