Posted on 10/17/2015 11:09:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
Allahpundit wrote yesterday about Hillary Clinton’s startling lurch to the left on guns. The story dealt largely with her fascinating suggestion that the United States should look at a “buyback program” similar to Australia’s draconian laws which they instituted in 1996 following a mass shooting in Tasmania. (Barack Obama made the same reference last year, by the way, though it never went anywhere.) As AP noted, this wasn’t a gun buy back program such as many states and municipalities have offered. It was mandatory confiscation with a modest cash reimbursement to soften the blow.
Before moving on to the latest news on this story, it’s worth noting (particularly for Hillary Clinton’s campaign office) that the immediate results of the Australian gun grab were pretty much the opposite of what was advertised.
Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:
- Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent
- Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent
- Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.
This rather radical idea was expected to draw a quick response and it clearly did. Hillary made it very clear at multiple appearances that she planned on running to the left of Bernie Sanders on the gun issue and that she would pick out the most obvious demon to slay for the entertainment of her liberal base: the NRA. The problem with taking on such a massive and obvious target is that they tend to hit back. As the New York Times reports, the organization’s rapid response team was all over Hillary with a truth-storm before the news crews could pack up their cameras after her appearance.
On Friday, the powerful lobbying group gave her a fight.
It accused Mrs. Clinton of supporting “gun confiscation,” after she expressed interest in a gun buyback program that led to the elimination of the majority of Australia’s firearms…
In a statement, Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said that Mrs. Clinton’s comments validated the fears of gun owners and that her “extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”
“The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation,” Mr. Cox said. “Hillary Clinton, echoing President Obama’s recent remarks on the same issue, made that very clear.”
NRA-ILA was out with a more forceful response within the hour.
No, the Australian and U.K. “buybacks” were merely an attempt to mollify firearm owners whose property had been declared contraband and subject to seizure. They were, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, an offer gun owners could not refuse. The owners had the “choice” to accept the money and turn the guns they had previously been forced to register (supposedly so they could keep them under grandfather provisions), or they could risk the government forcibly confiscating the guns and being sent to prison for possessing them (supposing, of course, that they survived the confiscation attempt itself).
If you own a gun now, take heed. President Obama and now Hillary Clinton finally made clear what they’re really after – national gun confiscation.
As AP already noted, this is a winning strategy for Clinton in the primary because her base has largely been sold on the idea of things like expanded background checks at the federal level and a national gun registry. (!) How they will react to actual gun confiscation from law abiding owners remains to be seen. But when it comes to the general election, Clinton has a serious storm brewing on the horizon. Regarding a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, the public has been consistent in their response for decades. As of last year there was 73% opposition to such a ban, and 63% said that a home was safer if there was a gun in the house.
Those numbers don’t shift when there is a mass shooting. They never do in any significant way. So with all that in mind, I think we need to encourage Hillary to pick up this flag and run with it. In fact, I’m going to go on record as supporting Hillary to be the nominee for the Democrats next year. This is just what the Democrats need and I look forward to her explaining her gun confiscation plans to the public when she debates the eventual GOP nominee.
That ship is going to sink so fast it will make the Titanic look like a sure bet to make it to New York.
Unless a Federal law is passed requiring registration of all firearms AND there is 100% compliance by every gun owner, Australian-style confiscation will not happen,
UNLESS
Government agents force their way into every single home just randomly searching for weapons, like the out-of-control NOPD did in the aftermath of Katrina.
That way lies insurrection, chaos, bloodshed and death.
You know, if you truly believe in here viewpoints, and like her for that, then ok, you have the right to that opinion. (Obviously, this can really cause her trouble in the general election.) I do not agree with her, but it’s ok. However, from a moral stand point, i do not understand how you can truly support Hillary. It has been shown time and time again that she is not a person with high integrity and not someone that you should want your children to look up to. The way that she treats the people that protect her is Disgusting as you can see... http://newsdailynow.com/2015/10/17/the-real-and-nasty-hillary/ I guess it’s kind of like if your favorite baseball team signs a player that knowingly cheated and took steroids. Once he is on your team, you will probably root for him, but you still might not truly respect him.
One of the very few silver linings in eight years of Barack Obama is the democrat party must really believe their own press clippings, and think Americans are now down with unlimited taxation, gun confiscation and a baby body parts industry.
It will be fun watching them run way, way rightward in the general election. That is, if they can’t manage to obtain voting rights for enough illegals before then.
Backfire in a big way?
Nah.
Not with this electorate, filled with so many Progressive robots.
She’ll probably get elected and push it through with executive orders to “save the children”.
IMHO
If the populace elects this liberal fascist alinskyite hag, they deserve the next civil war 2. She’ll bring it anyway since she can’t control her appetites or deal with defiance. She’s physically and mentally not qualified, besides being a corrupt domestic enemy of the Constitution. Again, if we have too many kool-aiders and illegals with “ban guns, so what” cluelessness, they are walking dead anyway and don’t deserve their freedom.
Ditto.
Bring it, assholes. I’ll go down with the slide locked back surrounded by a pile of hot brass and cold bodies.
If I don’t go down, I’ll go for the ones who sent them. And so on and so on.
Roger that.
“Hillary and her jack-booted buddies know they can never confiscate our arms. If they ever actually tried, they know there would be lots of dead confiscators on lots of bloody doorsteps. Mine, for example.”
I am sorry, I disagree. I honestly don’t think she understand that. She has no clue. And don’t misunderstand, I am with you on the resistance, but Hillary, or Obama for that matter, really don’t understand that very good point.
I’m sure they do understand it, with the vehemence of pro-2nd Amendment advocates so obvious, but it’s irrelevant anyway, because the carnage on the first day would quickly convince them. Besides, it would be nearly impossible to persuade anyone to actually make the confiscation. How would you like to show up on someone’s doorstep and demand his guns? What would you estimate your life expectancy with, seconds or minutes? After the first few fall, there won’t be any other takers.
I suggest that you not let your enemies choose the ground on which you will fight or the moment when the fight begins.
Yes, God bless those noble slave masters and their devotion to "freedom". Their memory lives on in today's democratic party.
Also Hillary volunteered to have her security team give up their guns. /s
Sounds like Texas.
I don’t know how you get any of that from my post #37. Did you post to the wrong person?
...they are quite okay with jeopardizing our safety (one highly suspects) via letting islamoterrorists and drug gangs into our fine Country by ignoring border security laws, AND...
...they appear to display pride in their totally horrid deal with iran, even though (by many credible news accounts) it gives them nuclear weapons.
.
“If the populace elects this liberal fascist alinskyite hag...”
You’re really being too kind.
(There’s something cosmic about that woman and her husband, not to mention their supporters; absolutely scary.)
IMHO
Did you leave an n out of uniNformed?
Thanks—that’s sound advice. But, as I say, it will never come to that, because of another military principle: gunholders hold an impregnable, unassailable position that no one would ever actually attempt.
That is selling them cheaply. My response would be, as they say on Rodeo Drive, "if you have to ask, you can't afford them."
the infowarrior
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.