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

[bendog]

If Liberals really want to start another civil war in the U.S., go ahead - enact Gun Confiscation legislation then try to enforce it. Good luck with that.

No one wants to confiscate your guns. Climb down from the cross. It may well become illegal to own some rifles in less rural states. Not that it makes sense, but it's possible.

It was an absurd joke about an absurd OP, acorn. No one is coming for your guns. I'm looking for a hand gun for my daughter presently. Her first weapon, so all things being equal, imo, a revolver is easier to use and needs little maintenance. My arthritis prevents me from shooting anything over a 9mm or .38+p, but I've never tried a .40. I believe there are a few .40 cal revolvers, but I haven't looked in ten years.

Smith 40?
If so they have snappier recoil than does a 9 or .38...

Oh yeah. I knew a guy who had a .40 pistol. Lower recoil than a revolver. The 9mm still feels like nothing even with my hand. A .45 or .357 .... not a chance.

I guess I gotta go with a revolver for the kid. But Ruger has some products I was unfamiliar with. Sigh, I guess I gotta go to the .... dreaded gun store.

You set on a revolver?

Not for myself, but my 21 year old daughter has not owned a hand gun before, nor have I taken her shooting. She's moving out, and I think she should have a choice to own or not.

I had a case with a gangbanger hitman, whose pistol jammed once so in future assassinations he went revolver. When simplicity matters, go old school, imo.

I recommend this… Uber reliable, lightweight, reasonably priced.
Review: Ruger LCR 9mm - Lucky Gunner Lounge

Thanks. That answers a question.

 

[Rustic]

For the record I own 4 guns.

Buy more guns and ammo...

Stockholder?

Dealer

I can sell these all day long for $500...
Best-selling sporting rifle I've ever come across, I'm always out of stock it seems like...

Maybe I should get her one of those. She can bust targets all day. She could scare the hell out of Yankee candy ass boys.

The best $500 you can spend…

 

[bendog]

Buy more guns and ammo...

Stockholder?

Dealer

I can sell these all day long for $500...
Best-selling sporting rifle I've ever come across, I'm always out of stock it seems like...

Maybe I should get her one of those. She can bust targets all day. She could scare the hell out of Yankee candy ass boys.

The best $500 you can spend…

No doubt. I'm the only one I know who doesn't have one. I just never saw a reason for more than my 12gauge pump and my 9mm an .38. Of course, the natives may riot. And I nearly got run out of my lane into a semi by some guys who though the entrance ramp was lane for passing on the right on an interstate. We're not working with the a first world economy where I live.

 

[bendog]

If Liberals really want to start another civil war in the U.S., go ahead - enact Gun Confiscation legislation then try to enforce it. Good luck with that.

No one wants to confiscate your guns. Climb down from the cross. It may well become illegal to own some rifles in less rural states. Not that it makes sense, but it's possible.

It was an absurd joke about an absurd OP, acorn. No one is coming for your guns. I'm looking for a hand gun for my daughter presently. Her first weapon, so all things being equal, imo, a revolver is easier to use and needs little maintenance. My arthritis prevents me from shooting anything over a 9mm or .38+p, but I've never tried a .40. I believe there are a few .40 cal revolvers, but I haven't looked in ten years.

Smith 40?
If so they have snappier recoil than does a 9 or .38...

Oh yeah. I knew a guy who had a .40 pistol. Lower recoil than a revolver. The 9mm still feels like nothing even with my hand. A .45 or .357 .... not a chance.

I guess I gotta go with a revolver for the kid. But Ruger has some products I was unfamiliar with. Sigh, I guess I gotta go to the .... dreaded gun store.

You set on a revolver?

Not for myself, but my 21 year old daughter has not owned a hand gun before, nor have I taken her shooting. She's moving out, and I think she should have a choice to own or not.

I had a case with a gangbanger hitman, whose pistol jammed once so in future assassinations he went revolver. When simplicity matters, go old school, imo.

I recommend this… Uber reliable, lightweight, reasonably priced.
Review: Ruger LCR 9mm - Lucky Gunner Lounge

Thanks again. I think maybe the LDR .357 only with 148 grain lead wad cutter, which is what I shoot from my old .38 snubby .. that fits in my front pants pocket. Thanks again. Years ago when I had more money I thought of a S&W 7 shot .357 with .38 low recoil. But a lot of money for two extra bullets, esp when my semi-auto has 11.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No one wants to confiscate your guns.

Hillary disagrees with you. Just last October, she praised Australia's forced confiscation of its subjects' guns, and said it was worth looking at for this country.

 

[rightwinger]

No one wants to confiscate your guns.

Hillary disagrees with you. Just last October, she praised Australia's forced confiscation of its subjects' guns, and said it was worth looking at for this country.

