Hillary just suggested the Australian buy-back model as worth looking at for the US

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't be concerned about what any politician says before an election. She's playing to the left of the dem party. That's where her campaign funding is coming from. She really can't do much without congress putting a bill on her desk if she were president. I don't have any doubts about her chances though, probably better than Bernie's to get the Dem nomination. Then we see if she can pull it off.
 
Yes, semi automatics including pistols and long guns in 1996, whether or not they were used for hunting, collecting, etc. were ordered recalled and some compensation was offered.

Ironic thing is now Australia is back to the same number of guns, albeit, a bit more primitive ones. See this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ty-Port-Arthur-massacre-killed-35-people.html

"The most novel feature of the National Firearms Agreement was the decision to
support the new restrictions on gun types and ownership by attempting to buy
back a substantial fraction of the stockpile. An expert committee developed a price list, which would be used by all states so as to prevent any shopping around among states. Between 1996 and 1997, 643,726 prohibited firearms were handed in. Prices were set to reflect “fair value” (market value). Individuals with per-mits could also turn in firearms that they had failed to register. Total public ex-penditures were about $A320 million ($U.S. 230 million), approximately $A500 ($U.S. 359) per gun. The buyback program was financed by an addi-tional 0.2 percent levy on national health insurance"

From http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reuter/files/gun chapter.pdf PETER REUTER and JENNY MOUZOS
Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns
 
You won't believe this.
An ex-Marine (peacetime infantry) told me that confiscation is the only way to deprive criminals having a supply of guns to steal, over the long-term. He told me that in about fifty years, the supply would dry up. That conversation ended after this comment.

He is an airline pilot about 40 years old, and his head apparently has been filled with his brother's attitude.
They grew up just outside of Chicago, where his brother is an Asst. Police Chief.
Is it often the case that police careers in (or near) Chicago require drinking such leftist Kool-Aid?
 
Last edited:
I think what BANG was trying to say is that the republic is lost. Lots of people think the whole deal is rigged and that she will get in no matter what and that she will implement this plan. It could be a bunch of nonsense, but who really knows? Given the fact that she is still around after everything she has done ceetainly does make one wonder. If nobody is standing up to her now and throwing down charges and so on then chances are nobody will stand up to her when she is in office either, politician wise and she will try to pull this off. Let's hope not but a lot of people certainly feel this way. Truthfully, we don't have any real strong supporters on the Republican side either. Trump says a lot that people want to hear but he can't be trusted, Carson is kind of iffy on guns and has made statements against people within cities owning them, Fiorina (may have done some things during her CEO time that turned people off of her. Cruz is a straight shooter and probably our best bet for pro 2A but I am not sure he is electable. Bush and Rubio just aren't strong enough IMO. So, we don't have any without a doubt candidates that would most likely win and be as pro 2A as we would like. Only time will tell. All I know is if Hilary does win, people better start taking notice as in my mind, it would certainly lead me to believe the republic is no more.
 
Please. Hillary can't do squat.

Barack is as Anti-Constitutionalist as they come and he has been completely stymied. Stay vigilant, donate to the NRA-ILA, donate to the SAF, teach your kids guns safety, take people to the range, lead by example, lose the defeatist BS.
 
USAF_Vet said:
You know she'snot even top rated in the polls, right? You know she may not even get the nomination, right? You know it's this exact defeatist attitude from people who claim to support the 2A that will be it's undoing, right?

I'm not usually one to tell people directly to grow a pair and stand up for their rights, but in this case I'll make an exception.
Click to expand...

You almost told me. You almost have a pair.

Assume much?

Come off your high horse for just a moment. Who do you think will be the next president?
 
1) A compulsory buyback would require registration first.
2) A buyback in the US (depending on what is banned) would be 200-300 times larger in cost and manpower than the Australian buyback program (which was estimated to cost $500 million) so it would cost $100-150 billion here.
3) It ain't gonna happen, so relax.
 
Since the running of the muzzies in eurpoe - who in their right mind would ever think of anything in the way of gun control ?

ya have to be insane with all the illegals in the country due to the Democrats
 
1) A compulsory buyback would require registration first.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. A compulsory buyback can be passed without registration. It will be more difficult to enforce, but it will have a profound effect immediately even without active enforcement. You won't be able to legally use your gun for self-defense, or for hunting, you won't be able to shoot it at the range. So what if the government doesn't know you have it if you can't do anything at all with it other than polish it and use it as a paperweight?
2) A buyback in the US (depending on what is banned) would be 200-300 times larger in cost and manpower than the Australian buyback program (which was estimated to cost $500 million) so it would cost $100-150 billion here.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be more expensive. But that wouldn't stop implementation either if the law passed.
3) It ain't gonna happen, so relax.
Click to expand...
I believe the probability of it happening is not high, but I don't, for a second, believe it's not possible.
 
HammsBeer said:
1) A compulsory buyback would require registration first.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Australia didn't have a registry before their buyback. They simply passed a law banning certain guns, gave a period of time to turn them in for compensation, and then after that date people that kept them could be prosecuted if found in possession of a banned gun. No one went door to door rounding up guns.
 
Well then I wish them all the best in trying to round them up! If they can't even get owners to register their guns and mags in CT and NY, good luck getting them to turn them in at all for the chump change "gift cards". Wow, what a gift!

I should start investing in PVC pipe companies if they try it...
 
Bang! said:
You almost told me. You almost have a pair.

Assume much?

