Gun Control Proposals as Found by Gharkal

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by garhkal
How's about hillary for one
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...take-your-guns

Hilary Clinton did not propose a buy-back program as instituted in Australia. Guns are not outlawed in Australia but gun control laws are VERY strict. What Clinton said in the article is:

"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."

So I would say that Clinton's comments are very far from a proposal to taking away guns from law-abiding citizens.


https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/1...eyve-proposed/

I should have made my comment more specific. I was talking about banning ALL guns. I would certainly agree that some politicians would like to pass legislation banning certain types of guns.

Then there was this where over half want to ban semi-automatic weapons, while the others want to ban all guns
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...o-ban-all-guns

With all due respects, the survey was conducted with average citizens, not politicians.


Then you have Cuomo
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/must...nfiscate-guns/

Cuomo said “Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo opined. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.” Like Clinton, he has proposed nothing. He is stating that it could be an option to look at. Here is a comment from Cuomo made on June 13th: "We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away people's guns. I own a Remington shotgun. I've hunted, I've shot. That's not what this is about. It is about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles."


And lastly Dian feinstein
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ake-your-guns/

Again, Feinstein was talking about assault weapons only.


That enough for ya?

So I do apologize for not being more specific with my original comment. Yes, many people, politicians and ordinary citizens as the YouGov poll shows (both Democrats AND Republicans) want to ban certain types of semi-automatic firearms. My mistake.

[rexdutchman]

By the same people that want open borders and no illegal immigration enforcement thats funny

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Originally Posted by garhkal
How's about hillary for one
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...take-your-guns

Hilary Clinton did not propose a buy-back program as instituted in Australia. Guns are not outlawed in Australia but gun control laws are VERY strict. What Clinton said in the article is:

"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."

So I would say that Clinton's comments are very far from a proposal to taking away guns from law-abiding citizens.


https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/1...eyve-proposed/

I should have made my comment more specific. I was talking about banning ALL guns. I would certainly agree that some politicians would like to pass legislation banning certain types of guns.

Then there was this where over half want to ban semi-automatic weapons, while the others want to ban all guns
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...o-ban-all-guns

With all due respects, the survey was conducted with average citizens, not politicians.


Then you have Cuomo
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/must...nfiscate-guns/

Cuomo said “Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo opined. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.” Like Clinton, he has proposed nothing. He is stating that it could be an option to look at. Here is a comment from Cuomo made on June 13th: "We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away people's guns. I own a Remington shotgun. I've hunted, I've shot. That's not what this is about. It is about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles."


And lastly Dian feinstein
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ake-your-guns/

Again, Feinstein was talking about assault weapons only.


That enough for ya?

So I do apologize for not being more specific with my original comment. Yes, many people, politicians and ordinary citizens as the YouGov poll shows (both Democrats AND Republicans) want to ban certain types of semi-automatic firearms. My mistake.

The gun buy back is very flawed...
1. A lot of the guns bought back will be worthless junk.
2. The gumment is going to buy back your guns with your money
(tax payer)excellent.
3. Criminals won't be rushing out to sell their gun to the gumment.
4. How are they going to place a value on these said guns?
5. I have yet to see the undefined "assault weapon"?
6. Semi auto gun are among if not the most popular...
most of the ones I own are.
7. Guns are inanimate objects...this it something the gun
grabbers don't understand are choose not to.
8. Law abiding citizens don't commit these crimes that the
gun grabbers want you to believe. They are committed by people who have serious mental issues. It doesn't help that the media is complicit..it fits their narrative...as to help instigate these unstable individuals to propagate more of the same.
9. Being the second amendment to the Constitution is what
make the country different than any other and that is what I'm
very grateful for.

[Yssup Rider]

I think you’re missing the point, bb1961.

[LexusLover]

Essentially the same group who doesn't want ID's for voting wants to know who possesses firearms, and whether they are "qualified" to possess one.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think you’re missing the point, bb1961.

The "point" of what?

