Hillary’s gun confiscation proposal is going to backfire in a big way

posted at 8:31 am on October 17, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bmore

Schadenfreude on October 17, 2015 at 5:06 PM

Schadenfreude

Aizen on October 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM

Lefties are the most illiberal and nonprogressive people on Earth.

Schadenfreude on October 17, 2015 at 4:23 PM

The area where this is particularly true is the environment.

The history of environmentalism in America is very good. We really might have had cities that couldn’t be lived in, if we hadn’t all decided together to be more efficient and cleaner… and in the 1970s there was litter everywhere, I remember just throwing stuff out the window… we all decided, that was stupid and ugly… we over protected forests so that firefighting is harder… but we learned and can fix it.

But this current crop of environmentalists wants to roll back time before the internal combustion engine, and keep less developed countries from joining us in the 21st century!

Oil is good. It gives us our modern life. Hating oil is hating progress. Sure make it more efficient, continue to develop the technology… but why demonize the very thing that makes the modern world?

They are anti-progress.

petunia on October 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM

Sure and militia members are guaranteed the right to ‘arms.’ However mass ownership of guns is a different thing.

Tlaloc on October 17, 2015 at 4:14 PM

Really???

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

– Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

– Zachariah Johnson, Elliot’s Debates, Vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”

– Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”

– Samuel Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 20 August 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

– George Washington, First President of the United States

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

– Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

– Patrick Henry, American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

– Patrick Henry, American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

– Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, 5 June 1824. ME 16:45

Genius, Tlaloc, thinks he knows what the Founders and Framers meant by ‘a militia.’ He quite obviously does not.

Bishbop on October 17, 2015 at 5:13 PM

Jim Webb excepted, the remaining Rat candidates are racing each other to the EXTREME left, each trying to out-Commie the other. This started in earnest in the first Rat debate and looks to be what’s going to happen during the remaining Rat primary. The Pubs couldn’t have scripted a better scenario even if they were trying to.

Asok Asus on October 17, 2015 at 5:27 PM

Another voice on what happens if the Left keeps on it’s current path:

Gun Confiscation Fantasies Are Fast-Tracking The Democrat Party To Destruction

Like my compatriots at Hot Air, I think that the Democrat Party is speeding towards yet another crushing electoral defeat by making the destruction of a constitutional right their rallying cry.

I merely hope that we get to the 2016 elections.

The radical left is getting much louder, much more shrill, and much more insistent in their desire to use force to get their way and impose their ideas on the American people.

If they try such a radical path it would end poorly and quickly.

The military and local law enforcement agencies in the United States that the radical left has been trashing in public since the Vietnam War until now will not take part in any plot to disarm American citizens.

Soldiers, Marines and sheriffs may even defect to actively resist any federal officers from a pool of just over 100,000 who would take on the suicidal task of taking on the military, local police, and a hundred righteously-angry million gun owners, led by over a thousand angry Green Berets that warned President Obama in 2013 not push his luck.

Who is left to carrying out these confiscatory fantasies but the radicals themselves?

Are Cornell University Art Professor Carl Ostendarp or Coppin State writing instructor D. Watkins going to going on raiding parties? Are comedian Amy Schumer and her Senator-cousin Chuck going to kick in doors? Somehow, I don’t see President Mom Jeans picking up a breaching ram and leading by example.

I’m glad that these totalitarians are finally showing their true colors to their fellow Americans, as it will assure a crushing defeat of their anti-American ideals at the ballot box. Perhaps then sane Democrats like Jim Webb can pick up the remains of the Democrat Party and either return it to something President Kennedy would have respected, or start something new.

Of course, we’ve got to get the elections, and these radicals are pushing hard for action, now, and they’re proving with every passing day that reason and constitutionality are the least of their concerns.

We do not want a civil war against the radical left wing of the Democrat Party, but let it be made abundantly clear that if they start one, they will be utterly destroyed by armed free citizens, as the Founders intended.

