Hillary Gun Confiscation Plan: "Like Cash For Clunkers"

[CrusaderFrank]

Hopefully, Hillary's protective detail will take the cash

 

[Stephanie]

I wonder if she knows she is done for because of this investigations, so she figured she has nothing to LOSE. but this gives you a good glimpse into her wicked mind and how she doesn't care one bit about our rights or Constitution

 

[Stephanie]

 

[percysunshine]

Hillary Clinton: Gun Confiscation Would Be Like A Government ‘Cash For Clunkers’

Hillary Clinton: Gun Confiscation Would Be Like A Government 'Cash For Clunkers' - Breitbart

"Clinton noted Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” car buyback program as a good example for gun control."

Hillary went on to cite Australia's and Canada's 'Buy Back' Program.

Yeah, the people Obama / Hillary call 'nuts' who 'cling to their guns and religion' are only clinging to those guns because they are waiting for Liberals like her to 'buy them back'!



Dear Hillary, every time a Liberal like you or Obama mention 'gun control' gun sales go through the roof!

I forgot about 'cash for clunkers'. The pinnacle of failure of Governance. It provided a subsidy for people to buy a new car in a specific date window. Individual car buyers, not being stupid, either accelerated or delayed their purchase decision so that they could get the subsidy to carry out a purchase decision they had already made. There was a boost in new car sales for a couple months, and then a deficit in new car sales for the following months. The end result was that no more new cars were bought than would have been bought without the program. It was just a random money transfer out of the national treasury.

Our elected officials are morons....but we elected them.

.

 

[2aguy]

A lot of cities have already implemented programs like this. They've been doing it for the past 30 years.

ETA: I've never looked into whether or not such domestic programs were efficacious against violent crime. Finding objective studies about guns is hard enough as it is.

Australia is claiming success, though.

No, they aren't. They get crime guns gangs are trying to get rid of and old junk mostly....

 

[2aguy]

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

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

Ask the people who have their homes Eminent Domained against their will.....

 

[2aguy]

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

How much does someone pay when they confiscate something?

A compulsory buyback program is confiscation, no matter how you slice it.

The Australian Constitution does not allow the government to confiscate private property without compensation. So they spent about 600 million Australian bucks on the compulsory buyback program.

They also had to compensate all the gun dealers who were put out of business. Not sure how much that cost.

And reports now say they have just as many guns in the country now as they did before the confiscation...

 

[2aguy]

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!"

If she becomes President she will probably be appointing 2 or more judges and the pro gun rights decisions were decided by only by a one judge difference.....and gun control will be a litmus test for any of her candidates....

 

[Stephanie]

WHY does Hillary have SS protection? She's only a politician like the rest of them.

Because she was MARRIED to a President she has full SS PROTECTIONS so what does she care if you don't have those same protection.
wake up to this Progressive/Democrat party. they tried to tell us they didn't want to take our guns. we told you they were LYING to you. now you see it right in your face. no to this party come 2016
WHY are these politicians MORE SPECIAL than the rest of us?

 

[rdean]

Hillary Clinton: Gun Confiscation Would Be Like A Government ‘Cash For Clunkers’

Hillary Clinton: Gun Confiscation Would Be Like A Government 'Cash For Clunkers' - Breitbart

"Clinton noted Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” car buyback program as a good example for gun control."

Hillary went on to cite Australia's and Canada's 'Buy Back' Program.

Yeah, the people Obama / Hillary call 'nuts' who 'cling to their guns and religion' are only clinging to those guns because they are waiting for Liberals like her to 'buy them back'!



Dear Hillary, every time a Liberal like you or Obama mention 'gun control' gun sales go through the roof!

Oh no. Another GOP conspiracy as ridiculous as Fast and Furious.

Here's a novel thought. Perhaps the GOP could run on policy.

