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

    1. 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.

    2. 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 federal agents going house to house to confiscate guns- as occurred in New Orleans after Katrina) would be the tipping point into actual, armed resistance/violent confrontation with government agents.
      I personally think that most liberals are fundamentally cowards when it comes to this kind of thing, and I suspect they think they can just vote for something like this with impunity, and let their “Big Brother” take the heat and do the actual confiscating, leaving them “safe.” From the majority of the comments I saw, this would not be the case if it came down to it. First off, many LEOs and military types would refuse to carry out some of these actions (witness the statements by several Sheriffs over the last year or so – plus the number of “Oathkeepers” both in, and veterans of, the military), and secondly, it appears that many gun owners, even the moderate ones, would actively resist, violently (as almost happened at the Bundy Ranch standoff). Given this, how long do you think it would take before those gun owners decided to confront, seriously/violently confront, their liberal neighbors who are perceived as “turning them in” to the government’s agents?
      Things like gun confiscation are taken vastly more seriously by the gun owning community than most socialist liberals realize, and as usual, they fail to understand that the policies they espouse typically only work in a society that has a fairly safe, responsible, emotionally well controlled, population, which ours currently is. Such policies will not work in a society that perceives itself to be unsafe, especially from the government, as we see daily in the inner city urban areas. Gangs and drug dealers currently fight primarily among themselves, but imagine what it would be like if they decided to actively take on the police, ambushing police in the streets, attacking police stations, etc. Now imagine that, instead of the relatively few gang members, we are talking about millions of gun owners. I doubt that very many of the liberals espousing such polices actually live in inner city neighborhoods where there is widespread violence today, and I’m sure they wouldn’t want to live in their current neighborhoods if such violence came to them. They are safe and protected now, often by the mere presence of the very armed neighbors they object to, and feel this will always be the case, at least for people in their social class. So, they just don’t realize they are playing with fire when they espouse gun confiscation. If gun owners are forced to “become outlaws,” it may shockingly and unfortunately, become obvious that the unarmed liberal neighbor across the street, is a far “softer” target than the local police station or National Guard armory, for an angry gun owner looking for an outlet for his anger. At the moment, the general gun owning community as a whole, is the most law-abiding group in the country’s whole population, hence they present no threat to the anti-gunners other than their power to vote. It looks very much like that might not remain the case, if blatantly unconstitutional laws permitting gun confiscation are passed.

    3. 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; you may
      come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill

      Think I’m blowing smoke? Perhaps you all are right. But then, when Mike called for a “Window War” to stop passage of Obamacare, how many windows were actually broken? If people don’t care enough to break a window, when will they care enough to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defeat their own government turned against them?

    4. 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.

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

    6. 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.?

    7. 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.

      1. 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.

    8. 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.

      1. 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 .

      2. 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.

    9. 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.

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

    Comments are closed.