Hillary Clinton Endorses Mass Confiscation of Firearms

Mass confiscation now seems to be the official policy of the Democratic front runner. When asked about the Australian and British models, Hillary responded:

Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20-25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.

In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.

No, Mrs. Clinton, Australia offered $200 per firearm, often for guns worth thousands, and you either took the money and turned over your gun, or you went to prison. Australia forcibly confiscated every semi-automatic rifle in the country, and then offered a pittance in return, as a “so sorry.” Great Britain forcibly confiscated every handgun in the country, upon penalty of going to prison. And they were successful. Why? Because both countries had registration, so the police knew exactly who had them. Universal Background Checks are really universal registration. That’s not an exaggeration, it’s the truth, and it is the primary reason the gun control folks want them. How do we know this? Because every time we’ve offered a UBC system that doesn’t involve the registration component, they’ve rejected it. Registration is what they want, and look to where it lead in Britain and Australia. Now you have both the Democratic President, and Democratic front-runner endorsing the British and Australian model.

Folks, we are in real serious trouble if she wins in 2016. Real serious.

17 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Endorses Mass Confiscation of Firearms”

  1. RAH says:

    If she wins the country will probably have a civil war

  2. RAH says:

    Really the entire Democratic field have drank the Koolaid other than Webb.

  3. HappyWarrior6 says:

    At this point I don’t know if she would be behind bars by 2016.

  4. Bill From Over The Hil says:

    Maybe y’all noticed the language surrounding the “Australian” model when the Dems and the anti’s bring it up. Buy Back! They didn’t say confiscate even though we know that is what they mean.That is the route they will use to try and sell this to the moderates in this country.

    • The_Jack says:

      She also said it was about “automatic weapons”.

      Note the replay of the 90’s AWB language.

      • TS says:

        Of course a “buy back” using the Australian model will cost $30 Billion in this country (and that is still grossly shortchanging everyone, as Sebastian noted). Bernie Sanders better get real busy planting those money trees.

        Remember, when they say “we’re not going to take away your guns”, they don’t literally mean you, and “guns” doesn’t mean any guns, it means all your guns. Somebody somewhere will get to keep some guns, and that satisfies their statement to them.

    • Brad says:

      Yeah I noticed the weasel worded language.

      Oh, Hillary knows she wants to ban guns. The audience Hillary speaks to knows she wants to ban guns. But Hillary also wants plausible deniability, the better to fool low information voters into going along with the anti-gun program.

  5. Jon says:

    The ad for the general election writes itself:

    Scene 1: “In Australia, the government confiscated 1/3 of the guns in the country. In America, 1/3 would be around 120 million guns”.

    Scene 2: footage from Australia of big piles of guns getting ready to be melted down (it’s on YouTube in a documentary).

    Scene 3: footage of Hillary saying Australia is a good example of what we should do in America.

  6. Aaron says:

    If we use the non-compliance of New Yorkers as a base for the entire country, she’d likely create tens of millions of armed enemies all at once.

    And a March on Washington, perhaps?

  7. Shawn says:

    I wish someone would straight up tell her that there are millions of gun owners who would rather start a bloody Civil War and even die rather than surrender their guns. Then throw a number out, say that if just 3% of people did not go along with the confiscation order and would rather die by her law they would have to have government agents go to these people’s homes to confiscate their guns by force. And by doing so killing that person. Then ask would she be willing to use the force of United States government to kill 3 million United States on United States soil in there own homes. Then throw it in her face and straight up tell her that to achieve what she wants you would have to kill your own citizens in the town possibly tens of millions to achieve that goal. And tell her there is only a yes or no answer. Say no and your legislation is unenforcable. Say yes and destroy your political career in one sentence. Only an MSNBC host would vote for someone that evil. But the people voting for her would probably want US government to exterminate all 100,000,000+ gun owners. They hate us that much.

    I think the reason a lot of anti-gun people bring up the nuclear bomb argument is because they actually want the United States government to use nuclear weapons on their own soil to quell an uprising that they themselves created by banning guns and causing the reaction we all know would happen. To put it bluntly progressive liberals would do to the united states what the Soviet union would’ve done if the cold war went hot. And they would cheer the government on as the United States government kills tens of millions United States citizens. After all we are not progressive liberals like them.

  8. Ronnie says:

    Don’t you just love how these anti-gun people always want to bring up mass shootings (which always seem to occur in so-called “gun free zones” of course) as the justification for new draconian gun laws and/or massive gun bans, and/or massive gun confiscations?

    What anti-gun people seem to often just ignore altogether is how Australia, Canada, and the U.K. all have had increases in their violent crime rates and gun crime rates ever since all three of these countries have severely limited the gun rights of their respective citizenry. A fairly noticeable number of the offenders in all three of these of countries have been ethnic minorities and/or fairly recent immigrants, too.

