We need to follow Australia's lead.

The SCOTUS? The American people?

Don't agree with everything the Founders did.

but, it's the law.
There are a lot of laws I hate, but, if they're constitutional, then I follow them.

You want to ignore the sickness?

You're the pro-gun sides best asset.

was and is a flawed document from the beginning. We get "around: it maybe by creating one that wasn't designed for protecting the rights of the privileged. Somehow throwing your hands in the air and saying game over doesn't seem like a solution to anything.

It's not a "buyback". It's mandatory confiscation.

a) The government never owned privately-purchased and privately-owned guns in the first place. Private ownership is not a lease or a loan. Ego, the government is not buying them "back".

b) Local programs are voluntary. Canada's, Australia's, and Great Britain's were mandatory.


In other words, "she's coming for your guns".


I wonder if all the people that quoted that, to mock the paranoid delusions of the gun nuts, will now admit that the gun nuts were right to be worried.

If she's going to push the confiscation button it will be great for her opponents.
They will urge her all the way to keep pushing this vote killer option.

The Republicans that say she is coming for your guns, or the Democrats that say Republicans are just using fear tactics to get votes?

The truth is that "She is coming for your guns"

Does anyone besides me remember just 2 years ago (after Sandy Hook) that Colorado RECALLED members of their legislature because they supported even minor gun control laws, yet confiscation of guns is going to play well?????????
Last I checked Colorado was a swing state that was needed in the general election.

I like gun buybacks.

The only person who has ever been willing to overpay for a rusted out gun that hasn't fired in 20 years is the government.

I've got a few old guns in my safe, I'm just waiting for a buy back so I can get rid of them. I got 300 dollars that I put towards a new glock at the last buy back.

... which, according to the HuffPo article, bought back semi-automatic weapons. This probably doesn't buy back the old rusty Mosin-Nagant bolt gun.

If the program is mandatory, then the government will dictate the below-market price for the buyback.

How about $100 for your Glock, Travis-number-four.

They have to pay the full market value for property taken per the Constitution. In addition, they cannot take any property without due process (also per Constitution), so it would either be voluntary or every person they forced to hand over the weapon would have to have their day in court first.

it will never pass constitutional muster.

How?
Even if the govt bought up the stock, there would still be business people who would just start up new firearm manufacturing companies.

The guns got sold to Mexico and then smuggled back into the US. The guns were supposed to be destroyed but weren't.

nt

There are better things to be done with tax money.

She'll never get elected to a second term.

"Buyback" is a nice way of disguising the true intent - confiscation of all privately owned firearms. She's going to lose a lot of Democrats over this issue. Not me, she lost me a long time ago. But it will bite her in the ass.

The one good thing about it is, I don't think she really has any intention of actually doing this. It's just more Clinton bullshit to get her past the nomination. Once she is the nominee all this feel good crap about gun buybacks will disappear because she'll never get elected if she keeps talking like that.

It's one more example of why she can't be trusted.

The date was 1996, nineteen years ago.

Hillary is proposing to limit citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed rights, but she will not even get the facts correct. I have reservations about a person who just throws out generalized concepts when the topic is restricting my rights.

things like luxury travel on private jets?

I'll let her "buy Back" a .22 rifle that she has never owned for the bargain price of just one her $200,000 speeches.

The American people need to file a $20 Trillion class action suit against the NRA.

We sue polluters and other corporations for environmental damages and (try to) hold others responsible for wrongful death and injury.

The NRA has created and promoted serious endangerment to all Americans. Let's take them to court and break them.

some gun control org. would already have done so?

But it wouldn't take a single firearm off the streets.

and the NRA are babes in the woods compared to the GOA, or the SAF.

She mentioned a couple major shootings in Australia and then went on to talk about a buy back program for the US.

Hillary didn't really say anything. She is dancing around this issue and she failed miserably.
This is one of those issues where if she should be elected President she will forget what she said..
You know kinda like Obama when he talked about walking a picket line with union members..

