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

a reply to: infolurker

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America

2014 Sydney hostage crisis

I guess people forgot about this.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
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.

I'll take that as a compliment. They're not my "leaders," incidentally. Don't conflate progressive & liberal with Democrat. I have never voted for a Democrat. I'm registered as undeclared.

I suspect there is a lot we would disagree about despite our agreement re: the 2nd amendment. But I felt it important to point out that not everyone just follows the established ostensible platform of "the liberals." I follow my own ideology, and it advocates the right to keep and bear arms. I also opposed Obamacare and frequently criticize politicians from both sides of the isle.

Just trying to demonstrate that nuance can and does exist. Sadly, not frequently enough imho. I respect everyone's views and believe strongly in the ideal that, "I may disagree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it."

Peace.

does this really surprise anyone, these people have showed they have no respect for the constitutional law of the country and want to eradicate them all one after another? this is probably the last line of defence between americans and all out tyranny. if this happens expect there to be an uproar. just another excuse for them to declare capable responsible adults can't be trusted with weapons.

they're going for the college kids. remember vietnam? college kids get things noticed. kids are growing up believing their schools to be an unsafe environment. can you imagine growing up constantly fearing some nut case is going to bust into your classroom and start shooting everyone up? i hear kids in the usa even have to walk through metal detectors before they go into the building? just wtf? these kids are being indoctrinated to believe this so that they will push for legislation eradicating the right to own weapons. they call it expanded background checks to fool people into thinking they still might be able to get one, just that 'crazy' people can't get them. But seriously anybody who believes this is a fool as the government deems a lot of perfectly sane people crazy for believing in conspiracy theories, having suspicion of government and calls these people terrorists. these things have been documented in. they have started diagnosing veterans who cause trouble with oppositional defiance disorder which is hardly a real thing

a reply to: infolurker

Can she actually do any of that..?

I mean, how will she be able to do anything or effectively run a country from a state penitentiary?

a reply to: AceWombat04

And that is cool, I also believe people are entitled to their opinions. But as you noted not enough liberals/progressives stand behind you. But, gun control is one of the agendas of the progressive movement.

a reply to: infolurker

Would you waste your valuable vote on a candidate that recklessly alienates tens of millions of potential voters before the voting actually began?

Good luck Clinton...i have a feeling you've just shot yourself in the foot.

a reply to: infolurker

Just saw this from Alex Jones. he did well reporting it.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: 727Sky

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..

There are myriads of factors in the US that are diffrent.

With the UK and Australia we never really had a gun culture except for a few who were in the minority. A law banning guns meant nothing, it was a token gesture as for 99% of us you may have well banned going to the moon on a ballon as it had just as much relevance to our lives.

Unlike Australia you have a intrenched gun culture that permeates your constitution and legal system. In your country it is a right. There is no legal way to take those guns.

As for illegal ways? Well how will they do that without a bloodbath on both sides? With 300 million guns or whatever how can the US governments do a effective forced gun confiscation?
300 million guns and just as many scared paranoid Americans makes it more trouble than its worth.
Why bother when there is far more cleaner and effective ways to get that tyranny ? Bush II showed quite well how big government can undermine rights and expand goverment overreach by useing external threats and fear mongering.

Hell I would say all this gun grabbing talk is a red herring.
Make you Americans focus all your energy focusing on your guns while they strip your other rights.

Dont take my guns!
Bang patriot act
Dont take my Guns!
Bang NSA domestic spying
DONT TAKE MY GUNS!
Bang toture camps and black site prisons
Dont take my guns!
Bang free speach zones
Dont take my guns!
Bang rigged elections
Dont take my guns!
Bang propaganda press
Dont take my guns!!!
Bang wealth redistribution
Dont take guns!
Corperate interference and bribery
Dont take my guns!
Illegal wars and war profiteering
Dont takenmy guns!
Militarization of police
Dont take my guns!
Rampent police brutality
Dont take my......o # im already in a tyranny....

I wanna cry after reading this because it makes sense ...

a reply to: SoulSurfer

Yup personally i think by the time they do get round to takeing your guns every other right of yours will be eroded or worse gone and it will be too late.

Its all just a diversion to get a emotional response while they get round to there real work behind the scenes.

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.

Just like the Dream Act?

It was killed in Congress, then enacted by Executive Order. Which SHOULD have caused an immediate response from Congress in the form of an warning then a Impeachment Hearing, but was allowed to slide.

a reply to: dismanrc

But this goes directly against the constitution.

