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

[Little-Acorn]

As you well know, Hillary cannot force confiscation.

Right. Neither can California.

(Oops)

She can constitutionally buy back weapons and remove them from circulation

Sure, with the consent of the owner. But here she is indicating approval of an Australian scheme that ignored the owner's consent, and took away the subject's gun whether he like it or not.

(As many times little wightringer pretends he didn't know this, I'll keep pointing it out to him again and again. Thanks for the opportunity! )

 

[Little-Acorn]

She can constitutionally buy back weapons and remove them from circulation

She cannot buy them back, since she never owned them initially.

These liberal fanatics are SO confused and bewildered.

 

[rightwinger]

She can constitutionally buy back weapons and remove them from circulation

She cannot buy them back, since she never owned them initially.

These liberal fanatics are SO confused and bewildered.

Conservatives get so wrapped up in minutia

 

[Little-Acorn]

She can constitutionally buy back weapons and remove them from circulation

She cannot buy them back, since she never owned them initially.

These liberal fanatics are SO confused and bewildered.

Conservatives get so wrapped up in minutia

TRANSLATION: Damn, they caught me at trying to pretend Australia's coerced gun confiscation was either a free exchange between gun owners and government, or something that government could do because the guns were once its property, instead of the deliberate, forced disarmament of the law-abiding populace it was.

Back to the subject:
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.