Hillary's response was quick and long drawn out and she immediately knew a lot about Australia program as if this was a planted question.

Ok So what did she really say and I would ask her what she sometimes asks Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail about some of his proposals?
Hillary how would you ever get something like this buy back program through Congress?

Give me a break.

adding this to her weekly stump speeches not only in the primary, but gods forbid also in the general, then she and the Democratic party has already lost.

This will not work in the United States for so very many reasons.

I don't believe she is being real on this anyway. After all, 'Annie Oakely' will pander which ever way the winds blow in order to win.

.


Unless the manufacturing stream is stopped, this is what you get:

As is usual when election season rolls around, I question whether a lot of you DU gun enthusiasts will be casting votes for any Democrats at all.

it's not a matter of voting for Hillary, it's a case of motivating pro 2A voters to come out.

You can question all you want, it's irrelevant what you think.

No Democrat need cast a vote for a Republican. However, whoever our candidate, they have to earn our vote, it must not be taken for granted.

In the last few elections, pre and post-Obama, voter turnout was extremely important given the margins. Promoting the Australian mandatory gun "buyback," i.e., outright firearm bans and confiscation, is guaranteed to keep many needed Democrats home on election day in important states like Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and similarly energize Republicans nationwide (and act as a fundraising windfall for groups like the NRA and SAF).

Guns are an electoral loser in most states and districts, no matter your level of disgust.

In fact, as we come closer to the election, as every candidate before and including Obama, they'll make sure to have ample photo opportunities with firearms to remind Americans how they support our historic cultural traditions and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

And you can quit posting that part of the Democratic Platform (and that photo of Obama with the pretty over & under). I've been viewing the remarks of "pro-gun rights Democrats" such as yourself for years and years. I don't believe you people have any interest in adhering to a single word of that platform which suggests a means of dealing with gun violence in this country. Not even an initial dialogue. Any discussions about gun policy get hijacked at the earliest possible opportunity by your side, with gripe sessions over issues like what the differences between "magazines" and "clips" are. Time and time again.

You want to stay at home on election day because of the Democratic candidate's stance on firearms? Have at it. This old gun-owning Democrat will cast his vote with you in mind.

Gun owners understand that both HRC and Bernie need to pander to an important Dem constituency for the primary. But the issue will go away for the general because they want to actually win.

Gun control is irrelevant to the general election so there is no point in fighting over it. Any Dem in the White House will be good to gun owners - Obama taught us that.

as well as the picture of Obama shooting a gun, until people like you realize the political and public relations importance of such exercises, and just why most gun control proposals (such as gun banning and confiscation like Australia) are great big electoral losers in very large swaths of our country. I'm sorry if cognitive dissonance if causing you difficulty accepting this tried and tested fact, or that a great many Americans, including millions of Democrats, have a significant divergence of opinion from people like yourself.

I also find it both sad and ironic that you claim that gun rights proponents like me have don't "any interest in adhering to a single word of that platform." As you appear to have been paying attention to my posts, you can dispense with the straw man arguments. You know perfectly well that I would indeed support certain restriction such as universal background checks, although any such regulations must still be constitutional (there'll be no "creative" interpretation of any amendment to the Constitution, as that will lead to disaster in areas other than guns). If you and others support a "mandatory buyback" of virtually all firearms like was done in Australia, and suggested by Clinton, or similarly strict or pervasive measures, it's you who actually has no interest in adhering to the Democratic Platform concerning firearms.

As to whether I will vote and who for, you can rest easy. I'm a lifelong NYC resident, virtually all Democrats on the ballot are strongly anti-gun, I'm not a one issue voter (and by choice don't own any firearms), and I've had no problem voting for virtually every Democratic candidate since I first registered to vote. Nevertheless, I don't bury my head in the sand, and acknowledge that other Democrats and independents are not me, firearms rights for them is often a make or break issue, and these individuals tend to reside in very important and contested states and districts that are important to win, lest we risk the entirety of our progressive agenda.

Neither is a threat to my guns. To think so is delusional.

