Clinton Clamors, All Guns Must Go!

An expanded version of the article appeared online first at www.arbalestquarrel.com
By Roger Katz & Stephen D'Andrilli

Hillary Clinton
Clinton Clamors, All Guns Must Go!
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- The current leading Democratic Party contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who equivocates on most issues, has no qualms about letting the American public know precisely where she stands on the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country.

On that issue she speaks with self-assurance, even arrogance, expecting the public to accept her false, illogical pronouncements about guns and gun violence as self-evident truths, requiring neither legal analysis or logical validity, nor accurate statistical evidentiary support.

Case in point: during a town hall meeting, held on a College Campus in Keene, New Hampshire, in October of this year, Clinton responded to a question posed by an elderly man from the audience who, apparently referring to the 1996 Australian Government gun confiscation program of which he was aware, asked, beseechingly, whether we could do that here and if not why not. Clinton clearly relished the question. Remarking on Australia’s 1996 massive gun buyback program, Clinton asserted, in her typical preachy, irritating way, that the Australian Government offered to purchase hundreds of thousands of “automatic weapons” at “a good price” and that the Government then “clamped down [on gun purchases] going forward.”

The Government’s “gun buyback” program to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the Australian populace was hardly voluntary.

It was a carefully orchestrated compulsory, gun confiscation scheme, concocted by the Government, ostensibly in response to a lunatic’s April 28, 1996 shooting of 35 tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Yet, Clinton deviously intimates that this clearly coercive 1996 Government “gun buyback” program was, in some sense, truly voluntary, since, according to Clinton, the Government offered to give to Australian gun owners a “good price” for their weapons. Clinton didn’t bother to explain what the phrase, “good price,” for a person’s firearms means.

Continuing to address the matter of “gun buyback” programs, at the Town Hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton said that communities in this Country have implemented such programs. She added that she would like to see a gun buyback program instituted on a national level, asserting, I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. . . . I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your [the audience member’s point] is worth looking at.” And, in those candid declarations, rests a critical slip-up to Clinton’s otherwise carefully framed remarks concerning her policy position on gun ownership and possession in the U.S. For, as an attorney, Clinton must know that a coercive “gun buyback” program, on a national level, is patently illegal. Such coercive confiscation programs that have taken place in Australia and in other commonwealth nations are only possible given those Countries' history. If one can appreciate the critical differences between Australia and the U.S., one can truly appreciate how outrageous – even insulting to the American public – Hillary Clinton’s emulation of the Australian Government’s coercive 1996 gun buyback program truly is.

So, let us for a moment consider Australia’s history and compare it to our own.

For, one must consider the context in which a massive gun confiscation program might occur that would make it feasible and legal in one Western Country, but not in another.

Before the American Revolutionary War, the United States was not a sovereign Nation. The “United States,” as such, did not exist. The Country was simply a loose collection of colonies – thirteen of them – dependent upon Great Britain. And it was Great Britain that exerted its sovereignty over these thirteen colonies. It took a war against Great Britain to completely sever that dependency. Unlike the United States, Australia, like Canada, never fought a war of independence from Great Britain. Australia, unlike the U.S., is still, in a real sense, a subject State of Great Britain. In fact Australia is described as an “autonomous” Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning Monarch of Great Britain, is also Queen of Australia. She is not Queen of the United States. Moreover, Great Britain has a deeply entrenched class structure – consisting of the royalty and nobility at one end, and the commonalty on the other. A rigid class structure that is a mainstay of Great Britain’s history sees expression in Australia’s Constitution. The royalty and nobility do not trust the commonalty – the “ordinary people” – to keep and bear arms.

This mindset exists in the Government of Australia. It is a carry-over of a time when Australia was a commonwealth of Great Britain.

Consider, too, the framework of Australia’s Government in comparison to our own. Our Legislative Branch consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Legislative Branch of Australia’s Government – the Parliament – consists of, one, the House of Representatives, two, the Senate, and, three, and most extraordinarily, the Queen, who is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.

Certain members of Australia’s Parliament – its ministers – also function as members of the Executive. Thus, the British Queen not only has influence over Australia’s national government, she has both a law-making function in Australia and an executive function, the latter of which sees that her laws are carried out. In the U.S., which our founders created as a Free Republic, the Queen of England has no place in the Legislature Branch or in the Executive Branch of our Government. Just imagine if she did!

Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton confers with buddy Barack Obama.

So it is that Australia’s Constitution is framed as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, not in its People, who are treated more like subjects of “the Crown,” and less like citizens in their own right. Our Constitution, unlike that of Australia, is framed as one of rights and liberties preexistent in the People. And “We the People” are not subjects of the State, much less of a monarchy. The powers of our federal government are expressly limited and such powers that the federal government does have exist only by grace of the People, in whose hands true and ultimate power alone rests. But, since Australia’s Constitution is framed, in the first instance, as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, rather than as rights and liberties preexistent in the People, any rights and liberties that Australians might have are not preeminent. In fact, Australia’s Constitution does not speak of rights and liberties of the People at all. Try as you may you will find Australia’s Constitution devoid of a Bill of Rights, which means that, in Australia, there are no rights preexistent in the People and, therefore, no rights existent in the People, independently of a Government maxim that extends particular rights and liberties to the People, at all. Properly speaking, Australians are not “citizens” at all. They are subjects of “the Crown.” Thus, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a gun confiscation program, on an order of magnitude that took place in Australia in 1996 – and others that have taken place in that Country in the past and more that may take place in the future – are an anathema here.