PolAgnostic on October 17, 2015 at 5:53 PM

Bishop on October 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM

I am beet red from sitting in the sun today at a college football game. Sunscreen.

Fun to yap with you as I find most people don’t know their enemy and have never walked in their shoes.

My feet are tired.

Thanks for your time.

HonestLib on October 17, 2015 at 5:59 PM

Attack of the Akimbo Bimbo:

No, not Hillary.
No, not Megyn.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/17/the-plot-against-donald-trump/

anotherJoe on October 17, 2015 at 6:01 PM

Curious, so I ran the numbers. If the Australians were able to confiscate 640,000 guns at a price of $500 million, what would the cost of confiscating all 350-million or so U.S. private firearms? Answer: more than $273 Billion.

limecat on October 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM

The future for Tlaloc.

SDN on October 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM

OK, Hillary…stage instructions for that photo: move fist slowly to the right, then back to the left. Repeat until told otherwise.

James on October 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM

Every purchase is not recorded with BATF. The form is filled out and kept by the FFL. The BATF does not know what was purchased if anything until they have seen the form.

bgibbs1000 on October 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM

If you truly believe this, you’re a fool. Every background check I’ve done has the make/model and serial number of the firearm. Given Hilldog’s emails, you really think the Feds dump that database every day?

I know the Oregon SP don’t and here in Oregon, they are the one’s who collect the data and run the checks through the FBI. Oregon has a database and could easily share it with the Feds if they don’t. This also ignores what was mentioned earlier, the ATF can get that 4473 data from any gun dealer at any time.

oryguncon on October 17, 2015 at 6:24 PM

The Second Amendment Is The. Law.
.
ConstantineXI on October 17, 2015 at 9:12 AM

.
Sure and militia members are guaranteed the right to ‘arms.’ However mass ownership of guns is a different thing.
.
Tlaloc on October 17, 2015 at 4:14 PM

.
Private ownership of firearms by the private citizens en mass, IS “the militia.”

And further, the militia in these United States is first and foremost about protecting ourselves from our own government.

All other priorities are secondary.

listens2glenn on October 17, 2015 at 6:37 PM

Sure, they could have my gun (if I had one).
Of course, they’d have to find it first.
That’s a deep lake, out there. Pity I wasn’t looking at my GPS when it (they?) fell in.

ReggieA on October 17, 2015 at 6:42 PM

If you truly believe this, you’re a fool. Every background check I’ve done has the make/model and serial number of the firearm. Given Hilldog’s emails, you really think the Feds dump that database every day?

It goes on the paper 4473 that stays in the shop, the person on the other end of the phone where the check occurs only knows if it was a long gun or handgun you purchased.

Try listening and observing next time you buy a gun. The make, model and serial number does not get told to the person working the computer. This isn’t rocket science and it isn’t a secret.

Rusty_Shackleford on October 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Sure and militia members are guaranteed the right to ‘arms.’ However mass ownership of guns is a different thing.
.
Tlaloc on October 17, 2015 at 4:14 PM

You want to know how dumb you are?

This is how dumb you are.
Moron.

fossten on October 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM

1. Defy
2. Nullify
3. Revolt

Too many men have died to protect and ensure the rights we have today. We cannot let some leftist hag come along and undo our God given rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.

long_cat on October 17, 2015 at 6:48 PM

Genius, Tlaloc, thinks he knows what the Founders and Framers meant by ‘a militia.’ He quite obviously does not.
.
Bishbop on October 17, 2015 at 5:13 PM

.
Tlaloc believes what the founders thought, or originally intended, is irrelevant.
.