Yeah, "weasel words" is the perfect term here.

Like a parent responding to a five-year-old asking if he can just have cake, ice cream, and candy for dinner:

"Well now, that's an idea worth considering, Honey! We'll see, OK?"

" 'kay, Mommy. I love you!"

From "gun rights" advocates

"Gun rights" advocates want nothing less than unfettered access to all the weapons they want, all the time. I admit that may seem broad but in my experience and observation, any talk of any limits is shut down or met with name calling or ridiculed.
I counter that strong regulation on the distribution, ownership and use of firearms is reasonable on a product that was created for the express purpose to kill.
We are the only OECD nation that does not do that. These regulations, some in place for decades, have not left there respective countries as mad max wastelands of crime and death. The opposite actually. Those laws don't prevent hunting or target shooting but do often regulate where and how.

I suggest you get out more, read information other than from gun control groups which confirm your own biases, and most importantly, speak with some of the millions of Democratic and liberal gun owners and their supporters.

By suggesting you have some special insight into the minds of the 80-100+ million legal American gun owners (over 1 out of ever 3 American adults), or those who support gun rights, but don't own any firearms such as myself, you're presenting nothing more than a self-serving, strawman argument that's barely worthy of a substantive rebuttal. The level, nature and type of firearm restrictions that would be considered acceptable to these people vary considerably.

Moreover, I care not one iota what other Democratic countries choose to do or not do. We live in a democratic republic, Americans have our own unique culture and history, and firearms, for good or ill, are a part of it supported by a majority of Americans, and the numbers are growing (besides being an actual enumerated right protected in the Bill of Rights!).

For instance, among the western and advanced nations, our free speech, press, and religion jurisprudence is by far the most liberal and expansive. We'll tolerate virtually anything to ensure the government is never in a position to censor unpopular opinions, something that has people from across the political spectrum in our history. "Hate speech" and similar laws are anathema to virtually all Americans, yet standard virtually everywhere else.

Moreover, guns do not cause violence or even suicides, which represents two-thirds of firearm deaths. In fact, despite the wide availability of guns in our country, our suicide rate is comparable to most other advanced nations, and much less than gun control havens like Japan and South Korea.

We have our pathology of violence, and since violence and crime often tend to be very regional/urban or demographically-linked to certain groups, many areas of the USA are much safer overall than similar regions in these other OECD countries.

Lastly, as others have noted and despite you broad contention, the gun laws in many of these other country sometimes drastically affect hunting and sport options and opportunities. In any event, the Second Amendment is about self-defense, both from other and the government, not hunting and sport (which can be, and is, regulated more broadly in the USA).

Essentially, you're giving money to people to trade in old guns to buy new guns. Imagine if they said, we'll buy your old car and now you have no car. What would you do? Simply take that money and buy a new car. And if you own a new Ferrari or have a hot car you're less likely to trade in that old car.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

"Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

The government estimates there are more than 310 million guns in America today, nearly enough to arm every man, woman and child in the country.

"They make for good photo images," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, based at the University of Wisconsin's law school. "But gun buyback programs recover such a small percentage of guns that it's not likely to make much impact."

The relatively small number of guns recovered isn't the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes."

But this was just a politically naïve statement. First, a voluntary gun buyback bill is never going to pass the House, which it would have to do. Second, a mandatory buyback program wouldn't pass constitutional muster. So this idea is dead on arrival, but now the NRA and Fox News can run around yelling "Hillary wants to take your guns," and pump up Republican turnout in the general election while at the same time potentially alienating pro-2d Amendment Democrats. In short, Hillary just handed Republicans a major talking point, where they can actually quote her, on an idea that she will never get passed.

The proper response would have been "No, we are not considering a national buyback program, because there would be serious Second Amendment implications, but we want to work within the confines of the Second Amendment to limit gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of felons and providing mental health services to those who need it."

against the Brady Bill."

That's not what she was saying, no matter how hard you try to stretch her statements. What she said was that she'd consider a gun buyback program. Not sure how you equate that to the Brady Bill.