Hillary says Australian-style gun confiscation program 'worth considering' in America

Hillary Clinton told a town hall audience in New Hampshire that a gun confiscation program modelled after one passed in Australia in 1996, was "worth considering." 

The draconian measure implemented by Australia siezed guns - including rifles - and gave token compensation to citizens in return. 

Herre's the exchange between Clinton and the voter.

Washington Free Beacon:

VOTER: Back to handguns. Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?

HILLARY CLINTON: 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. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.

Communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. You remember that? It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at. [Applause]

Current Supreme Court decisions give Americans the constitutional right to individually bear arms. But if President Obama - or President Clinton - gets to name two liberal judges to replace conservatives, that will likely be reversed and a gun confiscation program could be ruled constitutional. 

That's a true nightmare scenario. Many thousands of gun owners would almost certainly tell the government - "Come and take them." No doubt the resulting casualties would be explained away by liberals as the cost of "making us safe," a truly Orwellian construct. 

That Clinton is even contemplating a gun confiscation program shows how far away we've gotten from simple, constitutional principles. Gun rights, which have been expanding over the last decade, could grind to a screeching halt if Hillary Clinton gets her way.

 

Hillary Clinton told a town hall audience in New Hampshire that a gun confiscation program modelled after one passed in Australia in 1996, was "worth considering." 

The draconian measure implemented by Australia siezed guns - including rifles - and gave token compensation to citizens in return. 

Herre's the exchange between Clinton and the voter.

Washington Free Beacon:

VOTER: Back to handguns. Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?

HILLARY CLINTON: 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. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.

Communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. You remember that? It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at. [Applause]

Current Supreme Court decisions give Americans the constitutional right to individually bear arms. But if President Obama - or President Clinton - gets to name two liberal judges to replace conservatives, that will likely be reversed and a gun confiscation program could be ruled constitutional. 

That's a true nightmare scenario. Many thousands of gun owners would almost certainly tell the government - "Come and take them." No doubt the resulting casualties would be explained away by liberals as the cost of "making us safe," a truly Orwellian construct. 

That Clinton is even contemplating a gun confiscation program shows how far away we've gotten from simple, constitutional principles. Gun rights, which have been expanding over the last decade, could grind to a screeching halt if Hillary Clinton gets her way.