How the founders intended it is irrelevant. There’s no reason to try and conjure up the hidden thoughts of dead men from over 200 years ago. They have no special power. Their opinions are vastly less important on the topic than yours and mine since we are actual living voters.
.
Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 12:11 PM

listens2glenn on October 17, 2015 at 6:54 PM

Rusty_Shackleford on October 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM

Take the 4473s, CCH permits, hunting permits, your Google bubble, the mail scans the Post Office does of all mail….just to name a few; yea they know 95% of the folks who own guns.

I am dead in the water being a Class III collector.

Private sales and gifts they can’t track yet, but how many only acquire that way. They don’t need to know how many you have, they just need to know who has them and they know 95% of the owners.

This is no secret.

The Google bubble on each of us who purchase without cash is quite impressive. Bad cookie….down bad cookie.

HonestLib on October 17, 2015 at 6:59 PM

Sure and militia members are guaranteed the right to ‘arms.’ However mass ownership of guns is a different thing.

Tlaloc on October 17, 2015 at 4:14 PM

You and your fellow totalitarians pretend to throw smoke about only a “militia” can have firearms, as if you have to have a militia first before they can be armed. It is plainly the other way around; as you would realize if you didn’t obtusely read the amendment the wrong way.

Here’s a “militia” argument for you – the 2nd clearly *requires* military compatible firearms be make available for sale for ease of organizing, regulating, equipping, supporting, and employing the militia alongside regular and reserve forces. That means select-fire M-16A4 and M-4s available to all. So the current 1986 law banning new more-than-single-fire firearms is unconstitutional.

Jeff Weimer on October 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM

…the cost of confiscating all 350-million or so U.S. private firearms? Answer: more than $273 Billion.
limecat on October 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM

A mere pittance…

Really.

‘Tis but a pittance.

Compared to the hospital and funeral costs that it would bring about,

LegendHasIt on October 17, 2015 at 7:26 PM

If liberals attempt to disarm American citizens, I expect the military would step in and disband the sitting US Government. After all their job is to “Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Not to protect and defend liberals.

Old eagle on October 17, 2015 at 7:37 PM

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison, The Federalist Papers

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” – Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

**************************************************************

On the other hand –

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” – Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.

VorDaj on October 17, 2015 at 7:41 PM

How the founders intended it is irrelevant. There’s no reason to try and conjure up the hidden thoughts of dead men from over 200 years ago. They have no special power. Their opinions are vastly less important on the topic than yours and mine since we are actual living voters.
.
Tlaloc on June 27, 2015 at 12:11 PM

listens2glenn on October 17, 2015 at 6:54 PM

And since I have more guns than Tlaloc does, my thoughts are far more relevant than his.

fossten on October 17, 2015 at 7:53 PM

Compared to the hospital and funeral costs that it would bring about,

LegendHasIt on October 17, 2015 at 7:26 PM

This is from last Thursday by Daily Kos and was posted on Facebook by one of my uber liberal relatives.

The Constitution if like Grandpa.

PolAgnostic on October 17, 2015 at 7:59 PM

listens2glenn on October 17, 2015 at 6:54 PM

Even assuming what the founders thought is irrelevant, this isn’t (from Heller):

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Course, given that the decision was based in large part on historical analysis, what our forefathers thought obviously wasn’t irrelevant.

dorkintheroad on October 17, 2015 at 8:05 PM

Tyrannical Hag in a Katl Marx Pantsuit….

Dear God—–help us!

PappyD61 on October 17, 2015 at 8:15 PM

dorkintheroad on October 17, 2015 at 8:05 PM

.
You did get that it was Tlaloc’s comment from back in June, and not my own, right?

listens2glenn on October 17, 2015 at 8:32 PM

You did get that it was Tlaloc’s comment from back in June, and not my own, right?

listens2glenn on October 17, 2015 at 8:32 PM

Of course. Was just responding generally to the issue.

dorkintheroad on October 17, 2015 at 8:49 PM

Bill Whittle’s Afterburner offers some commons sense observations on gun control as opposed to the liberal dreck offered by the troll named after an Aztec God which demanded children as his human sacrifice offering.

