It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:35 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

This would be shot down in the courts (pun intended) before the ink were dry on any potential Executive Order.

She is just doing more of her imbecilic pandering shtick.

This court maybe, but how old is Scalia? Lose just one justice and let Obama appoint one, and the balance of power changes.

And then what?

With 300 million odd guns how would confiscation work?

Why even bother with the effort?

Dont see how there is anything to worry about as it wont work as long as the majority are against this it wont work with out causeing a # storm.

I would spend less time fretting over your guns which are not going anywhere and spend more time getting back the right they have been stripping from you.

Honnestly this gun grabbing talk from your politicians i think just a diversion to keep the public riled up and attention focused elsewere while they attack the rights they most want gone.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:38 PM
How can she swear to serve the Constitution and then promise to violate it when in office?

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:07 PM
a reply to: infolurker

Just for anyone that actually wants to start with NON-FOX BS..

And no...she was talking about buy-backs...not confiscation.

edit on 18-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:19 PM

originally posted by: Indigo5
And no...she was talking about buy-backs...not confiscation.

Was the Australian buy back optional?

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:47 PM
Actually people who have bought guns legally through a dealer have all had back ground checks since the program was instituted... There is your list of gun owners.. The ones the government sold in the fast and furious scam seem to be the only ones who don't know where the guns ended up and to whom..

Anyone with a CHL there is another list of gun owners..

Being law abiding gun owners if a law was passed to turn them in, many law abiding citizens would...... turn them in...just because they are law abiding and do not want any domestic entanglements.

Would all the guns get turned in... absolutely not... but it would not be the first time a law abiding citizen has become a criminal by the stroke of a pin. In the mean time the Cartels and their gang banger distributors could have a free hand on any street corner and neighborhood.... Ooops sorry in some cities they already do. Murder rate of Chicago comes to mind...

If we were in the days of swords the government would say only officials are allowed to carry full length swords... failing that they would be allowed long swords and all ours could only be half length.. Government always wants the advantage ...just in case there is a disagreement.. First it would be half length then nothing longer that a 12" dagger.. and pretty soon anyone caught with a fork; off to jail for you !

Mean time bad guys do what they do regardless and since you are disarmed I suppose you can always prey while on your knees the sword or gun misfires as it heads for your neck or head....... Many many people have been placed in that position ...mass graves are still being found even today..

Bernie did say one thing in the debates that I could agree with.. His reference about the people who live in the country and those who live in the cities do have different requirements when it comes to a weapon of choice..

Growing up we had several guns for different purposes, they were just tools to get a certain job done to include self protection; but that was a roll they were never called upon to perform unless you count Rattle snakes, Copperheads, and other varmints hell bent on destroying live stock and property.....

None of our guns got up one day and decided to go shoot up a school or kill a person all by themselves; we even took guns to school for show and tell day or to attend a school organized gun safety rifle course. ..

I guess our guns were not on Psychotropic drugs or what some would say today.... "Bad gun, mean gun, scary gun"!..

All of ours were nice and well behaved a good responsible kid with parents who gave a crap...
edit on 18-10-2015 by 727Sky because: ...

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:52 PM
a reply to: Indigo5

OK, you can offer to buy the guns back from owners on a voluntary basis. That has been done in several places and is not gun-grabbing.

The word that makes it confiscatory is "mandatory" which means you have to take your guns in to be bought back. All that means is that the government is trying to make you feel better about having your guns taken from you by offering you some money for them.

Call it eminent domain for guns. Care to make the argument that eminent domain is not, at its base, land-grabbing or private property confiscation, no matter how beneficial the end results might be? See Kelo ...

edit on 18-10-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:55 PM
Mandatory gun buy back as in giving you $100 for a $1500 gun.

I will take my guns out and bury them in the desert first.

Plus never give them the barrels of any gun.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 05:58 PM

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

This would be shot down in the courts (pun intended) before the ink were dry on any potential Executive Order.

She is just doing more of her imbecilic pandering shtick.

This court maybe, but how old is Scalia? Lose just one justice and let Obama appoint one, and the balance of power changes.