[LexusLover]

OP posted:

Hilary Clinton did not propose a buy-back program as instituted in Australia. Guns are not outlawed in Australia but gun control laws are VERY strict. What Clinton said in the article is:

"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."

Some "general" background with regard to Australia ... and "worth considering" ....

n 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.

Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.

During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent.

In 2002, Australia further tightened gun laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gu...ralia-updated/

Update:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/w...ret-river.html

Western Australia Police Commissioner Chris Dawson said at a news conference in Margaret River on Saturday that the police were not searching for suspects. Six members of the family were victims of homicide, he said, but not the seventh, suggesting that the police saw the case as a murder-suicide.

He added that three rifles licensed to Mr. Miles were found at the property.

I think the Liberals in this country should unite behind a campaign for the U.S. government to take control of all firearms in the U.S. and Territories by requiring "licensing" of firearms, AFTER they campaign for socialized medicine, disbanding ICE, and elimination of all restrictions on access to the U.S. by foreign nationals.

There's no point in "fooling around"! Get after it.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

By the same people that want open borders and no illegal immigration enforcement thats funny

I challenge you to cite any article in which any of the politicians mentioned say they support open borders and no illegal immigration enforcement.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

The gun buy back is very flawed...
1. A lot of the guns bought back will be worthless junk.
2. The gumment is going to buy back your guns with your money
(tax payer)excellent.
3. Criminals won't be rushing out to sell their gun to the gumment.
4. How are they going to place a value on these said guns?
5. I have yet to see the undefined "assault weapon"?
6. Semi auto gun are among if not the most popular...
most of the ones I own are.
7. Guns are inanimate objects...this it something the gun
grabbers don't understand are choose not to.
8. Law abiding citizens don't commit these crimes that the
gun grabbers want you to believe. They are committed by people who have serious mental issues. It doesn't help that the media is complicit..it fits their narrative...as to help instigate these unstable individuals to propagate more of the same.
9. Being the second amendment to the Constitution is what
make the country different than any other and that is what I'm
very grateful for.

Since no politician is supporting a gun buy-back program your comments, while they may be true, are irrelevant.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The "point" of what?

The point of the post to which bb1961 replied.

Speedracer did a fine job of clarifying, though no clarification should have been necessary.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I challenge you to cite any article in which any of the politicians mentioned say they support open borders and no illegal immigration enforcement.

Of course they don't ANNOUNCE IT!!!!

You know why? They'd get RETIRED!!!!

https://clintonwhitehouse1.archives....efs/iii-7.html



Teaching the "politicians"!

This Administration inherited a serious illegal immigration problem as a result of a decade of failed immigration policies.
The Administration Has a Four Point Plan to Deal With Illegal Immigration. The Clinton Administration has made the strongest commitment to fighting illegal immigration in history. In the 1996 budget, the President called for a $1 billion increase to combat illegal immigration through border control, work site enforcement, removal of criminal aliens, assistance to States, and other key initiatives.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The "point" of what?

That's just it there isn't any point. The left loves to ramble on about things they know nothing about. The second Amendment is just one of them.

Jim

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I challenge you to cite any article in which any of the politicians mentioned say they support open borders and no illegal immigration enforcement.

If a politician supported open borders, then there would be no illegal immigration, therefore no need to enforce it.

[straightshooter30]

Yup, getting rid of 'high capacity magazines' like 50 year old .22 rifles with a stack of 15... Lots of crime done with those now banned guns... SMH



Then you have Cuomo
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/must...nfiscate-guns/

Cuomo said “Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo opined. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.” Like Clinton, he has proposed nothing. He is stating that it could be an option to look at. Here is a comment from Cuomo made on June 13th: "We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. We respect hunters and sportsmen. This is not taking away people's guns. I own a Remington shotgun. I've hunted, I've shot. That's not what this is about. It is about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles."

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Politicians lie to the public. Always remember that. Kind of like the old saying about sex partners; a guy will always treble his conquests that he tells you about and a woman will divide her experiences by four. If a politician is voluntarily telling you about some guns being banned then understand that they probably mean three or four times more than that. We have to pass the bill to what is in the bill.