Clinton: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

[Eduardo]

The level of stupid is thick here. From my reading, Australia bought back about 760,000 guns at a cost of about $500 million. A cost of roughly $650 per gun. And that was 20 years ago (feel free to correct me if my numbers are wrong).
We have more than 330 MILLION LEGAL guns in the US, but I have no idea what percentage of those would fall under such a forced buy back. But either way the numbers are likely to be in the hundreds of millions, making the cost of the buy back (confiscation) well into the hundreds of billions.
And there's still that pesky 2ND AMENDMENT.
Hillary KNOWS this can never happen but she panders, and people accept this and vote for her (oh that Hillary she's going to institute an Australian-style gun buyback program).

Video
https://youtu.be/JctBYrIaKvY

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at

[<<Genesis93>>]

If we had the 2nd A..... we would NEVER have complied...... NEVER.

and a small proportion were semi auto 22rimfire and 12g....12g pumps and an even smaller % of centrefire semis..... it was NOT all semi and full auto! mostly old single shot or repeating 22s, single double shotties....from people who didnt want registration and licensong....

To top it of there is zero evidenve to prove the stealback did anything to reduce crime.... its clear though that non firearm homicide DID increase after 96... but thats not mentioned....

Ultimately though... it had nothing to do with reducing crime...

[bigfellascott]

I reckon they should have a buyback, that way they can prove to the rest of the world just how stupid and futile such a thing really is and how little it will prevent anything!

[Heckler303]

To top it of there is zero evidenve to prove the stealback did anything to reduce crime.... its clear though that non firearm homicide DID increase after 96... but thats not mentioned....

Ultimately though... it had nothing to do with reducing crime...

Yet the Anti's like to say it reduced crime and Australia hasn't had a massacre since *cough*bullsh!t*cough*

It still is painful to watch the videos of all those really nice rifles and shotties being torn up....

Just.... so much betrayal by the government for what? Nothing, criminals as we all well and truly know, don't follow laws, the NFA NEVER made us safer, it only made sure we were taking steps into being completely dissarmed.

[<<Genesis93>>]

So many neurons are expended with the "we must act" cries from all grabtard parties after each mass killing... got to take the gunses away...well;

What will happen after instituting the Aussie style gun thievery in the USA, assuming the stupendously impossible, implausible act of taking every single gun owned by every law abiding owner, or crim..... what will result with the homicide rate in this socialist / commie utopia?

....the number of murders in the USA (this data is from a guardian article of 2012, so data might be 2010ish) 15,243..... number by firearm are at 60% or 9146, leaving homicide by all other means, knives, physical force, everything else.... at 40% or >>>6,097<<< Thats a lot of non firearm unmentionable murder!

So put on your simpleton hat for a minute and believe that taking all guns away would 'remove' the 9thousand odd murders... (of course it wouldnt, because those responsible would no doubt use something else / substitute the means....) then there are still 6097 equating to a rate of about 2.0 per 100,000, or exactly twice Australia's total all means homicide rate (Aus most recent rate is 1.0)...

Summary,
USA homicide rate by firearm = 2.97 per 100k pop.
USA homicide by NON firearm = 2.0 per 100k
Australia homi. rate by firearm = 0.14 per 100k
Australia homi. by NON firearm= 1.1 per 100k

So no stupid, its NOT the guns...

What is it?

Who knows, but on a totally separate matter, the most popular prescription drug, by sales, in the USA is ABILIFY....an ANTI-PSYCHOTIC

Bonus info: top 100 (legal/prescription) drugs by name, worth $168Billion in sales so why would they want to change the system??

My thoughts; taking every single firearm away would leave a vortex of order and control and hesitation on the side of those who care not of the laws.... and the overall necessarily non-firearm murder rate would climb....