Athos on October 17, 2015 at 10:00 PM

bring it, hillary.

do you really think we’re going to line up and turn them in?

heck in NY and CT, they can’t get 95% to even register.

I suppose if what she wants is a civil war..well..that’s the way to get one.

warhorse_03826 on October 17, 2015 at 10:42 PM

Know this: Hillery won’t be coming for your guns. She’ll send a minion. Ask the minion if he or she is willing to kill to disarm you or willing to die trying. That is the price of confiscation you must enforce if you are willing to remain armed and free.

Woody

woodcdi on October 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM

Please note, Tlaloc, that the 2nd Amendment states “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

That’s “the people”. Not “the militia members”.

And as long as police officers either a) take too long to get to the scene of the crime, or b) are acting like mob thugs when they subdue (sometimes the wrong) people, your argument is invalid.

TMOverbeck on October 18, 2015 at 9:58 AM

The authors of the Constitution were nothing if not Very Precise with their words;
They wrote; “the right of the PEOPLE“,
not; “the right of the MILITIA, to keep and bear arms.”

thelastminstrel on October 18, 2015 at 10:02 AM

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.

The problem with this thinking is that the LIVs will only see Hillary…or Bernie…or ? as giving away free stuff as the reason to vote for them. They can’t process this level of thinking where you have to look at the consequences of your vote.

OccamsRazor on October 18, 2015 at 12:29 PM

The problem with this thinking is that the LIVs will only see Hillary…or Bernie…or ? as giving away free stuff as the reason to vote for them. They can’t process this level of thinking where you have to look at the consequences of your vote.

OccamsRazor on October 18, 2015 at 12:29 PM

You are correct except it isn’t free stuff. It’s stuff the rest of us paid for.

Woody

woodcdi on October 18, 2015 at 1:33 PM

Our elite politicians still think criminals will obey the gun laws. Ask Hillary when she will remove the guns from her security force? Different tory , huh!

mixplix on October 18, 2015 at 4:02 PM

Story not tory!

mixplix on October 18, 2015 at 4:02 PM

why, would you kill me for trying to enforce the LAW?

nonpartisan on October 17, 2015 at 9:10 AM

How could he, in good conscience, do otherwise?

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

– Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

As for the rest, please allow me to retort:

When Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by someone whose head he was beating against the sidewalk at the time, Democrats made a national outcry, and keep it going unto this day. If President Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. When Micheal Brown was shot and killed by a police officer he was assaulting at the time and had already injured, Democrats made a national outcry, and keep it going unto this day. President Obama had 3 officials at his funeral, IIRC.

When the death count per day in Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore tend to be more than the body count of the Oregon shooting?
Silence.
When an American citizen is shot and killed by an illegal alien in a sanctuary city?
Silence.
When a Houston cop is ambushed and slaughtered by a black criminal? Silence.
When New York cops are ambushed and slaughtered during the height of the BLM protests?
Denial that it could possibly have anything to do with the BLM protests.
When BLM protesters openly chant “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”?
Silence.

So you’ll forgive me if I think your concern rings a bit hollow.

You have no plans to fix the criminal culture in Chicago, Detroit, New York and Baltimore, nor show any desire to try. You have nothing to say against sanctuary cities letting violent predators run free because they are illegal aliens, and are in fact working hard to make it easier to import more. You actively defend an organization whose every action implies a civil right for a group to assault, rob, or even kill members of law enforcement based solely on skin color. You certainly make no attempt to chastise them for their racism or their violent rhetoric, as you would do of, say, Sarah Palin, even though she was never connected to any killings other than in leftist fantasy.

In fact, your only suggested solution for any of these problems is to further disarm those who are not predatory. That’s the only solution you’re interested in, and in fact the only solution you fail to actively fight against.

Given that, what do you expect me to think your goals are?

.

Note: The above was written by someone who does not own any guns, has never owned any guns, nor has any real desire to own any guns, ever.

