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.

 

[g5000]

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?

Do you think a fraud and money laundering operation should be excluded from a program to stop fraud and money laundering just because they sell guns?

Man, that would be seriously retarded. You aren't seriously retarded, are you? Please tell us you are just a parroting creduloid who doesn't investigate the facts and not a seriously retarded person.

 

[g5000]

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.

So you thought repeating the out of context remark would somehow undo the full context I provided?

 

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, the gun-rights-hating fanatics are trying desperately to shout, "No, no! She didn't really mean that! She meant, um, ah, something else!!!" Followed by frantic scrabbling to figure what else she might have meant.

Aren't these people a blast to watch?

Hell hath no fury like a bunch of leftist fanatics suddenly seeing their cherished ideas disproven and dying by the roadside.

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, the gun-rights-hating fanatics are trying desperately to shout, "No, no! She didn't really mean that! She meant, um, ah, something else!!!" Followed by frantic scrabbling to figure what else she might have meant.

Aren't these people a blast to watch?

Of course Hillary meant every word

If you think the Obama gun confiscations were bad......wait till you see Hillary

 

[g5000]

As usual, the gun-rights-hating fanatics are trying desperately to shout, "No, no! She didn't really mean that! She meant, um, ah, something else!!!" Followed by frantic scrabbling to figure what else she might have meant.

Aren't these people a blast to watch?

Hell hath no fury like a bunch of leftist fanatics suddenly seeing their cherished ideas disproven and dying by the roadside.

What makes you think I am a "gun-rights-hating fanatic"? I am pro gun.

Did you know it is possible to be a gun rights supporter AND a person who prefers the truth over bullshit?

Yeah. Go figure.


So you go ahead and invent some bullshit, and then spend your time ranting and raving and fighting against the shit you made up. Meanwhile, the liberals will get the policies they want enacted because you rubes are over in the corner punching at shadows and building straw men.

That is EXACTLY how we ended up with ObamaCare. Will you rubes never fucking learn?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

Hahahahaaa.....Let the right wing paranoia begin.
Your echo chamber is going to get a lot noisier the next few months as the GOP tries to pick the crow feathers out of Trump's mouth, since he won't. Congrats.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

It's a good thing liberals never fear monger.



you fucking idiotic partisan hacks just need to go away and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

As usual, the gun-rights-hating fanatics are trying desperately to shout, "No, no! She didn't really mean that! She meant, um, ah, something else!!!" Followed by frantic scrabbling to figure what else she might have meant.

Aren't these people a blast to watch?

Of course Hillary meant every word

If you think the Obama gun confiscations were bad......wait till you see Hillary

Can I still say LMAO?

 

[g5000]

If you think the Obama gun confiscations were bad......wait till you see Hillary

The rubes are going to go bankrupt buying more guns for Hillary to confiscate.

These fucking idiots have caused the prices of weapons to skyrocket. I have a special hatred for them.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

It's a good thing liberals never fear monger.



you fucking idiotic partisan hacks just need to go away and leave the rest of us alone.

We would if we could get you rightwing fringe freaks out of our bedrooms and bathroom cabinets.

 

[rightwinger]

If you think the Obama gun confiscations were bad......wait till you see Hillary

The rubes are going to go bankrupt buying more guns for Hillary to confiscate.

These fucking idiots have caused the prices of weapons to skyrocket. I have a special hatred for them.

I laughed when their hording drove up the price of ammunition because they read on the interwebs that Obama was going to confiscate it

 

[g5000]

I see these special idiots at gun shows. Buying bogus survivalist shit, spending fortunes on body armor, ranting about darkies in the wire, zapping each other with stun guns.

Fucking herd mentality dumbasses.

 

[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?

Do you think a fraud and money laundering operation should be excluded from a program to stop fraud and money laundering just because they sell guns?

Man, that would be seriously retarded. You aren't seriously retarded, are you? Please tell us you are just a parroting creduloid who doesn't investigate the facts and not a seriously retarded person.

If business is part of illegal fraud and money laundering, the the people involved should be arrested and prosecuted.
Selling guns does not make a business a money laundering operation,but selling guns does make it a target for Operation Choke Point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive will grab guns through SCOTUS.

Please fucking learn that already

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone who turns in a gun will receive one of these personally autographed by Hillary

 

[g5000]

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?

Do you think a fraud and money laundering operation should be excluded from a program to stop fraud and money laundering just because they sell guns?

Man, that would be seriously retarded. You aren't seriously retarded, are you? Please tell us you are just a parroting creduloid who doesn't investigate the facts and not a seriously retarded person.

If business is part of illegal fraud and money laundering, the the people involved should be arrested and prosecuted.

And so the government should gather evidence against them, right?

In like, say, an operation? Like, say, an operation called Operation Choke Point?

Hmmm...that's brilliant!

Selling guns does not make a business a money laundering operation,but selling guns does make it a target for Operation Choke Point.

Nope. Money laundering makes it a target for Operation Choke Point.

Duh!

Not all gun sellers were targeted, and not all those targeted were gun sellers. In fact, most of them were payday lenders and companies that process credit and debit card transactions.

So I guess we're going to have to come down on the "seriously retarded" verdict in your case. That's a damn shame.

 

[HenryBHough]

Hey, this is Obama's post-constitutional America so wot's to slow her down, let alone stop her? Provided, of course, a majority of American voters are patriotically suicidal.

 

[JoeMoma]

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?

Do you think a fraud and money laundering operation should be excluded from a program to stop fraud and money laundering just because they sell guns?

Man, that would be seriously retarded. You aren't seriously retarded, are you? Please tell us you are just a parroting creduloid who doesn't investigate the facts and not a seriously retarded person.

If business is part of illegal fraud and money laundering, the the people involved should be arrested and prosecuted.

In like, say, an operation? Like, say, an operation called Operation Choke Point?

Hmmm...that's brilliant!

Selling guns does not make a business a money laundering operation,but selling guns does make it a target for Operation Choke Point.

Nope. Money laundering makes it a target for Operation Choke Point.

Duh!

You don't know what operation choke point did.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Not possible...Obama took all the guns...as we were warned about for years.