Obama and Hillary Both Show Cards with Praise for Australian ‘Gun Control’

Hillary Clinton
How could any responsible gun owner let this crazy woman “buy back” their guns?

Never one to disregard his political ally Rahm Emanuel’s advice and let a crisis go to waste, Barack Obama exploited the Umpqua murders to laud citizen disarmament efforts via gun bans in Great Britain and Australia. Hillary Clinton, in response to a question at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, declared an Australian-style national gun “buyback” would be “worth considering doing … on a national level.”

For all her talk about disarming you and me, Hillary sure seems to understand that value of keeping her own armed security detail close at hand.

As is correctly observed by everyone who is not a “progressive” tool, you can’t “buy back” something you never owned in the first place.  It’s also noteworthy to point out another little trick of the gun-grabber’s trade Hillary pulled without being called out by town hall attendees—characterizing the Australian experience “as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons.”

That’s a longstanding bit of deception right out of the Violence Policy Center playbook, where executive director Josh Sugarmann advocated back in 1988 that:

“The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

The tyranny lobby has been spooking the sheep with that created confusion ever since.

As for “buybacks” having any impact on crime whatsoever, aside from just being worse than useless diversions that endanger participants and don’t do a thing to get guns out of the hands of criminals, it’s instructive to consult the Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies by Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D., Deputy Director for the National Institute of Justice.

Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.

Ridgeway is also the one who admitted of so-called “universal background checks”:

Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration.

What  those who would be the only ones controlling all the guns studiously avoid mentioning in their praise for Australian infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, particularly when Hillary starts talking about “a good price” and “Cash for Clunkers,” is that they won’t take “No” for an answer. The effect is the same as confiscation, but they force you to legitimize it by acceptance of “payment.”

It’s the equivalent of raping someone and then leaving $20 on the nightstand – and you’d better put some ice on that. If you don’t “sell” your property, they intend to escalate the continuum of force all the way up to lethal if need be, until such time as you surrender and submit to whatever retaliatory punishment they prescribe for your defiance, or are destroyed.

So here’s a question: IF it comes to the day when the government starts ordering you to “turn ‘em all in, Mr. and Mrs. America,” will you?

And if you think that’s far-fetched, what are you going to do when the demographic shift being engineered in this country by Democrats for votes and establishment Republicans for cheap labor results in an electorate that will pass “progressive” gun bans nationwide, and a Supreme Court that will rule them constitutional?  Or does anyone have credible and verifiable population and voter proclivity data to refute what look to be inevitable results if cultural replacement is not immediately reversed, leaving the legislatures and courts lost as avenues of redress for gun rights advocates?  And does anybody think Hillary’s not doing everything she can to ensure it’s already too late to do anything about that?

 

23
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
15 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
23 Comment authors
TrumpedCarlos PerdueEricDavidCodreaMack Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Trumped
Guest
Trumped

This is why the immigration issue is so important, and why all of the gun banners like Hillary are so pro amnesty and mass third world immigration. That is one reason I would argue that Trump, despite a dubious past, is the best bet for stopping long term gun control. If immigration isn’t stopped, then everything else in the pro gun political side of things becomes irrelevant.

Eric
Guest
Eric

Why don’t they move there and let us move on with our rights.

Mack
Guest
Mack

David,
I think it’s really an application of ‘Eminent Domain’ — think about it.