Clinton’s off-the-cuff remark, if effectuated, would be tantamount to an illegal usurpation of power by the federal government from the American People.

What, specifically, precludes a national gun confiscation program from occurring in this Country that took place in Australia is established in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: “We the People.” The primacy of “We the People” over the federal government is particularly efficacious precisely because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Secondarily, the primacy of “We the People” is protected through a system of checks and balances within the federal government itself, as established in the Articles. But, it is the very existence of the Second Amendment, as a codification of a natural and inalienable right of the American People to keep and bear arms – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – that precludes confiscation of guns from the hands of the People.

A Free Republic cannot long endure under a Constitution whose precepts are ignored and denigrated. And, a free People cannot long remain free if the rights and liberties of the individual are systematically trampled upon. It has become abundantly clear that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton really care.

Read the long version of this article at : Clinton Clamors, All Guns Must Go!

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

18
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
18 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
FarmerjusttryitGrelfodJuancocojames Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Farmer
Guest
Farmer

Obviously, she has never heard of islamic extremists

justtryit
Guest
justtryit

Is it any wonder that BillyBob asked Monica to “help out”!

Grelfod
Guest
Grelfod

I would like a link to the 1993 clinton/king show interview where she said that (see Bandit statement)
I have looked and watched what I could find and that was not in there anywhere. It would be great if it was but I can’t find it. Can you supply us with a link?
Thanks!

Juancoco
Guest
Juancoco

This witch cannot be elected, and if she is, America’s guns will become illegal, and they will be pointed at her.

james
Guest
james

Just wait, HRC will team up with NY Gov Andy Cuomo as her VP pick.

They will push so hard, they will believe they can have another 16 years of their control.

Jeffery Lanham
Guest
Jeffery Lanham

Hillary Clinton you have no right to call you are a no body

Tom T
Guest
Tom T

Hillary has been a pro-commie since her student days. She idolized Saul Alinsky and was his personal disciple. The Radical Left, knew and stated the confiscation of firearms would be a necessary priority in order to proceed with the agenda of their resolution to plummet the USA into a Communist State. Hillary and Obama have disarming the US Citizens a priority still. They want their Solidarity Muslim Brothers to forcibly proceed with little to zero opposition from the masses. Stocking the USA with these Radical Islamist is their tactical maneuver. I was in the Community Organization workshop in which this… Read more »

Tcfelty
Guest
Tcfelty

In most of the shootings across the USA. If there had been a couple of people within the group that were carrying at the time. A lot of blood shed could have been prevented. It’s time we start the impeachment process in America and let Washington now we mean business. We put you in there and pay you and we can kick your sorry ass out !!!

Dbltap2x
Guest
Dbltap2x

Should Hillary ever get her way and get rid of firearms, we need to make damn sure that her bodyguards are not exempt from the confiscation or “buy back”. If she thinks that the bad guys are going to comply with her dictate, then she is an even bigger fool than I have given her credit for. She and her political cronies are hypocrites of the first order.

Janek
Guest
Janek

You got to wonder if Martin O’Malley will be Hillary’s choice for ‘anti-gunning mate’?

Bandit
Guest
Bandit

If you go back and look things up, back in 1993 clintoon was on the larry king show and she came right out and said that she herself watched a gun get up walk across the floor and fire itself off with no one touching it. Is it any wonder that she wants all guns taken away from the people. Just ask any librturd and they will say the same thing, take guns away from people by force. You can bet that the thugs that committed the crimes yesterday out here in San Bernardino were isis terrorists, but you can… Read more »

Euragone
Guest
Euragone

Politicians should lead by example and get rid of their private security, move into regular homes in plain’ol neighborhoods, enrolled their kids in public schools and drive regular cars & trucks… So until they do that all of them need to STFU!

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

I propose a “Get a Rope” march on Washington, DC wherein a million of us lesser beings march peacefully with our message that we will not put up with traitors and corrupt politicians any longer.

Brad Pick
Guest
Brad Pick

They can take my guns when they pry them out of my cold dead hands.

SK
Guest
SK

“From my cold dead hands!”

icetrout
Guest
icetrout

Hillary,Huma,Obama & the rest of the supporters of Radical Islam must have their necks stretched for committing TREASON … San Bernardino was a TERROR ATTACK BY MUSLIM TERRORIST !

Jack Patriot
Guest
Jack Patriot

Hillary Clinton is a traitor to the United States, as is anybody who calls for and actively seeks the infringement of any of the Amendments to the United States Constitution, especially The Bill of Rights. According to “18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason”, the penalty for treason is “…death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Eric
Guest
Eric

But her Libyan arms deal that went astray gave the Taliban stinger missiles. She needs to fade away anti American dumbass.