4 ms·

You're grossly misrepresenting what she actually said.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/nra-hillary-clinton-guns-democrats/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/nra-hillary-clinton-g... ""I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged," she said in response to a question about Australia's nationwide buyback initiative that began in 1996." I, uh, would have to say that checks out?
- hga 11y ago
  As Wikipedia puts it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia): Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws. The financial compensation was paltry; that for being converted from a citizen to a subject...?
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    Your comment leads me to believe you're taking issue with the fact that weapons are made illegal, not with the actual buyback? If you agree that weapon category X (for argument's sake, let's say grenade launchers) should be made illegal, what reason would you have for opposing mandatory buyback of these now-illegal weapons? (The financial compensation in question was on average ~$550 per gun.)
    - hga 11y ago
      Yes, of course. If no coercion is involved and someone is stupid enough to exchange a valuable item for a pittance, who am I to stand in their way? One reason for the general failure of gun buybacks in the US is two responses from the gun savvy: 1) Go back a bit from the front of the line, and if you see a valuable weapon held by a noob (vs. a likely crime weapon), buy it on the spot for a lot more than what's being offered. 2) Gather up clunker weapons with values much less than the $100 or whatever they're offering and make out like a bandit.
      - forrestthewoods 11y ago
        Lots of good deal to be had at gun buy backs! Like you said. Either selling junkers for good cash or buying good guns at a good price. It's win/win! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/firearms-enthusia...
      - 15155 11y ago
        1) Unless you hold an FFL, this is unfortunately becoming illegal in some infringed-upon jurisdictions.
        hga 11y ago
        Bleah. As far as the feds are concerned, as long as you're not "in the business", you're OK, and these buybacks tend to be rare and one offs. In practice and from their viewpoint, the first case of valuable guns is OK because there don't tend to be too many of them and there can be many different people doing this for any one buyback, in the latter case it tends to be FFLs who play that game since they can easily have a collection of junker guns they've bought but that didn't sell.
        15155 11y ago
        I'm speaking specifically about states regulating private sales. In some non-free states, you cannot legally transfer your property to another private individual.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    They're still citizens; that kind of talk is emotion-laden hyperbole, and has no place in this kind of discussion forum.
    - hga 11y ago
      I obviously strongly disagree. If you're disarmed, you're barely better than a serf, you are most certainly "subject" to anything your armed government cares to now impose on you. The truth may be ugly, but it does no one any good to pretend it doesn't exist.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        As with centuries of civilizations before us - there are people who think their current government is non-corrupt, flawless, serving in the citizens' best interests at all times, and would never use force or brutality against a population to get what they want simply because they can against an unarmed population. That there are no outside forces capable of harming the population, even if the government comes to their defense, and we're "past all that" because we've lived in a blink-of-an-eye overall "peaceful" time. If you ignore all the wars going on as we speak. Same people, different generation, different government.
        Frondo 11y ago
        I'm not sure what government you're talking about, but where I live (the U.S.), I think of the government as made up of people largely like me, and I'm neither wealthy nor well-connected. Is it perfect? No, but nothing human is. Is it accessible? Oh yes. Is it something I, and everyone else, can work to be a part of and make better for all citizens? Of course. Do guns play any role at all in that work? Not a one. This--the discussion of the role of government in a democratic society--is a place for words and ideas, not weapons. We are past the might-makes-right attitude of "I have guns so I'm OK". Now we talk.
        planfaster 11y ago
        First you should ask the presidents and politicians of the world to give up their guns and their security guards' guns. Then you might have a case to be made to the citizens. While attempting to do that you might realize that you in fact do live in a world where might-makes-right and that the "democratically-enacted rule of law" paradise they sold you through your TV is just that. You might also realize that you are wrong in thinking that the US government is made up largely of people like you, neither wealthy nor well-connected. This is the epitome of naivete, to think US politicians aren't wealthy and their careers aren't a game of who-knows-who.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/nra-hillary-clinton-guns-democrats/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/nra-hillary-clinton-g... ""I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged," she said in response to a question about Australia's nationwide buyback initiative that began in 1996." I, uh, would have to say that checks out?