GrumpyOldFart on October 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM

Why isn’t there a politician buy back program?

Then we might not need any guns.

Stepan on October 19, 2015 at 2:54 AM

Genius, Tlaloc, thinks he knows what the Founders and Framers meant by ‘a militia.’ He quite obviously does not.

Bishbop on October 17, 2015 at 5:13 PM

Excellent rebuttal…Lefties also think that they know what the founders intent was regarding birthright citizenship. The clear intent written by the amendment’s author is trumped by their activist judges who really think that they know what the founders intended.

cajunpatriot on October 19, 2015 at 8:47 AM

But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, it’s a gun free zone.

LarryK on October 19, 2015 at 9:51 AM

I see a really fine bunch of comments on this. But talking about Chicago only leads to one Fact and Truth. Even though Liberals hate facts and truth I thought I would let others know that there is a way to cut the killings in Chicago in half or almost stop them completely. But that isn’t what the left really wants. They want your guns as a society that is unable to protect themselves is a much easier society to control.

The two things you have to do to stop the killings in Chicago are as follows. One: give honest citizens the right to conceal carry. Two: start doing the stop and frisk. You eventually will end up with honest citizens having the guns and taking the guns from the criminal. Yes, it is as easy as that and it has been proven to work. Look at New York before De Blazio. Again the truth is not that the left wants to stop gun murders, it is the left wants you unable to defend yourself.

pwb on October 19, 2015 at 10:03 AM

Stepan on October 19, 2015 at 2:54 AM
Why isn’t there a politician buy back program?

Then we might not need any guns

—- Sorry, the politicians have already been bought and paid for.—-

pwb on October 19, 2015 at 10:05 AM

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.

Uh huh. Sure.

IF the republican nominee even bothers to bring the subject up (which I doubt, too “controversial”), the leftist moderator will just insist that hitlery never said it in the first place.

That’s what they did to Romney, that’s what they’ll do to every republican from now on, because it works every time it’s tried. The LIVs won’t know or care about the lies, they’ve made that clear too many times to just keep ignoring like this.

runawayyyy on October 19, 2015 at 10:15 AM

Doesn’t matter what Killery wants, she will not be the next POTUS.

Cherokee on October 19, 2015 at 10:38 AM

Genius, Tlaloc, thinks he knows what the Founders and Framers meant by ‘a militia.’ He quite obviously does not.

Bishbop on October 17, 2015 at 5:13 PM

Don’t bother Tlaloc with facts. He’ll just lie to cover his tracks, and then call you the liar to deflect responsibility for his own words.

The Schaef on October 19, 2015 at 11:22 AM

So your cool. . .

BallisticBob on October 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM

yes I would

nonpartisan on October 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM

Says it all. . .

For anyone who thinks gun confiscation can or will be carried out by law enforcement…

Bear in mind the reaction by the boys in blue in Baltimore, for example, to a HANDFUL of violent incidents directed at police officers.

When the police are seriously threatened, they back off.
This has been clearly demonstrated recently (thank you #BLM!).

There is no reason to believe that cops, even or perhaps especially those infected with the us vs them mentality will risk their lives to routinely enforce gun confiscation.

Without meaning any disrespect, police officers do not, in fact, have a particularly dangerous job, day to day. This would change very quickly under a gun-robbing scheme.

Dolce Far Niente on October 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM

This is NOT the reason LEOs will not follow those orders. Whenever surveyed on the subject, most active service LEOs have already said that they would not participate in gun confiscations, and many are capable of articulating that the reason is beyond the Second Amendment, but is the same reason the Second Amendment exists, which is the Natural Right of man to defend himself, his family, and his property. Forcibly diminishing a man’s lawful self-protection is un-Constitutional by any measure, and those entrusted to enforce the law are more aware of this than most.

