Hillary Gun Confiscation Plan: "Like Cash For Clunkers"

[RetiredGySgt]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Sorry when it is MANDATORY it IS confiscation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Sorry when it is MANDATORY it IS confiscation.

I agree, but its not

 

[DarkFury]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Rather than spend taxpayer money on buying back guns, better to spend taxpayer money in prosecuting those that have use them illegally.

Fixed it for you.

Under the Second Amendment, one cannot have a gun illegally, unless that gun is stolen from someone else, in which case, the crime is not being in possession of a gun, but being in possession of stolen property. Everywhere that government acts against the right of free citizens to possess arms, it is government that is acting illegally.

On the other hand, using a gun to commit a crime that involves genuinely and unjustifiably violating the rights or safety of another person is rightfully illegal, and that is where government has the legitimate authority to use taxpayers' resources to arrest and prosecute the criminal.

It is an unacceptable abuse of taxpayer resources to use these resources to deter citizens from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights. In fact, such abuse clearly constitutes malfeasance, and ought to result in any public servant who engages in it facing criminal prosecution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is only one way our government could have a compulsory gun buyback program like Australia or ban private ownership of handguns like the UK. We would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

That would be the only legitimate way that it could happen. But then that would also be the only legitimate way that any gun control laws could be allowed to be enacted and enforced. We, the American people, have already very foolishly allowed our public servants great latitude at openly disobeying the Second Amendment. What reason do you think we have to expect that if sufficient numbers of politicians attain office who are in favor of this compulsory buyback/confiscation, that it will not happen in spite of the Second Amendment?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

If it's mandatory, it's confiscation.

Of course, there's nothing to worry about. Should something ever by insane machinations get through Congress, not even Democrat gun owners would comply.

 

[g5000]

There is only one way our government could have a compulsory gun buyback program like Australia or ban private ownership of handguns like the UK. We would have to repeal the Second Amendment.

That would be the only legitimate way that it could happen. But then that would also be the only legitimate way that any gun control laws could be allowed to be enacted and enforced. We, the American people, have already very foolishly allowed our public servants great latitude at openly disobeying the Second Amendment. What reason do you think we have to expect that if sufficient numbers of politicians attain office who are in favor of this compulsory buyback/confiscation, that it will not happen in spite of the Second Amendment?

The Supreme Court would strike down a compulsory buyback program quicker than you can say, "From my dead, cold hands!"

 

[Timmy]

Jeebuz Christo , are u gun nuts so far gone that U can't comprehend that the US has a problem with gun violence!?

 

[Timmy]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Oh you mean when the city takes part of your land and pays dimes on the dollar? Public condemnation VS Public confiscation?
SAME THING.

Making shit up .

If a city is using Eminent domaine they have to pay fair value .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Supreme Court would strike down a compulsory buyback program quicker than you can say, "From my dead, cold hands!"

If the Supreme Court could be trusted to draw the line there, then it could have been trusted to draw the line at plenty of other points, where it has willfully failed to do so.

 

[Star]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Oh you mean when the city takes part of your land and pays dimes on the dollar? Public condemnation VS Public confiscation?
SAME THING.

Making shit up .

If a city is using Eminent domaine they have to pay fair value .

Speaking of making shit up, the Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are just making stuff up again. Below is the transcript of Hillary's answer to a voter's question; The words the pencil-dicks at the NRA/Republicans/rightwingers --"mandatory, confiscation, compulsory"-- attribute to Hillary aren't in the transcript - imagine that...
...OK, OK, enough rightwing imagination, here's the transcript...

http://townhall.com

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. [Applause]

Australia’s gun laws are worth considering? Let’s consult the Law Library of Congress [emphasis mine]:


In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

[…]

Alongside legislative reforms to implement the National Firearms Agreement, a national buyback program for prohibited weapons took place in 1996-1997 and resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered. Further reforms were later implemented as a result of agreements made in 2002 on firearms trafficking and handguns, as was a national buyback of newly prohibited handguns and associated parts.

Australia's gun control laws are nutshelled below;

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

The efficacy of the above program (in Australia) is a 50% decrease in gun crime.
Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are ridiculous.

.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Fuck Yeah!!!! Guns for everybody!!!​

 

[DarkFury]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Oh you mean when the city takes part of your land and pays dimes on the dollar? Public condemnation VS Public confiscation?
SAME THING.

Making shit up .

If a city is using Eminent domaine they have to pay fair value .

Speaking of making shit up, the Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are just making stuff up again. Below is the transcript of Hillary's answer to a voter's question; The words the pencil-dicks at the NRA/Republicans/rightwingers --"mandatory, confiscation, compulsory"-- attribute to Hillary aren't in the transcript - imagine that...
...OK, OK, enough rightwing imagination, here's the transcript...

http://townhall.com

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. [Applause]

Australia’s gun laws are worth considering? Let’s consult the Law Library of Congress [emphasis mine]:


In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

[…]

Alongside legislative reforms to implement the National Firearms Agreement, a national buyback program for prohibited weapons took place in 1996-1997 and resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered. Further reforms were later implemented as a result of agreements made in 2002 on firearms trafficking and handguns, as was a national buyback of newly prohibited handguns and associated parts.

Australia's gun control laws are nutshelled below;

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

The efficacy of the above program (in Australia) is a 50% decrease in gun crime.
Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are ridiculous.

.

