Clinton suggests she'd consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ‘confiscation’

Here we go. Progressives are going to be Progressives. Anyone surprised?

www.foxnews.com...

Hillary Clinton said Friday that mandatory gun buy-back programs like ones in Australia are “worth looking into,” sparking criticism that the Democratic presidential front-runner would, if elected, impose gun-confiscation efforts.

Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” Clinton responded.

“This validates what the NRA has said all along,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”

Cox said Clinton’s comments echo recent ones by President Obama, making “very clear” that the underlying goal of gun-control advocates is confiscation.

The issue of tighter gun control and targeting the NRA as leading efforts to keep Congress from passing laws on firearms and background checks resurfaced earlier this month, after a gunman killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Rosenburg, Oregon.

The NRA also says that Clinton believes that the Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self-defense. The group made the argument in part based on a purported audiotape obtained The Washington Beacon in which Clinton says, “And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

"Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it," Cox said. "The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment.

"A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," he added. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people."

If Hillary or another democrat become president next cycle, I know that the American election system has been corrupted and I will no longer be a citizen of a wannabe tyrant country.

Terrible title sparks fear, whos scared, wheres the sparks, just the tittle and coming from fox news you know its based in lies and propaganda.

Shes pandering to her voters like the right does by saying there going to make abortion illegal, good thing you guys already knew that right.

never going to happen, and they know it

They would have civil war , plain and simple........

They will try other avenues first, like trying to restrict ammo purchases etc

but they will never ever ever, get as far as "mandatory buy backs" or any sort of confiscation, would cause too much bloodshed

a reply to: infolurker

Mandatory gun buybacks? If it's mandatory then it's the same as confiscation.

Crazy how someone who continuously skirts the law, would just love to turn her constituents into criminals.

Once she's fine with walking around without armed security, I'll believe that gun control works.

a reply to: infolurker

Oh good, I hope she keeps pushing this agenda because it will assure her she won't get many votes.

a reply to: infolurker

Yeah I'm not sure what she's thinking here. I'm guessing her advisors gauged the reaction to Bernie's rather reasonable views on the 2nd amendment and figured that going the opposite direction with it will garner some favor.

I don't dislike Clinton but it is frustrating to see how directly and immediately her focus changes based on polling.

The existing cash-for-guns buy back schemes are big business in the US

So for Hillary to start spewing her government sanctioned gun grab rhetoric should indeed be setting off alarm bells to all US citizens irrespective of your stance on this particular subject because this is further evidence, as I have been saying for a long time, that these dynastic bloodline career politicians want to erode the constitution, one comment at a time and if they don't want to respect one part of the constitution then they actually don't respect any of it.

Death by a thousand cuts folks - one little cut at a time.



Mod Note: It is against the ATS Terms and Conditions to alter political candidates names or party affiliations.

You are completely correct and I agree wholeheartedly.

I do not think for myself so that is all I have to offer here....

a reply to: infolurker

Of course she wants to take the guns. Dictators always want to take the guns, so they have defenseless targets. History shows this, time and time again, yet some people still support gun control.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: infolurker

Of course she wants to take the guns. Dictators always want to take the guns, so they have defenseless targets. History shows this, time and time again, yet some people still support gun control.

Please show where history shows this? Oh right...you can't.

Unless you mean that despotic regime in Australia.

The CNN site agrees she mentioned it but she doesn't support it.

Either way talking about it will help her with this:

. It was announced Friday that she is scheduled to receive an award from a leading gun control group, the Brady Center, next month.

CrapNN

She also counters that Bernie is not strict enough. Good, keep on Hillary, chase your voters off

originally posted by: Logman

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: infolurker

Of course she wants to take the guns. Dictators always want to take the guns, so they have defenseless targets. History shows this, time and time again, yet some people still support gun control.

Please show where history shows this? Oh right...you can't.

Unless you mean that despotic regime in Australia.

Oh, you can show it just search history "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, gun control". The progressive leaning sources say otherwise(not true, etc,etc), guess that's the reference of can't?

originally posted by: Logman

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: infolurker

Of course she wants to take the guns. Dictators always want to take the guns, so they have defenseless targets. History shows this, time and time again, yet some people still support gun control.

