Would a President Hillary enact Australia-style gun confiscation as she recommended last October?

[Little-Acorn]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

 

[Syriusly]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

After two terms of predicting President Obama would seize your guns, I guess its only natural the right wing nut jobs would have to stop claiming President Obama is going to seize the guns and start claiming President Clinton will.

 

[g5000]

The "worth considering" remark has been taken out of context.

Clinton Praises Australian Gun Buyback Program

VOTER: Back to handguns. Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?

HILLARY CLINTON: Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20-25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.

In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.

Communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. You remember that? It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at.

 

[g5000]

Hillary said the community programs in the US would be worth considering doing at the national level. Not Australia's mandatory program. She did conflate the two, which suggests she was unaware Australia's program was mandatory.

The chicken littles screamed Obama was going to confiscate our guns.

He didn't.

But it's been a great marketing ploy for the gun manufacturers and retailers of America. I bet they are burning candles that Hillary gets elected so they can continue to reap big profits.

HILLAREEZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ! BUY MOAR!

 

[JoeMoma]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

After two terms of predicting President Obama would seize your guns, I guess its only natural the right wing nut jobs would have to stop claiming President Obama is going to seize the guns and start claiming President Clinton will.

He didn't because he did not have the power.

 

[g5000]

Even if Clinton wanted to confiscate our guns in a mandatory buyback program, she'd never be able to get such a plan passed in the US. Not matter how much she wanted to, and no matter how many more schoolkids get slaughtered.

 

[S.J.]

She would try but would not succeed. It doesn't matter anyway, she won't be the POTUS.

 

[JoeMoma]

She might try something similar to Operation Choke Point.

 

[rightwinger]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

I would plan on it

Hillary will confiscate any guns left over from the Great Obama Gun Confiscation of 2009-16

 

[NYcarbineer]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

After two terms of predicting President Obama would seize your guns, I guess its only natural the right wing nut jobs would have to stop claiming President Obama is going to seize the guns and start claiming President Clinton will.

They have to fearmonger about what isn't going to happen because the rightwing agenda in reality simply isn't as popular politically as the liberal agenda,

and that is the equation for losing presidential elections.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I doubt the OP even owns guns.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The "worth considering" remark has been taken out of context.

Nice try at dissembling.

But as I pointed out, she was clearly referring to Australia's so-called "buyback program" - government-forced gun confiscation.

 

[Syriusly]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

After two terms of predicting President Obama would seize your guns, I guess its only natural the right wing nut jobs would have to stop claiming President Obama is going to seize the guns and start claiming President Clinton will.

He didn't because he did not have the power.

He didn't because he never intended to. He never made any effort at all to grab your guns.

But the American gun industry sure does appreciate all of the fear mongering of the Right Wing- it was great for gun sales!

 

[Timmy]

Cities do gun buybacks all the time .

HILLARY has never said she wants to ban gun ownership . Right wing lies about everything.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, the President doesn't have the power to do that. Neither does Congress at this point. Oh they could pass a law but it would be challenged.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hillary said the community programs in the US would be worth considering doing at the national level. Not Australia's mandatory program. She did conflate the two, which suggests she was unaware Australia's program was mandatory.

It's hilarious to see the gun-rights-haters trying desperately to fool people into thinking Hillary didn't know the details of a gun confiscation program she chose to offer the U.S.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, the President doesn't have the power to do that. Neither does Congress at this point. Oh they could pass a law but it would be challenged.

They don't have the authority to enact ANY restrictions on owning or carrying guns. But that hasn't stopped them from doing it anyway.

Nor will it stop them from trying even more unconstitutional legislation in the future.

 

[g5000]

The "worth considering" remark has been taken out of context.

Nice try at dissembling.

It's called "fact checking", dumbass.

But as I pointed out, she was clearly referring to Australia's so-called "buyback program" - government-forced gun confiscation.

Nope. She was referring to domestic community buyback programs.

"Communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged."

So go ahead and name a mandatory buyback program done at the community level in our country.

When Clinton said communities in our country "have done that", she probably didn't know Australia's program was mandatory. But she clearly meant we should do on the national level what has already been done on the community level here in the US.

 

[JoeMoma]

Last October, Hillary praised Australia's gun confiscation program, and said it would be worth taking a look at for this country.

In 1996 Australia passed laws requiring its subjects to turn in their guns. Though the government tried to disguise what they were doing by calling it a "purchase" or a "buyback program", the subject had no choice in the matter. People who didn't want to turn in their gun, faced fines or imprisonment, and lost their gun anyway. And it was hardly a "purchase", which implies that the "seller" was a willing participant. If he's being forced to give up his property against his will, it's either confiscation or theft, regardless of the thief sticking money in his pocket afterward.

And calling it a "buyback program", is even more disingenuous, implying that the government owned the gun in the past and thus had some right to it.

Last October, Hillary said that such a program is "worth considering" in the U.S. She carefully didn't mention that the 2nd amendment flatly forbids such a thing.

If she becomes President, is there any reason to believe she won't do what she said she wanted to do? Lying and illegality has never bothered her before, why would they now?

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

by Bradford Richardson
October 16, 2015, 02:46 pm

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

After two terms of predicting President Obama would seize your guns, I guess its only natural the right wing nut jobs would have to stop claiming President Obama is going to seize the guns and start claiming President Clinton will.

He didn't because he did not have the power.

He didn't because he never intended to. He never made any effort at all to grab your guns.

But the American gun industry sure does appreciate all of the fear mongering of the Right Wing- it was great for gun sales!

Why were gun businesses on the hit list of Operation Choke Point if Obama isn't anti-gun?

 

[g5000]

Clinton would not succeed in getting a mandatory buyback program, but she might be able to succeed in getting a national buyback program that is like the ones we have had all over the US on the local level.