Profile photo of

Freedom, you did not read my post closely enough. I never talked about repeal of the 2nd amendment. And going door to door is unlikely to happen either (I do agree with MountainBiker to a large extent – we’re still more free in this country than most any other reasonably civilized nation on earth). Please read it again – particularly the part about the Lautenberg Amendment. I personally know MANY who were suddenly hit with the Lautenberg Amendment many years after committing misdemeanor offenses with no jail time at all (just the possibility of jail had the judge so imposed it). Yet suddenly, years later – in violation of the Constitution – we had an ex post facto law (“after the fact”) whereby the US government could take away a person’s right to ever own a gun again, as well as that same right for anyone in the person’s household, because if anyone else owned one, the person in question would have access. That’s not theory – that exists and has been implemented many times. You just won’t be reading about it in your newspaper – it’s not politically expedient for the general public to have any idea. I’m even aware of attorneys that have represented people involved in very minor domestic violence cases – as well, amazingly, as the judges in the cases – not even knowing about the Lautenberg Amendment. If I hadn’t witnessed it myself, I would not have believed that could exist in our country. Believe it. Do an search on any good search engine using the terms “Lautenberg Amendment” and “Military” and/or “Police.” You’ll see plenty of real-world Q&A sites, real cases, etc. People HAVE lost careers over this (more than one or two), many years after early life mistakes that were never repeated. And the Lautenberg Amendment is just one example of the kinds of things that can be done legislatively and/or administratively without ever repealing the 2nd Amendment. Mental health and medications are another HUGE issue that hasn’t yet become the headache (and worse) that it could become in that area. What is “mental illness?” Which medications should be used to ban possession of a firearm? There are those (many of them) in Congress, and certainly in the White House (and probably the Supreme Court) that would be more than happy to take away people’s guns because of a wide range of so-called “mental health” issues.

Just one more (and there are many) example is what the VA started doing to vets that THEY considered in need of a person to handle their finances. It doesn’t matter if the vet was stark raving mad, or simply had a physical disability that somehow kept him or her from managing their finances adequately. Once the VA unilaterally made that determination – without even informing them of the reason in the letter of notification (that may or may not even give them time to adequately contest the ruling), they are also informed that they will no longer have gun rights.


As the article says, what if it’s an older person on Social Security? What if some social worker decides that the recipient is “too old” to handle their own financial affairs as well? Why should such power be restricted to the VA? An executive order could quickly take care of that.

There are all kinds of ways to completely go around the 2nd Amendment. You didn’t “get” what I said. The NRA had no power to keep the Lautenberg Amendment OR the VA’s purely administrative “authority” from banning people from firearms ownership (or even access). It’s already happened, and it will be exploited to the maximum extent possible by those intent on taking away all guns – particularly Hillary Clinton who I personally heard say that’s what she hopes for.

Read that post again, and again, until it sinks in – it’s ALREADY HERE, and it’s only a matter of degree. It can be expanded any time they want. So it will not be door-to-door. It will be case-by-case, probably one neighborhood one day, then another city the next, and so forth. And one law or executive order after another – incrementally – until the 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution, but has become a museum piece only. That’s not theoretical – that’s going on and has been going on, step by incremental (and hidden-in-plain-sight) step for many years (particularly since 1996).