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... world-list
I dont care for the written dribble in this story, just the numbers, all these papers are absolutely unreliable for fact and honest unbiased reporting, for example, Iceland has LOTS of guns, but an un- measurable total homicide rate, frequently zero murder by any means.... Serbia has even more firearms but a rate similar to ours at around 1 per 100k

[Sender]

The level of stupid is thick here. From my reading, Australia bought back about 760,000 guns at a cost of about $500 million. A cost of roughly $650 per gun. And that was 20 years ago (feel free to correct me if my numbers are wrong).
We have more than 330 MILLION LEGAL guns in the US

If he wants a buy back it's a good thing you guys have that huge surplus of cash and no national debt

[Baronvonrort]

From my reading, Australia bought back about 760,000 guns at a cost of about $500 million. A cost of roughly $650 per gun. And that was 20 years ago (feel free to correct me if my numbers are wrong).
]

It was 640,000 guns surrendered, the hoplophobes like to pad their figures, check all the photos and see how few the semi autos were in any piles of surrendered guns.

By mid 2012 we had imported over 1 million guns to replace the 640,000 surrendered in 1996.
Nice article here worth reading-
www.johnrlott.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/a ... o.html?m=1

The truth is we reduced gun crime to its lowest ever levels while firearm ownership has simultaneously increased to its highest ever levels,in Australia more guns has resulted in less gun crime,an inconvenient truth for the gun grabbers.

[Baronvonrort]

We have something called Firearm Prohibition Orders here, if you are subjected to one of them the Police can kick your door down to search your home without a warrant, if Aussie laws are being considered do the FPO violate your 4th amendment rights?

[Carter]

The truth is we reduced gun crime to its lowest ever levels while firearm ownership has simultaneously increased to its highest ever levels,in Australia more guns has resulted in less gun crime,an inconvenient truth for the gun grabbers.

Lucky for them they can lie through their teeth in the media as much as they like to push their agenda and get away with it

[coloradoboy]

those darn liberals are a joke. I have never once voted for a liberal and 2016 will be no different - GOP'16 yee-haa

[1886]

It would seem it may already be happening in the US, at least at this stage in NY.

But unlike us at least those that currently have them are covered by a grandfather clause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court decision paves the way for Australian-style gun ban

By Michael Filozof, October 20, 2015

On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the Second U.S. Circuit issued a long awaited decision on the constitutionality of the most drastic gun control law in U.S. history, the New York SAFE Act of 2013. The Second Circuit ruled that nearly all of the law does not violate the Second Amendment.

The SAFE ("Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement") Act was presented to the New York State Senate and passed into law in 15 minutes. No debate was allowed, and senators did not have time to read the bill before voting it into law.

The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades. It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms. Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering "confiscation" of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State. Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State.

The SAFE Act also enacted a complete ban on the possession of all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The law contains no "grandfather" provision for previously legal items.

Beyond that, the SAFE Act banned all private transfers of firearms, except among spouses, parents, and children; it created an ammunition purchase background check and ammunition purchase registry; it banned the private sale of ammunition except from a licensed dealer; and it created a secret reporting requirement under which "mental health professionals" must report anyone suspected of being a "danger" to the State Police for mandatory gun confiscation.

Now that the Second Circuit has upheld the law, residents within the court's jurisdiction have no recourse except to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – where there will be a guaranteed four votes against the Second Amendment. As I wrote last year, Gov. Cuomo and former Mayor Bloomberg, the backers of the SAFE Act, were betting that the law will be upheld by the Supreme Court, thus paving the way for a national version of the law (which has already been introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.). Indeed, Cuomo immediately called for a national SAFE Act as soon as the Second Circuit issued its ruling Monday.

_____________________________________________________

The Second Circuit's decision comes only one week after both President Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Australian and British mass gun confiscations of the 1990s.

If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs).

The Second Circuit's decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever. Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage. Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The Second Circuit's decision places the hands of the Second Amendment doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight. If you think "it can't happen here," you're wrong.

It already is happening here.

[Grrzrr]

Worth looking at and saying this is ******!

[happyhunter]

.

[Elek]

Ultimately though... it had nothing to do with reducing crime...

Nope.

Johnny just seized the opportunity to get his name into the history books.