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?