Come on mate....Hillary wants to buy your guns

What are you waiting for?

 

[Little-Acorn]

HILLARY has never said she wants to ban gun ownership .

Right. She's only praised countries that have done it, and suggested that it's worth looking at for this country.

 

[rightwinger]

HILLARY has never said she wants to ban gun ownership .

Right. She's only praised countries that have done it, and suggested that it's worth looking at for this country.

It is much worse than you think

Hillary will take your guns just like Obama did

 

[Geaux4it]

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!

He prevented Springfield Armory Garands from South Korea entering the US for sale to qualified buyers.

=====

Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles
Published September 01, 2010

A photo of M1 Garands (National Park Service)

The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.

Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles | Fox News

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

This also exhibits a fundamental ignorance of how the Federal government work, Congress enacts legislation, not presidents.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

She wouldn't be part of the legislature, so, no, probably not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Australia-style gun confiscation”

And here we see the ignorance of the law common to most on the right.

Congress would never enact legislation authorizing ‘gun confiscation.’

And even if such legislation were signed into law, it would be enjoined and subsequently invalidated by the courts.

Why?

Because it would violate the Second Amendment, whose current jurisprudence holds that there’s an individual right to possess a firearm.

Because it would violate the Fourth Amendment, whose current jurisprudence holds that searches and seizures of private property can only occur pursuant to a warrant – since a law authorizing ‘confiscation’ is un-Constitutional, no such warrant would be issued, and absent a warrant, no guns sought for, and no guns ‘confiscated.’

And because it would violate the Fifth Amendment, whose current jurisprudence holds that citizens are entitle to due process and just compensation when private property is taken by government – that means 300 million separate hearings would need to be held to afford citizens their right to due process, and just compensation with regard to each firearm ‘taken,’ a process so ridiculously burdensome that it would de facto preclude ‘confiscation.’

Which leaves only the usual stupidity and demagoguery common to most on the right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

But as pointed out: ‘gun confiscation’ is un-Constitutional and consequently will never happen, rendering your thread premise a lie and straw man fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

Another lie.

 

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

Wrong.

Another lie.

That is a don't know shit fallacy.

‘Operation Choke Point’ forces bank to dump gun store
Many more examples can be found for those that search.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary indicated she would consider some type of gun buyback

To Conservatives this means....Hillary is going to take your guns

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hillary indicated she would consider some type of gun buyback

To Conservatives this means....Hillary is going to take your guns

Hillary specifically referred to Australia's so-called "buyback"... which in reality was govt-forced confiscation.

This has been pointed out to little wightringer several times in this thread alone, but he continues to pretend he doesn't know it.

Could it be that he is accusing the wrong person of lying?

 

[Little-Acorn]

But as pointed out: ‘gun confiscation’ is un-Constitutional and consequently will never happen

(yawn)

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1

by Madison Wade
POSTED: 6:17 PM Dec 31 2015
UPDATED: 8:18 PM Dec 31 2015

REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.

It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

Before the shooting, the suspect uploaded a video to YouTube discussing his plans as well as a 107,000 word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.

The new law will allow family members who believe someone may be violent to apply for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order."

The law isn't sitting well with gun owners.

"I don't think it's a good law," said Ray Abernathy, a longtime Redding Gun Club member.

Abernathy said the law has good intentions, but he's worried about people taking advantage of it. He believes people who are irritated will use the law against other family members.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary indicated she would consider some type of gun buyback

To Conservatives this means....Hillary is going to take your guns

Hillary specifically referred to Australia's so-called "buyback"... which in reality was govt-forced confiscation.

This has been pointed out to little wightringer several times in this thread alone, but he continues to pretend he doesn't know it.

Could it be that he is accusing the wrong person of lying?

As you well know, Hillary cannot force confiscation.
She can constitutionally buy back weapons and remove them from circulation

Ready to sell?

 

[rightwinger]

But as pointed out: ‘gun confiscation’ is un-Constitutional and consequently will never happen

(yawn)

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1

by Madison Wade
POSTED: 6:17 PM Dec 31 2015
UPDATED: 8:18 PM Dec 31 2015

REDDING, Calif. -
A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.

It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

Before the shooting, the suspect uploaded a video to YouTube discussing his plans as well as a 107,000 word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.

The new law will allow family members who believe someone may be violent to apply for a "Gun Violence Restraining Order."

The law isn't sitting well with gun owners.

"I don't think it's a good law," said Ray Abernathy, a longtime Redding Gun Club member.

Abernathy said the law has good intentions, but he's worried about people taking advantage of it. He believes people who are irritated will use the law against other family members.

A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.

About time...