And then what?

With 300 million odd guns how would confiscation work?

Why even bother with the effort?

Dont see how there is anything to worry about as it wont work as long as the majority are against this it wont work with out causeing a # storm.

They'll do it the same way they do anything else. Baby steps. I'm amazed that people haven't caught onto this yet. Or I guess maybe a lot of people have. Big brother apologists would naturally pretend they don't get it.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:55 PM
a reply to: infolurker
Reminds me of a vision I had.

Shared a vision I had August 13th. Mind you I have never had a vision for the United States from the Lord. He who has an ear, let him hear.

1st part there is a room full of voting ballots, stacks and stacks, too many to count.
They start flying all over the room, the room is a mess with the ballots, I hear 'voting is going to be a joke'.
2nd scene, there are guns everywhere, all types and sizes going off in all different directions, Hilary's face appears to the left of the guns, her face fades away and reappears to the right while the guns are going off. I hear, 'get them'.

Sounds like Hillary is going to be a major player in the future, she will do something to cause a revolution, possibly by confiscating guns. The United States will never be the same. I know there's a million so called 'predictions'. Let me just say, if you're smart you will at least get right with God. If you can, have an emergency supplies on hand. The best preparation is being able to hear God. I'm talking Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 07:20 PM
Since Australia is the example that Hillary is using I thought a little investigation was required to see if any crime stats indicated a reduction in violet crime, gun related crime and mass shootings since the introduction/application of the gun buy back scheme.

This wont be news to a lot here, but thought I'd add it to reiterate the point that any politician that says it would make a difference is talking through an alternative orifice in their body.

"It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner."
National Centre for Policy Analisys

"Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime
has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun
control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be
like if Congress ever bans firearms."

IMO Firearms are the great leveler. A grandma can defend herself as equally as anyone else.
Also the criminal will not hand over their weapons.
This is just a way, using guilt to relieve honest folks of their right to at least deter a..holes that will now take advantage of the vulnerable, knowing they have little or no defense anymore.

People who want to kill will always find a way, with or without firearms.

Right to bear arms.....absolutely yes.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: Ngatikiwi

I would say that given that nations like Australia and the UK are islands, if any place would expect to be able to control the guns inside their borders through bans, they would. If they cannot do so and cannot realize effective controls through legal bans as island nations, then the idea that a nation of 350 million with two poorly controlled borders and active and highly successful drug smuggling cartels that are known to be running guns from China could effect even the slightest change in its levels of violent crime by doing so are ludicrous.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 08:20 PM
I have said this in other topics, but I feel it bears repeating because I believe very deeply that it's important to recognize things aren't black and white and that lumping together people as "other" and "adversary" just based upon labels is counterproductive and probably beneficial to precisely those who seek this sort of measure in due course.

I'm a "liberal" and a "progressive," at least as I understand the definitions of those words (no matter how the media and partisanship has twisted their meanings,) and I absolutely oppose and wholeheartedly advocate against this. I don't own a gun, and have no desire to. However I support the second amendment, and oppose any effort to confiscate, limit, or restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

I also oppose any effort to violate 4th amendment rights and HIPAA in the name of gun safety.

I know the issue is complex and heated, however it may simply be that the price of our liberties is risking that dangerous individuals will visit violence upon innocent facets of our society. That has always been so in my opinion, and if it comes down to it, I feel compelled to choose liberty - mine, and that of others, even others with whom I may disagree profoundly - over absolute safety.


posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 08:25 PM
Hillary can we get a buyback on your server info?

............crickets and the sound of nothing.

A person that lies, cheats, and steals has no business holding a high political office, or even asking the public for anything.

She needs to quiet down and turn herself in for crimes of high treason, as do many other former politicians.
edit on 18-10-2015 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 10:52 PM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

So she is just a liar, but since she is a Dem you are ok with it.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:04 PM
Don't you see that they won't confidcate the guns for exactly the same reason everyone has so many of them in the first place?


posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:11 PM

originally posted by: Logman

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

Unless you mean that despotic regime in Australia.

