Hillary hints at gun confiscation.

[dutch508]

Australia's gun buy-back was mandatory, BTW.

onehandle (45,937 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141235952

Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is 'Worth Considering'


Source: Huffington Post

It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.

A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition.

Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.

"Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67


One of many reasons I'm voting for her.

One of many reasons she will be our next President.

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate. http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

GGJohn (6,900 posts)
5. So do tell us how you get around the 2A? The SCOTUS? The American people?

MyNameGoesHere (4,308 posts)
16. The constitution was and is a flawed document from the beginning. We get "around: it maybe by creating one that wasn't designed for protecting the rights of the privileged. Somehow throwing your hands in the air and saying game over doesn't seem like a solution to anything.

krispos42 (46,978 posts)
2. Mandatory confiscation. It's not a "buyback". It's mandatory confiscation.

a) The government never owned privately-purchased and privately-owned guns in the first place. Private ownership is not a lease or a loan. Ego, the government is not buying them "back".

b) Local programs are voluntary. Canada's, Australia's, and Great Britain's were mandatory.

In other words, "she's coming for your guns".

I wonder if all the people that quoted that, to mock the paranoid delusions of the gun nuts, will now admit that the gun nuts were right to be worried.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”

morningfog (12,230 posts)
4. Cut off the flow, buy up the stock.

santafe52 (9 posts)
20. Sue the NRA!

The American people need to file a $20 Trillion class action suit against the NRA.

We sue polluters and other corporations for environmental damages and (try to) hold others responsible for wrongful death and injury.

The NRA has created and promoted serious endangerment to all Americans. Let's take them to court and break them.

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

TM99 (4,303 posts)
27. If she is seriously considering adding this to her weekly stump speeches not only in the primary, but gods forbid also in the general, then she and the Democratic party has already lost. This will not work in the United States for so very many reasons. I don't believe she is being real on this anyway. After all, 'Annie Oakely' will pander which ever way the winds blow in order to win.

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

angrychair (962 posts)
39. No honest conversation about guns From "gun rights" advocates

"Gun rights" advocates want nothing less than unfettered access to all the weapons they want, all the time. I admit that may seem broad but in my experience and observation, any talk of any limits is shut down or met with name calling or ridiculed.
I counter that strong regulation on the distribution, ownership and use of firearms is reasonable on a product that was created for the express purpose to kill. We are the only OECD nation that does not do that. These regulations, some in place for decades, have not left there respective countries as mad max wastelands of crime and death. The opposite actually. Those laws don't prevent hunting or target shooting but do often regulate where and how.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all suggestions that Australia’s system of gun control is suitable for the United States. Conjuring Australia isn’t innocent. But this trick does serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down Under where it belongs.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Will all the inner city thugs give back their guns too?

[Big Dog]

angrychair (962 posts)
39. No honest conversation about guns From "gun rights" advocates

Here's an honest conversation for you, Dumb****:

The Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the majority of states explicitly state that the individual right to keep (own and/or possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed.

The only way to attempt mass confiscation of firearms would be by explicitly violating the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution - the Constitution which millions of us swore to support, protect, and defend.

Any attempt by the State will result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of government employees and the useful idiots on the Left- including you. There aren't enough of you to enslave us, but there are definitely enough of us to wipe you from the face of the Earth. Every mother****ing one of you.

It doesn't get any more honest than that.

[DUmpsterDiver]

Ain't gonna happen.  More are concerned with gibsmedats that need dispatched than some Pinkerton coming for their means of self defense.

[franksolich]

Will all the inner city thugs give back their guns too?

Are you kidding?

Those are exactly the people the anti-gun nuts want to have guns.

[98ZJUSMC]

GGJohn (6,900 posts)
5. So do tell us how you get around the 2A? The SCOTUS? The American people?

Very good question (D)Ummie.  Because:

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/17/poll-gun-control-far-scarier-mass-shootings/

FTA:

According to Chapman University, 16.4 percent of Americans hold “mass shootings” as one of their greatest fears, while more than twice that many Americans, 36.5 percent, are “afraid” or “very afraid” of  gun control.

In fact, the poll shows that Americans fear many issues tied to government overreach far more than they fear mass shootings. For example, whereas 16.4 percent of Americans fear mass shootings, 58 percent fear government corruption, and 35.7 percent fear Obamacare. Moreover, 29.7 percent of Americans fear illegal immigration more than they fear mass shootings.