Please show where history shows this? Oh right...you can't.

Unless you mean that despotic regime in Australia.

Good gosh man you might want to read a little written history. Everyone since before Alexander the great who has been conquered had their weapons removed. That very act removes any possibility of arguments "of a serious kind".

Step a few thousand years forward and read up on why in the states there is a second amendment;......... King George's generals implemented gun confiscation policies - a primary reason behind the adoption of the Second Amendment by the founding fathers...it was such a big deal (they were smart in a worldly sort of way) that guns were placed in the constitution and the right to bear arms would not be infringed.

Read up on the Soviet Union starting a little after 1929 and what happen after the guns were taken.. or The Ottoman Empire around 1911 and after they got the guns an a little over 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered..

Even our old buddy Hitler said something like, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms and enable or allow the seeds of our own destruction or power base". Kinda close but not exact quote.. Intent was darn sure the same.

China in a rather smart move instituted gun control around 1935 or close to two years before the Japanese invasion... If the war was not bad enough Mao exterminated about 20 million plus.. He also said something like "all power comes from the barrel of a gun"..

Cambodia's killing fields are not some made up bed time story. Over a million educated people were executed simply because Pol Pot knew they wouldn't buy his line of Bull Sh*t. Oh they took the guns away in the late 50s early 60s.

It is really simple if you are a despot and want to continue to brutalize your own people or your latest conquest ..... stay in power by disarming them.

If your goal is to continue to brutalize people and stay in power, then by all means disarm them.

As far as I am concerned when the gang bangers and Mexican cartels disarm then we can execute them...

Notice how the government always wants the rifles or what they call assault rifles... Hand guns kill far more people than any other fire arm... But even the government knows you don't take a pistol to a rifle fight.

I realize all this typing is lost on many.. They have no sense of history or think, "it can't happen ever again and especially here"..

With all the federal agencies getting serious weapons and police departments every where getting military grade armor and weapons... Naw what is there to worry about..

A president who says he can legally kill anyone anywhere, US citizen or not, without a day in court or legal representation ... Sure everything is just the way it should be.... except there are a few pesky vets and others who would say "come and get them Bubba".

No problem, drone the crap out of them from a safe altitude.. Same result as having them on their knees and putting a bullet in the brains the old fashion way or in some work camp working and starving them to death... cleaner for the ones doing the killing and less of a hassle recruiting guards.

TPTB have already legally in their own minds been able to erode the first and fourth amendments ... The second is a big deal to many...... because they know a little history..



Plenty of road maps on how they get the guns and I have no doubt the true despots will never give up trying..
youtu.be...

Never owned a gun......is it a good feeling?

Well...about 32,000 people per year die of gunshots in the US.
About 35,000 per year die of car accidents in the US.
About 44,000 per year die of suicide in the US. about half via gunshot.

Maybe the new Prez should...ban cars first...then ban people.....who own/obtain guns.??

But not ban guns.........

originally posted by: gort51
Never owned a gun......is it a good feeling?

Well...about 32,000 people per year die of gunshots in the US.
About 35,000 per year die of car accidents in the US.
About 44,000 per year die of suicide in the US. about half via gunshot.

Maybe the new Prez should...ban cars first...then ban people.....who own/obtain guns.??

But not ban guns.........

Yep and about 160,000 Plus die from prescribed drugs and medical screw-ups. Life has no guarantees ...

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA

do your own search plenty of statistics and articles..

Do you think we should lock all the doctors and hospital staff up.. ? They seem to be very good at killing people... Never mind all the lives they save... Kinda like guns no ?..