    Anti-gun people like to focus upon mass shootings in any country being discussed (especially if the shooter is a white male, or even if his picture can be altered to make him appear to be a white male, as was the case with the shooter at the community college in Oregon) all while ignoring any number of lower-profile gun crimes and/or violent crimes (usually just one offender/just one victim) that get committed in any country over the course of any time frame. (one week, one month, or one year)

    Before the days when most of us had access to the internet or even knew about Youtube, I often would hear all types of people in this country say that gun crimes happen “only in America” or other words to this effect. Now many of us here can easily find out that nothing could be further from the truth, that is, if we just bother to look for the truth, because we were never getting the truth on this in the past from these anti-gun people in the American mainstream media.

    Check out these examples of what I mean:

    2015 Double fatal shooting/non-fatal shooting of a third victim at a cafe in Canada

    2015 fatal shooting in Canada of a teenager who used an app to locate his stolen cellphone inside of an occupied vehicle; one of the cellphone thieves inside the vehicle then shot him with a handgun

    A good compilation video of various news and documentary videos from the United Kingdom about numerous gun crimes and police seizures of both handguns and fully automatic firearms all throughout the 2000’s, despite a 1997 nationwide handgun ban in the United Kingdom

    2011 drive-by fatal shooting with a machine gun in London, United Kingdom

    2013 non-fatal shooting – Bailiff and housing officer shot by a tenant armed with an illegal handgun in housing eviction from government-funded house in London, United Kingdom

    2011 security video of an armed robbery by two hooded gunmen who appear to be armed with at least one handgun in Liverpool, United Kingdom

    2011 Australian TV news report about a non-fatal drive-by shooting in Sydney, Australia

    2011 Australian TV news report about a non-fatal shooting over a reported illegal drugs dispute in Sydney, Australia

    2011 Australian TV news report about a man in his 20’s found dead in the street of a close-range gunshot wound in Sydney, Australia

    2012 Australian TV news report about what the police in Sydney, Australia have begun to call a “drive-by shooting epidemic” by members of various illegal drugs distribution gangs and the call for greater police powers to deal with this emerging crime trend…plus a demand for a complete ban on all handguns in Australia by a representative of an Australian anti-gun group

  9. NotClauswitz says:

    She’s outed herself at any rate, what happens next is on her head – but as Benghazi shows, she doesn’t really give a rat’s ass.

  10. Chris from AK says:

    So here’s the thing…

    Yes, compliance would be low.

    No, they will not (likely) send (many) JBT Black Ninja Helicoptor assault squads to roll up gun owners who don’t comply.

    First, even if UBCs passed tomorrow, it would take some time to gather the data, and the data would be riddled with errors, and would not account for past private transfers. Even the NFA database has errors and that is orders of magnitude smaller than a national registry compiled from handwritten 4473s.

    Second, they don’t want to provoke massive resistance (especially shooting) over this. At least the smarter ones don’t.

    What an Australian style confiscation law would do is drive the “Gun Culture 2.0” underground. Sure, people would keep their mags and glocks and ARs. But any training or other usage would be driven largely underground. “Legitimate” ranges wouldn’t allow them, just like unregistered NFA items are not particularly welcome at most ranges today. Holders of federal firearms licenses wouldn’t sell them. No internet/mail order sales. You get the idea. The same thing the feds are doing with the 37MM hobby right now, in fact.

    NY and CT and the other recent Ban States have obviously got little compliance. But they’re playing a long game. They want to stamp out the culture, and they’ll do so in a generation or two. In 40 years, kids will start finding grandpa’s AR-15 assault rifle hidden in the attic, and likely turn it in.

    Now, there is a chance that the True Believers (maybe Hillary is one, who knows) will push more aggressively and boil the frog too fast. Who knows. Then things might get interesting.

    I do find it interesting that they aren’t just moving to include “assault weapons” on the NFA. That would allow them to effectively ban these items, use an existing regulatory regime, yet claim that there isn’t really a “ban” being imposed. It makes me think that those pushing for this nonsense are both poorly informed and getting greedy/overreaching.

    • The Jack says:

      The overreach seems to be baked into the cake.

      Heck the standard model is to first ban the sale of new gun.class.X

      (See Machine guns post Hughes)

      This inflates the price per unit vastly and makes it so even if you can openly show new shooters gun.class.X they can’t really buy their own.

      Again see Machine guns.

      Then one moves to ban transfers of existing ones. That is “Oh you can keep your grandfathered weapon but you can’t sell it to someone else.”

      Which of course means no trading and the existing stocks are frozen. Which means that the culture of that weapon will end when the current owners die of old age.

      That also has the “advantage” of being a patient ban. No need for confiscation, just enforce “new” shooters, and wait out the current owners.

      That they’re jumping over the preceding two steps clearly shows a lack of patience in their plans.

      One can also see it in that they’re shifting away from AWB language and going more to trying to ban all semi-auto rifles. (And also talking about handgun bans too).


  1. SayUncle » Democrats and guns - […] Confiscation seems to be OK among them, notably Hillary. […]