Go for it.  Please do.

angrychair (962 posts)
39. No honest conversation about guns From "gun rights" advocates

Right.  Kinda difficult to have anything approaching a conversation with retarded children who deny facts and have seizures at the mere mention of contrary data.   

Posted by: Big Dog
« on: Today at 12:55:19 PM
Here's an honest conversation for you, Dumb****:

  Well. Done.

Of Note:

Any attempt by the State will result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of government employees and the useful idiots on the Left- including you.

We are not Australian Sheep (D)Ummies and I would venture to guess that, 75-80 % (minimum) of Local Law Enforcement would refuse to comply.

[98ZJUSMC]

krispos42 (46,978 posts)
2. Mandatory confiscation. It's not a "buyback". It's mandatory confiscation.

a) The government never owned privately-purchased and privately-owned guns in the first place. Private ownership is not a lease or a loan. Ego, the government is not buying them "back".

b) Local programs are voluntary. Canada's, Australia's, and Great Britain's were mandatory.

In other words, "she's coming for your guns".

I wonder if all the people that quoted that, to mock the paranoid delusions of the gun nuts, will now admit that the gun nuts were right to be worried.

Some clear vision through the  haze?  He's absolutely correct, idiots, as we have been on everything about you.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Will all the inner city thugs give back their guns too?

Previous experience indicates they will turn in lots of guns, all stolen from someone else in burglaries, home invasions, and theft from law-abiding family members, but not any of their own tools of the trade.

[Carl]

Previous experience indicates they will turn in lots of guns, all stolen from someone else in burglaries, home invasions, and theft from law-abiding family members, but not any of their own tools of the trade.

Indeed,it will produce an immediate black market with a guaranteed buyer. 

[Ralph Wiggum]

Very good question (D)Ummie.  Because:

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/17/poll-gun-control-far-scarier-mass-shootings/

Funny you mentioned that study.  Meant to post it, heard about it from the boys on Red Eye Radio.

Climate change & race were almost at the bottom of the 88 concerns. Yet the Dems are running on those two things.

[obumazombie]

Any law is enforced by the barrel of a gun, or the threat of a barrel of a gun.

[jukin]

It's the LAW OF THE LAND DUchebags.

BUt....I sure hope hillary runs on this. Also, Trump will not be so ***** as the GOPe and will use his opponents word, exact words, in commercials to destroy her.

IMHO, the uniparty is beginning to realize that Trump is a force that will become president. That is why the leftward lurch of the uniparty.

Did anyone else see that iJeb! is cutting staff?  Yeah...

[Patriot Guard Rider]

BUt....I sure hope hillary runs on this. Also, Trump will not be so ***** as the GOPe and will use his opponents word, exact words, in commercials to destroy her.

And the DUmmies will scream about how her words were taken out of context, that it isn't confiscation but a buyback,  and will twist their knickers into a wad twisting what she said to make it seem she said something other than what millions of americans have heard with her own words.

This is of course before she flip flops to appeal to independents.

Liberals disgust me

[txradioguy]

angrychair (962 posts)
39. No honest conversation about guns From "gun rights" advocates

If by honest you mean "circumvention of the 2nd Amendment"...then you're right...we can't have an honest conversation...you don't honestly understand what "Constitutional Rights" means.

[Mr Mannn]

at DI there has been a lot of gun control threads. In every one the libs have come back saying, "We're not coming for your guns."
Since the debate that has been tossed back in their faces and they have no answer.

the argument has changed from control to confiscation...all thanks to Hillary.

[txradioguy]

at DI there has been a lot of gun control threads. In every one the libs have come back saying, "We're not coming for your guns."
Since the debate that has been tossed back in their faces and they have no answer.

the argument has changed from control to confiscation...all thanks to Hillary.

They reacted like Vampires to sunlight over the last couple articles I posted there debunking their gun grabber crap. 

[docstew]

Apparently, none of these mental midgets remember that the Redcoat mission that led to the Shot Heard Round The World was to CONFISCATE GUNS. You would think the smarterest people on the planet would remember these details...

[txradioguy]

Apparently, none of these mental midgets remember that the Redcoat mission that led to the Shot Heard Round The World was to CONFISCATE GUNS. You would think the smarterest people on the planet would remember these details...

The DUmmies would have been on the side of the British.

[Carl]

The DUmmies would have been on the side of the British.

In every sense,all DUmbasses would need is a promise to be taken care of by the Crown and Washington,Jefferson etc would have been strung up in a moment.