Come off your high horse for just a moment. Who do you think will be the next president?
Click to expand...

Subtlety is a lost art, wasted more often than not.

Assume what? That you have given up and given in to the idea that Hillary will be our next president, no matter what, 13 months before the election? Yeah, your attitude seems to support that assumption entirely.

High horse or not, I'm still in the fight. She might become the next President, she might be in federal prison before November 2016. There are far too many variables and far too much time, not to mention an entire GOP selection, to give up and assume HRC will get the nomination, much less win the election. We'll revisit that 13 months from now. Until then, I see 13 months of time to educate, support better candidates, and rally support against her.
 
The Australian buy back removed 28% of the affected weapons from the civilian supply, per one police estimate I read.
Enough remained in civilian hands that the Feds banned importation of milsurp 7.62x39 to prevent people from shooting their SKK / SKSs.
What did happen was the citizen's guns were driven from public display and use, so two decades later the idea of guns being outside the social norms is dominant.
There is another gun ban push underway here in the political classes. They will keep moving the goalposts until there are none legally held.
 
They banned guns in Australia, while they have a huge problem of rape. It's cultural, my friends and family have lived there, and the incidence of rape is unbelievable.

Even the most anti gun friend I have said he would never live there, and believes people there should be able to protect themselves.
 
The reality is she most likely made the comparison out of ignorance. It is likely that she doesnt actually know what the australian "buyback" entailed. In the same way she didnt know that domestic abusers are already prohibited from owning guns.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is a lot of things most of which cannot be said on THR but she is NOT stupid.
 
USAF_Vet said:
Subtlety is a lost art, wasted more often than not.

Assume what? That you have given up and given in to the idea that Hillary will be our next president, no matter what, 13 months before the election? Yeah, your attitude seems to support that assumption entirely.

High horse or not, I'm still in the fight. She might become the next President, she might be in federal prison before November 2016. There are far too many variables and far too much time, not to mention an entire GOP selection, to give up and assume HRC will get the nomination, much less win the election. We'll revisit that 13 months from now. Until then, I see 13 months of time to educate, support better candidates, and rally support against her.
Click to expand...

You started off as a raging, assuming keyboard warrior and then you have this gutless response. Subtlety does not exist where you took this conversation.

Pretend for a moment that you have a pair. At this stage in the game-Who do you think will be the next president? Don't use that crystal ball that told you I've given up or have a defeatist attitude. That thing is broken.

@silentstalker
Rome is burning but I don't think all is lost. It does appear the Dems are rallying behind HRC. I was just a little shocked during the Dem debate when they rallied behind her to 'cleanse her of the email scandal'. She could be on stage strangling baby ducks and the 47% Romney spoke of will vote for her anyway. And the Repub's show no signs of coagulating their feces. That is the part that bothers me in this election.

Those that dance in the flames of our burning Rome have the momentum. To change the momentum is up to us as individuals to reach out in our communities in a constant daily grind. Reach out to motivate the 53% and get them to the polls, this time. Reach out to the 47% in a positive constructive way to change their perspective of the 53%. Don't pass up an opportunity to educate a 47%'er on the real intent of the 2nd Amend. Getting one of them to the range is even better. Teach one of them safe handling of firearms and firearms become an object, not a demon waiting to jump out of the closet and destroy the world.


@USAF_VET
Being the constant grind activist is just one the many things I do to do my part. Hah! My congress critters know me on a first name basis, too. Winning one election doesn't mean all is won. Conversely, losing one election doesn't mean all is lost. I'm passionately in the fight trying to win this election while still working to win the next and the next... So don't be so ignorant to assume my early prediction is 'defeatism' or that I don't 'have a pair'. Would you say that to someone's face? Don't answer that. I already know. You're a rude keyboard hero and you get no more troll time from me.
 
In order for something to be a "buy back" program the person buying it back would have to have been the original seller or owner. In short, It's not a buy back program, it's confiscation for a compromised monetary compensation.
 
Those of you who don't think confiscation is possible need not look any further than the history of California and private gun ownership. They demanded registration and then confiscation of weapons having certain external features, it did not proceed as far as those in government wanted as a portion of the population rose up, but they have not rolled back any of their restrictions and the next wave of measures will advance from the point they currently have. Gun grabbers are patient so anyone who blows off any politicians statements as "rhetoric" is a fool.
 
An automatic handgun is called a machine pistol. The HK VP-70, for example, started out as one. Don't even think about buying one. They're junk.
Hillary is just using scary terms to promulgate her agenda.
 
Typical Democrat....who cares what the Supreme Court says. I bet they would strike down a buy-back/confiscation in a matter of days. That is, unless they pack the court full of left wing radicals.
 
An ex-Marine (peacetime infantry) told me that confiscation is the only way to deprive criminals having a supply of guns to steal, over the long-term. He told me that in about fifty years, the supply would dry up. That conversation ended after this comment.
Click to expand...
I expect we'd run out of confiscators FIRST.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
2006: Howard says yes NEW gun restrictions
Replies
4
Views
696
Wyndage
W
B
  • Locked
(Australian) Democrats on handguns ...
Replies
15
Views
722
Waitone
W
F
  • Locked
Guns WILL be banned, and banned soon.
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
5K
Justin
Justin
B
  • Locked
Hillary yakkin again
Replies
18
Views
951
Russ
R
W
  • Locked
Gun Control Could Damage Democrats:Catching Fire From All Sides
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Dorryn
D
Back
Top