hga 11y ago
As Wikipedia puts it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia): Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of particular types of firearms made illegal by new gun laws. The financial compensation was paltry; that for being converted from a citizen to a subject...?
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Your comment leads me to believe you're taking issue with the fact that weapons are made illegal, not with the actual buyback? If you agree that weapon category X (for argument's sake, let's say grenade launchers) should be made illegal, what reason would you have for opposing mandatory buyback of these now-illegal weapons? (The financial compensation in question was on average ~$550 per gun.)
  - hga 11y ago
    Yes, of course. If no coercion is involved and someone is stupid enough to exchange a valuable item for a pittance, who am I to stand in their way? One reason for the general failure of gun buybacks in the US is two responses from the gun savvy: 1) Go back a bit from the front of the line, and if you see a valuable weapon held by a noob (vs. a likely crime weapon), buy it on the spot for a lot more than what's being offered. 2) Gather up clunker weapons with values much less than the $100 or whatever they're offering and make out like a bandit.
    - forrestthewoods 11y ago
      Lots of good deal to be had at gun buy backs! Like you said. Either selling junkers for good cash or buying good guns at a good price. It's win/win! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/firearms-enthusia...
    - 15155 11y ago
      1) Unless you hold an FFL, this is unfortunately becoming illegal in some infringed-upon jurisdictions.
      - hga 11y ago
        Bleah. As far as the feds are concerned, as long as you're not "in the business", you're OK, and these buybacks tend to be rare and one offs. In practice and from their viewpoint, the first case of valuable guns is OK because there don't tend to be too many of them and there can be many different people doing this for any one buyback, in the latter case it tends to be FFLs who play that game since they can easily have a collection of junker guns they've bought but that didn't sell.
        15155 11y ago
        I'm speaking specifically about states regulating private sales. In some non-free states, you cannot legally transfer your property to another private individual.
- Frondo 11y ago
  They're still citizens; that kind of talk is emotion-laden hyperbole, and has no place in this kind of discussion forum.
  - hga 11y ago
    I obviously strongly disagree. If you're disarmed, you're barely better than a serf, you are most certainly "subject" to anything your armed government cares to now impose on you. The truth may be ugly, but it does no one any good to pretend it doesn't exist.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      As with centuries of civilizations before us - there are people who think their current government is non-corrupt, flawless, serving in the citizens' best interests at all times, and would never use force or brutality against a population to get what they want simply because they can against an unarmed population. That there are no outside forces capable of harming the population, even if the government comes to their defense, and we're "past all that" because we've lived in a blink-of-an-eye overall "peaceful" time. If you ignore all the wars going on as we speak. Same people, different generation, different government.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        I'm not sure what government you're talking about, but where I live (the U.S.), I think of the government as made up of people largely like me, and I'm neither wealthy nor well-connected. Is it perfect? No, but nothing human is. Is it accessible? Oh yes. Is it something I, and everyone else, can work to be a part of and make better for all citizens? Of course. Do guns play any role at all in that work? Not a one. This--the discussion of the role of government in a democratic society--is a place for words and ideas, not weapons. We are past the might-makes-right attitude of "I have guns so I'm OK". Now we talk.
        planfaster 11y ago
        First you should ask the presidents and politicians of the world to give up their guns and their security guards' guns. Then you might have a case to be made to the citizens. While attempting to do that you might realize that you in fact do live in a world where might-makes-right and that the "democratically-enacted rule of law" paradise they sold you through your TV is just that. You might also realize that you are wrong in thinking that the US government is made up largely of people like you, neither wealthy nor well-connected. This is the epitome of naivete, to think US politicians aren't wealthy and their careers aren't a game of who-knows-who.