The reason I've started ignoring the gun grabber's political speeches is this : It's never going to happen. Well, maybe not "never" but it will be 100 years from now. For gun control to work on that level, you have to win the hearts and minds of gun owners. Make them want to give them up.....and that's not happening. They Will Not go door to door or pass some kind of "turn them in or go to jail" law, because there would be massive backlash. Imagine federal agents, police and military trying to confiscate weapons. Even if only 1/4 of U.S. gun owners decided to fight, there would be 10s of thousands dead and as soon as civilians starting being killed, an uprising like you can't imagine. No, they can give all the "We hate guns" speeches they want while trying to get elected, but in all honesty, it's nothing but that,,,,a speech trying to get votes. Don't get me wrong, they'd take them if they could.....but they can't.

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: Logman

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: infolurker

Of course she wants to take the guns. Dictators always want to take the guns, so they have defenseless targets. History shows this, time and time again, yet some people still support gun control.

Please show where history shows this? Oh right...you can't.

Unless you mean that despotic regime in Australia.

Good gosh man you might want to read a little written history. Everyone since before Alexander the great who has been conquered had their weapons removed. That very act removes any possibility of arguments "of a serious kind".

Step a few thousand years forward and read up on why in the states there is a second amendment;......... King George's generals implemented gun confiscation policies - a primary reason behind the adoption of the Second Amendment by the founding fathers...it was such a big deal (they were smart in a worldly sort of way) that guns were placed in the constitution and the right to bear arms would not be infringed.

Read up on the Soviet Union starting a little after 1929 and what happen after the guns were taken.. or The Ottoman Empire around 1911 and after they got the guns an a little over 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered..

Even our old buddy Hitler said something like, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms and enable or allow the seeds of our own destruction or power base". Kinda close but not exact quote.. Intent was darn sure the same.

China in a rather smart move instituted gun control around 1935 or close to two years before the Japanese invasion... If the war was not bad enough Mao exterminated about 20 million plus.. He also said something like "all power comes from the barrel of a gun"..

Cambodia's killing fields are not some made up bed time story. Over a million educated people were executed simply because Pol Pot knew they wouldn't buy his line of Bull Sh*t. Oh they took the guns away in the late 50s early 60s.

It is really simple if you are a despot and want to continue to brutalize your own people or your latest conquest ..... stay in power by disarming them.

If your goal is to continue to brutalize people and stay in power, then by all means disarm them.

As far as I am concerned when the gang bangers and Mexican cartels disarm then we can execute them...

Notice how the government always wants the rifles or what they call assault rifles... Hand guns kill far more people than any other fire arm... But even the government knows you don't take a pistol to a rifle fight.

I realize all this typing is lost on many.. They have no sense of history or think, "it can't happen ever again and especially here"..

With all the federal agencies getting serious weapons and police departments every where getting military grade armor and weapons... Naw what is there to worry about..

A president who says he can legally kill anyone anywhere, US citizen or not, without a day in court or legal representation ... Sure everything is just the way it should be.... except there are a few pesky vets and others who would say "come and get them Bubba".

No problem, drone the crap out of them from a safe altitude.. Same result as having them on their knees and putting a bullet in the brains the old fashion way or in some work camp working and starving them to death... cleaner for the ones doing the killing and less of a hassle recruiting guards.

TPTB have already legally in their own minds been able to erode the first and fourth amendments ... The second is a big deal to many...... because they know a little history..



Plenty of road maps on how they get the guns and I have no doubt the true despots will never give up trying..
youtu.be...

Great post and spot on.History repeats itself...star for you.

Eta:Great point on the 1st and 4th amendments. More of our rights are gonna be stripped. I am almost 50 and its a completely different America than when I was a young'un.

Just fear mongering.

She is just pandering for votes as there is no way to actually do this.

There is no way such a thing would ever pass through congress or get approval by the supreme court so its all a load of hot air to gain the vote of wishy washy librals who dont have the brain cells to think through how it could be applicated.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Just fear mongering.

She is just pandering for votes as there is no way to actually do this.

There is no way such a thing would ever pass through congress or get approval by the supreme court so its all a load of hot air to gain the vote of wishy washy librals who dont have the brain cells to think through how it could be applicated.

Well my British friend even though I no longer reside in States I do hope you are correct. Back many years ago I remember some of my Australian friends thinking it couldn't happen there either..