You’re in the car shop waiting for your tires to be replaced because the stems were sliced off again last night…and you had to pay for a tow…

Say what? Replacing valve stems requires un-beading the tires, extracting the remainder of the damaged stem, pulling a new stem into place, re-seating the bead, and re-inflating the tire. No need to buy new treads because of cut valve-stems. However, the annoyance of having to replace those stems would be absolutely real.

Freelancer on October 19, 2015 at 11:23 AM

This is NOT the reason LEOs will not follow those orders. Whenever surveyed on the subject, most active service LEOs have already said that they would not participate in gun confiscations, and many are capable of articulating that the reason is beyond the Second Amendment, but is the same reason the Second Amendment exists, which is the Natural Right of man to defend himself, his family, and his property. Forcibly diminishing a man’s lawful self-protection is un-Constitutional by any measure, and those entrusted to enforce the law are more aware of this than most.

Nobody more than a cop is going to be able to tell if not just a person, but an entire neighborhood, city, county or state, has reached the point of being “fed up,” nor is anyone else as likely to be able to give real world examples of why from their own experience. Nobody else is as qualified to read that moment of cascade breakdown and follow its progress.

Therefore nobody but a cop is as likely to be able to articulate what those factors are, and why they are or are not justified, regardless of whether they are legal.

This is not to say that any given cop has the judgment to spot it or the ability to articulate it, just that they’re the people “on the sharp end” in that respect, therefore anybody else trying to spot those factors is at a data disadvantage by comparison.

GrumpyOldFart on October 19, 2015 at 11:51 AM

Freelancer on October 19, 2015 at 11:23 AM
GrumpyOldFart on October 19, 2015 at 11:51 AM

I do think how everyone reacts will vary depending on the part of the country you’re in.
In Baltimore, the cops stood down because they didn’t have the backing of their leadership, and they were ordered to stand down and “allow space for destruction” – so they did – and got themselves out of the way.
But look at the Boston area after the marathon bombing – heavily armed cops running around ordering people out of their houses hands up without search warrants – and the people mostly complied.
OTOH – NY and CT gun owners for the most part are refusing to comply with the registration laws – and the cops are not willing to enforce them.
In Colorado – the County Sheriffs are still suing the state over the gun control laws because they are unconstitutional and unenforceable – and few if any police in CO are willing to even try to enforce those laws.
And then there’s the Bundy Ranch standoff…..

dentarthurdent on October 19, 2015 at 12:02 PM

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

~ The complete text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Anyone with the least modicum of education, who pretends to not clearly understand these simple words, is a study in willful ignorance.

The subject of the Amendment is “the right of the people“, which is the entire citizen populace of the Nation.

The object of the Amendment is “to keep and bear arms”.

The legal thrust of the Amendment is “shall not be infringed”. This is a perfectly worded, absolute proscription against governmental restriction of the right named therein.

The supporting justification for the Amendment is “being necessary to the security of a free State”. This means that in the absence of such a guaranteed right, tyranny and despotism would destroy liberty.

The term “A well-regulated Militia” does not mean what modern socialists have twisted it to suggest, and taken in context with the rest of the words, whose meanings cannot be misunderstood without intent, the accurate understanding becomes crystal clear.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”. —Thomas Jefferson

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824

“The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to T. Cooper, 1814

“For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.” –Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808

“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” –Thomas Jefferson: Miss. River Instructions, 1791 (for those who cannot grasp, this means that the right to Liberty presumes the right to the means of defending Liberty)

Freelancer on October 19, 2015 at 12:15 PM

“The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation,”

Why do we always stop here? The question ought to be, what is it you intend to do to us once you succeed in confiscating all our guns?

This is not about safety–never has been. It’s been a public program from the sixties on.

It’s the heart and soul of the left–which allows people to do anything morally corrupt. But honest people’s ownership of protection against violent force and coercion is evil? Why? Never mind–we already know why.

Don L on October 19, 2015 at 3:15 PM