EO are not magic bullets.

If none or few of the states ignore said EO then what?

A EO does not make 300 million guns vanish does it?

a reply to: infolurker

If she likes Australia gun laws so much she should move over and become President of Australia, I sure Aussies will love her as much as People in the US love her,

4N0M4LY I agree I can not find anybody in my neck of the woods that have anything nice to say about her

If the price is right I'd like some cash to upgrade to higher quality rifle(s). What a shot in the arm for the gun manufacturers this would be.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: dismanrc

But this goes directly against the constitution.

EO are not magic bullets.

If none or few of the states ignore said EO then what?

A EO does not make 300 million guns vanish does it?

Executive orders ONLY have jurisdiction over federal employee behaviors within federal organizations. They are executive branch edicts for in-house management not a replacement for laws.

a reply to: tkwasny

Exactly.

It would be powerless for use in gun confiscation.

a reply to: infolurker

Lip service. She and supporters know it won't happen. But it sounds good and feels good to some so throw it out there. She is not alone in paying lip service but is just as dumb as other politicians doing on both sides. I would rather they deal in reality but who cares when an election is on the line.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: dismanrc

But this goes directly against the constitution.

EO are not magic bullets.

If none or few of the states ignore said EO then what?

A EO does not make 300 million guns vanish does it?

Then I would say they were doing their jobs.

Your right EO are not magic, but if Congress chooses not to block them then they can be used that way.

the Dems had 60 voted when he signd that EO and no action was taken. The problem was that when the Reps got in, STILL no action was taken. There by allowing him to bypass Congress. That is one of my main issues with the whole gun control group. We already have laws on the books that no one is using fully and NO law will make them disapear anyway.

Personally I'm a strict constructionist when it come to the Constitution. It means EXACTLY what it says. In the case of the 2nd, "shall not infringe" means that NO laws can be made. I think the 1934 law that started all this should be overturned. The Founding Fathers knew about multi-shot rifles, machineguns, rockets and cannons and choose not to exclude any of them. In fact they did include Letters of Marque in the actualy body of the document, meaning they expected people would own fairly heavly armed ships. (This is still leagal by the way, but not used.)

Now I would be willing to agree that WMDs fall outside this, because I don't see them as being "Arms", but fall into a catagory by themselves.

That being said I could seen some Liberals that would try to get an "assult" rifle reclassified to a WMD just to "ban" them also

By the way there is no such thing as an "assult" rifle. It's a madeup name coming from the Sturmgewehr 43/44 in WWII and was not used to define a class of firearm until used in 1989.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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

Was the Australian buy back optional?

I dunno? Did the UK or Canada confiscate guns? Was Cash for Clunkers a mandatory confiscation program?

I think the fear center of your brain has been conditioned to instantly react in Gun debates and constantly hear "They are coming for your guns!" and whatever side of the debate you are on, that is unfortunate.

Thank goodness we do have the 2nd amendment, because if the debate was left to the current frothing, irrational state of todays gun rights advocates, guns would have been confiscated 20 years ago. The NRA and it's mouthpieces are not helping or protecting the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment needs the NRA like Immigration reform needs the KKK to be it's advocate....not helping.

She compared it to "Cash for clunkers", literally said she did not "know details" or "how it would work" and said the Australian "example is worth looking at"..

And you hear ....CONFISCATION!!!

Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the UK is a good example. Why?
Because each of them have had mass killings"
Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.
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, Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.

Clinton said such a gun buyback program "would be worth considering" federally, "if that could be arranged." She compared it to President Barack Obama’s so-called "cash for clunkers" program, which bought back old cars with lower levels of energy efficiency in order to stimulate the economy and reduce pollution.

"I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at," she added.

originally posted by: Indigo5
I dunno? Did the UK or Canada confiscate guns?

Not what I asked you becasue her quote was, 'But certainly the Australian example is worth looking at', which, if you are following along, was NOT optional.

Try answering the question.

a reply to: neo96

Curious...

Gun Deaths per capita..

USA 10.5
UK .26
Australia .86
Canada 2.22

I mean the only places with higher per capita gun deaths are war zones or place like Honduras, El Salvador etc.

We have more gun deaths than the UK by a factor of 40?

What is the reason? Honestly..Do you think that we just like to kill more in the USA than places like Nicaragua?

How do you logic the numbers?

en.wikipedia.org...