 

[2aguy]

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

We don't have a gun violence problem...tiny areas in our major cities have gun violence problems but the rest of the country is just fine. in a country of over 320 million people we only had 8,124 gun murders in 2014.......that doesn't even register as a percent of the population.....compared to all the other ways people die, car accidents, falls, poisoning, fire, drowing.....it doesn't even come close to a real problem.

And then there is the positive side of the ledger.....bill clinton had his Department of Justice conduct research into the self defense use of guns, in order to debunk the Dr. Gary Kleck study. They hired to rabidly anti gun researchers to create the study and execute it......what did they find....

Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives.


8,124 gun murders committed by people breaking the law.

1.5 million times a year law abiding, normal gun owners use guns to stop crime.

And we now have 13 million people carrying guns for self defense....and our gun murder rate went down again, not up. And our gun accidental death rate went down and in 2013 only 505 people died in gun accidents..

So in reality, we do not have a gun crime problem......we have a criminal problem, because we don't sentence violent offenders to long prison sentences.

 

[2aguy]

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 .

The dynamic is, the city says they want your land...so you have no one else who is going to buy that land from you...so the value of your land crashes.......and they pay you that.

 

[2aguy]

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.

.

And their gun crime was going down before Port Arthur.....and is now going back up after the confiscation...and they have had gun crime the entire time, along with 3 mass public shootings you never hear about.

We now have over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense, and our gun crime rate is going down, not up. We have over 320 million guns in private hands and our gun crime rate is going down, not up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont see anything wrong with it as long as it isn't mandatory

Its using taxpayer money on a program that will not succeed. Cash for Clunkers was another failed Obama program btw.

An HONEST government that was NOT afraid of its people would be GIVING them guns.

So we should be putting more guns into the inner cities?

 

[2aguy]

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
.

It is 2015.....and their gun crime is starting to go up.....

 

[2aguy]

I dont see anything wrong with it as long as it isn't mandatory

Its using taxpayer money on a program that will not succeed. Cash for Clunkers was another failed Obama program btw.

An HONEST government that was NOT afraid of its people would be GIVING them guns.

So we should be putting more guns into the inner cities?

Yes....we should allow normal people to have guns to protect themselves...the violent criminals already have them, only the good guys are unarmed.

 

[2aguy]

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.

.

And then there is the truth....

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

But at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea that Australia’s gun ban must be the reason for its decline in gun crime.

Violence Declined Stateside Without A Gun Ban
It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.

While Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often.
The Australian gun ban’s effect on suicide in the country isn’t any better. While Vox repeats the Harvard study’s claim that firearm-related suicides are down 57 percent in the aftermath of the ban, Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high. The Australian suicide prevention organization claims suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old. So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban.

 

[Stephanie]

So, we don't have a problem with any other VIOLENCE in this country?. it's just GUN violence they need to jump on fix. and the hell with the rest of the violence. Rapes, murders by knives (don't worry they'll come after your steak knives next) home invasions (just throw can goods at them that should protect your family) you'll all be sitting ducks for that . what do they care?

 

[Stephanie]

As we see. many people in this country is not equipped to live in a Free Country.
They can't take care of themselves and demands this government take care of them OVER the rest of us who want's our Freedoms. they are just as dangerous to us as those Politicians who are itching to take away our guns. then who do they (Politicians) have to answer to or have to worry about? they are FREE to do as they want TO US.

PEOPLE need to wake up

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

 

[2aguy]

As we see. many people in this country is not equipped to live in a Free Country.
They can't take care of themselves and demands this government take care of them OVER the rest of us who want's our Freedoms. they are just as dangerous to us as those Politicians who are itching to take away our guns. then who do they (Politicians) have to answer to or have to worry about? they are FREE to do as they want TO US.

PEOPLE need to wake up

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

Have you read Gun Control in the 3rd Reich.....it actually points out that the gun laws hitler used to disarm his political opponents began in the 1920s.....and he used the bureacracy created then and the files of gun owners to disarm his enemies.....