Of course you don't even know the history of your own country...

What about the British confiscating firearms from the American colonists, who were still British subjects back then?...

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

David B. Kopel
Independence Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law

April 14, 2012

6 Charleston Law Review 283 (2012)


This Article chronologically reviews the British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gun powder, from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

From the events of 1774-75, we can discern that import restrictions or bans on firearms or ammunition are constitutionally suspect — at least if their purpose is to disarm the public, rather than for the normal purposes of import controls (e.g., raising tax revenue, or protecting domestic industry). We can discern that broad attempts to disarm the people of a town, or to render them defenseless, are anathema to the Second Amendment; such disarmament is what the British tried to impose, and what the Americans fought a war to ensure could never again happen in America. Similarly, gun licensing laws which have the purpose or effect of only allowing a minority of the people to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional. Finally, we see that government violence, which should always be carefully constrained and controlled, should be especially discouraged when it is used to take firearms away from peaceable citizens. Use of the military for law enforcement is particularly odious to the principles upon which the American Revolution was based.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 50

Keywords: American Revolution, gun control

JEL Classification: K19, K42, N41

Or what about the British firearm confiscation in India?

Heck, here is what Gandhi, a pacifist, had to say about gun confiscation in India.

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'
-- Gandhi, Mohandas K. "Mahatma", An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, tr. Mahadev Desai, Part V., Ch. XXVII

Or what about Hitler's gun control?

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

Or what about the Soviet Union gun confiscation? only certain firearms were allowed for hunting, and not that many.

It got so bad that because of the lack of firearms during WWII the Soviets could only provide one firearm to two men. When the soldier with a firearm was killed, another that was unarmed would try to take that weapon and keep firing. That was meanwhile there were 50mm guns pointed at their backs from their own soldiers in case any Soviet soldier tried to escape the massacre...

Or what about Turkey's gun control in 1911? From 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated since they could not defend themselves.

What about Cambodia's gun control in 1956?

Or China's gun control in 1935?

Uganda's gun control in 1970?

Guatemala's gun control in 1965?

Yeah, there are/were no dictatorships that always confiscated firearms, or implemented gun control right?...

edit on 18-10-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:17 PM

originally posted by: onequestion
Don't you see that they won't confidcate the guns for exactly the same reason everyone has so many of them in the first place?


The problem is that this is exactly what many people thought back in times before gun control was implemented in their countries.

Make no mistake, the Obama administration, and other progressives including RINOs, are trying their hardest to implement gun control in the U.S.

Stop pretending that it is not happening. That these policies, and these speeches they keep making about implementing bans on semi-automatic rifles, and banning the use of clips/firearms which can hold more than 10 bullets are not attempts at gun confiscation and in the end banning firearms, which is what they want.

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:24 PM
a reply to: AceWombat04

There are very few liberals/progressives who think like you. Not to mention that what your leaders, and the majority of progressives/liberals want among other things is gun control.

Just take a look at the amount of progressive members in this website who are in favor of gun control. It's the majority. Very, very few of you think like you do.

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:02 AM
So where does the money come from ?

Oh yeah the state prints it out of thin air or RAISES TAXES.

Remember folks there are over 300 million guns in this country.

Considering what firearms cost. The state gives their buyers pennies on the dollar.

Which makes it no surprise why this nation is in debt. and why people are in debt.

People are LOUSY with their money, and make poor choices.

The kicker here is for those idiots that 'turned in their guns' was not the kind of people anyone has to worry about.

Who the hell in their right mind turns their firearm in to the state that costs anywhere between $500 to over $1000.

There is absolutely no hope for the future in this country.

When the Clintons' want to turn us in to the police state.

And her supporters, are lapping it up with more 'Yes we can'.

Shred the US constitution in to toilet paper.
edit on 19-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:14 AM
a reply to: neo96

What, 300 million times an average $500 .... hell that is what? Just 150 Billion Dollars.

1/4 for the National Defense Budget... I am sure they would have no problem doing that

Just think of the destruction of 150 Billion of opposing citizen's property... Progressive wet dream.

edit on 19-10-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in