There is an INCREASE of gun crime since the MANDATORY buy back. AN INCREASE IDIOT! News cast from there AFTER the buy back. IDIOT.

 

[DarkFury]

 

[Star]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Oh you mean when the city takes part of your land and pays dimes on the dollar? Public condemnation VS Public confiscation?
SAME THING.

Making shit up .

If a city is using Eminent domaine they have to pay fair value .

Speaking of making shit up, the Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are just making stuff up again. Below is the transcript of Hillary's answer to a voter's question; The words the pencil-dicks at the NRA/Republicans/rightwingers --"mandatory, confiscation, compulsory"-- attribute to Hillary aren't in the transcript - imagine that...
...OK, OK, enough rightwing imagination, here's the transcript...

http://townhall.com

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. [Applause]

Australia’s gun laws are worth considering? Let’s consult the Law Library of Congress [emphasis mine]:


In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

[…]

Alongside legislative reforms to implement the National Firearms Agreement, a national buyback program for prohibited weapons took place in 1996-1997 and resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered. Further reforms were later implemented as a result of agreements made in 2002 on firearms trafficking and handguns, as was a national buyback of newly prohibited handguns and associated parts.

Australia's gun control laws are nutshelled below;

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

The efficacy of the above program (in Australia) is a 50% decrease in gun crime.
Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are ridiculous.

.

There is an INCREASE of gun crime since the MANDATORY buy back. AN INCREASE IDIOT! News cast from there AFTER the buy back. IDIOT.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?
But you can have a little bit of a pass if you want it, snopes debunks what you're trying to say, but Snopes says there are a lot of "misleading" stories about the efficacy of Australia's gun laws.
The below is from factcheck.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point.

And just to back-up factcheck's research, the below is from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php The Library of Congress.

A large amount of information and analysis is available regarding the number of firearms in Australia and their use in crimes or incidents resulting in death. The most recent relevant report of the Australian Institute of Criminology states that the “number of victims of firearm-perpetrated homicide (i.e. murder and manslaughter) has declined by half between 1989–90 and 2009–10 from 24 to 12 percent.”

But just to be clear, what happens in Australia stays in Australia, almost no one in America wants to stop you from owning gun(s) unless you're a criminal or have certain mental issues...umm
.

 

[DarkFury]

Someone is playing hard and fast with the definition of "confiscate"

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Oh you mean when the city takes part of your land and pays dimes on the dollar? Public condemnation VS Public confiscation?
SAME THING.

Making shit up .

If a city is using Eminent domaine they have to pay fair value .

Speaking of making shit up, the Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are just making stuff up again. Below is the transcript of Hillary's answer to a voter's question; The words the pencil-dicks at the NRA/Republicans/rightwingers --"mandatory, confiscation, compulsory"-- attribute to Hillary aren't in the transcript - imagine that...
...OK, OK, enough rightwing imagination, here's the transcript...

http://townhall.com

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. [Applause]

Australia’s gun laws are worth considering? Let’s consult the Law Library of Congress [emphasis mine]:


In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

[…]

Alongside legislative reforms to implement the National Firearms Agreement, a national buyback program for prohibited weapons took place in 1996-1997 and resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered. Further reforms were later implemented as a result of agreements made in 2002 on firearms trafficking and handguns, as was a national buyback of newly prohibited handguns and associated parts.

Australia's gun control laws are nutshelled below;

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

The efficacy of the above program (in Australia) is a 50% decrease in gun crime.
Republicans/rightwingers/NRAduped are ridiculous.

.

There is an INCREASE of gun crime since the MANDATORY buy back. AN INCREASE IDIOT! News cast from there AFTER the buy back. IDIOT.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?
But you can have a little bit of a pass if you want it, snopes debunks what you're trying to say, but Snopes says there are a lot of "misleading" stories about the efficacy of Australia's gun laws.
The below is from factcheck.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point.

And just to back-up factcheck's research, the below is from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php The Library of Congress.

A large amount of information and analysis is available regarding the number of firearms in Australia and their use in crimes or incidents resulting in death. The most recent relevant report of the Australian Institute of Criminology states that the “number of victims of firearm-perpetrated homicide (i.e. murder and manslaughter) has declined by half between 1989–90 and 2009–10 from 24 to 12 percent.”

But just to be clear, what happens in Australia stays in Australia, almost no one in America wants to stop you from owning gun(s) unless you're a criminal or have certain mental issues...umm
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rather than spend taxpayer money on buying back guns, better to spend taxpayer money in prosecuting those that have them illegally.

Or prosecuting those that sell them illegally?

Oh wait, you're against all background check laws, so that's a problem...

 

[eagle1462010]

Sounds like a business opportunity.................if they offer enough money per gun.......

buy a bunch of cheap worthless guns and sell them to the Gov't for 3 times the cost........

LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this.........................Will she also offer to buy back the weapons in the FAST AND FURIOUS deal........................

I'm sure they'll sell them back to her...................

LOL

 

[Flash]

The stupid Australian plan was a mandatory buy back program that would be in direct violation the American Bill of Rights. The Heller decision pretty well established that the government couldn't do anything like that but that stupid bitch Clinton doesn't know it.

The stupid bitch should have learned from Bill Clinton losing the Democrat Congress majority after the 1994 Assault Weapons Bill (he said so himself) that oppressive gun control laws are not going to fly in the US.

Of course we all know that even the Hildabeast is not that stupid. She is simply appealing to the uneducated low information Gruberidiots that will believe anything she says.