DavidCodrea
Guest

That would absolutely torture Madison’s specific selection of “public use” rather than public purpose, interest or benefit when crafting the Fifth Amendment, so unfortunately, noting the revisionist totalitarian wannabes behind this, you’re probably right.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_04_benson.pdf

oldshooter
Guest
oldshooter

A year or two ago I was on an internet gun forum, one of the saner ones, with few hardcore types on it, when they were discussing what would be considered a “red line” for civil disobedience. The general consensus (now remember this is not some hardcore militia type site, but a very moderate one) was that requiring registration would be enough cause for “passive” non-violent civil disobedience (ie, refusal to register – either oneself or one’s guns – as was recently seen in NY and CT, political rallies, etc.), and the beginning of actual physical confiscation (ie, police or… Read more »

Nobody Special
Guest
Nobody Special

How many Americans will actually fight to defend the Second Amendment rather than turn their guns in to be broken down for scrap? I have no idea. My crystal ball is still in the shop. Perhaps the III% Mike Vanderboegh hopes for. But when all the keyboard pounding meets the reality of a federal gun confiscation drive this guy may be closer to the mark of what our future likely holds: “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly;… Read more »

JohnC
Guest
JohnC

Great posturing people, we all agree that gun confiscation is a non-starter. But will you get off your high horse and nominate a Republican candidate capable of winning. Trump and Senator Cruz cannot capture middle of the road voters that will be needed. Dr. Carson maybe, Senator Rubio maybe, Governor Bush maybe, Governor Kasich maybe. Otherwise it will be Madam President. So think not just react, and above all Dump Trump.

Carlos Perdue
Guest
Carlos Perdue

President Trump. Get used to it, RINO.

TEX
Guest
TEX

Give em the ammo first !

Janek
Guest
Janek

You have to admit Obama, Hillary and the rest of the gun control mob are persistent. Kind of like ‘jock itch’ but dangerous!

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

More like Piles aka Roids because they are a pain in the a$$!

SG
Guest
SG

Terry McAuliffe is a puppet.People in Va. need to cut his strings and get out and VOTE.

Elmo
Guest
Elmo

Speaking of Josh Sugarmann, can anyone explain to me why he has a Federal Firearms License, and why the address listed on the license is the same as VPC headquarters in Washington D.C.?

Gary De Capua
Guest
Gary De Capua

We should ban all government officials the grossly violate their Oath of Office, and should be charged under E.O. 10450 and never hold a office in America.

Guy
Guest
Guy

NOT going to get my GUNS!!!!!!!!

munchie
Guest
munchie

Sure they will, They just say your a pedophile, you beat your wife and you have child porn on your computer. They come in at 4 am and take them all. Your neighbors are none the wiser, and it keeps them out of the fight.

Mike21228
Guest
Mike21228

I am 58 yrs old and I believe I will see gun confiscation in my lifetime. I am actually glad that the Democrats are finally at the point of admitting that banning ALL guns is their real intent. If you push any liberal hard enough, they will admit that banning and confiscating guns is the goal of the Democrat party.

Jim Sapp
Guest
Jim Sapp

Sounds like Mike believes that gun confiscation could be in his lifetime . I am older than he is and I can promise you that I will never see it I believe in my God given right to do with my Second Amendment rights .There is only one way you’ll ever get my weapons. You will have to take them From my dead hands. If and when that time ever comes in the United States you better bring one with you .

pa ca
Guest
pa ca

You are ALREADY seeing confiscation – look at our Vets who assign their SS checks to a third party. They are assumed to be incapable of gun ownership and are losing their firearms via confiscation. It always starts small and grows slowly, but will begin to gather more steam unless we get a true constitutional conservative in the WH in 2016. If that fails – ALL BETS ARE OFF.

Jim Meadows.
Guest
Jim Meadows.

Its still a matter of our constitutiontional rights,as a young child my grandmother gave me a copy of the entire constitution in a book form. I read it then and new it had tobe a very important book. My grandparents taught me all the virtues in life that are our heritage, our born rights, and they are to be for ever protected, respected, and lived. Including our right to bare arms. God bless America.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent

It is important to remember the right to ‘bare’ arms; especially in the summer.

rik daniel
Guest
rik daniel

Great imput. Thanks for your time…

Curly Howard
Guest
Curly Howard

Assuming your reasoning is correct, if the Democratic Socialist shift proves inevitable, then wouldn’t casualties be inevitable, Sir? Don’t they understand this?