Let me get this straight!


Who has once suggested that in our government?


How many times has the left used the confiscation of firearms in Australia , confiscation of firearms in Great Britain or the German system of gun control as a example of the type gun control the left wants to put in effect in America ?
The confiscation of every legal fire arm in America is the end game of the swamp in general and the left in particular !
Our only defense is the N.R.A , Gun Owners of America and our vote as a unbreakable voting block left and right pro second amendment !


You really are this uninformed ! Yet you have no problem speaking about things you know absolutely nothing about ! Just amazing ! :point_right::point_right::weary:


You keep repeating the same lie, but it was a gun buyback not confiscation and it’s happened locally in America before.


IT WAS A MANDATORY BUY BACK ! Can you or do you understand the word mandatory “required by law or rules; compulsory” Unlike America Australia doesn’t have a Constitution or a bill of rights and most importantly not a second amendment ! The NRA has already filed suite in federal to overturn the Florida to the illegal law !


And HRC referenced the voluntary buy backs that we’ve already seen here before.


Exactly, which is why she made reference to the buy backs that we’ve had here before.


They all sight the Australia , Great Britain , German system of gun control as a example of the type gun control they want to institute in America !
The left and the swamp want to disarm the American citizen . An armed population can resist and overcome tyranny ! The left and right are deeply aware of the change in America and the way voters see their elected officials !


In the clip you posted Clinton specifically cites the gun buy back like we’ve already seen here in certain localities before.


Duh this is the last time I’m going to post this you just ignore the truth and parrot the lies from the ignorant gun grabbing progressive socialist movement !

: It was a gun-confiscation program rushed through the Australian parliament just twelve days after a 28-year-old man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur. The Council of Foreign relations summarizes the Aussie measure nicely:

The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a “genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course.

While the chart does show a steady decline in gun-related suicides, the reduction occurred at the same time as an overall reduction in the Australian suicide rate. What’s more, firearm-related suicides had been declining in Australia for nearly ten years before the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership.

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”


And an American mandatory gun-confiscation program — in addition to being unconstitutional — would be extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.

There is no other way around it: The mandatory confiscation of the American citizenry’s guns would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand of millions of Americans that they surrender their guns.

The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course.


What guns have the progressives grabbed. You keep parroting lies! It’s the red Republican state of Florida that the gun lobby is suing right now. They didn’t sue liberal Oregon because they happen to agree with them that the mentally ill shouldnt have guns, hell, even the TIC agrees with that. Where he goes off the rails is when he suggests that there are circumstances in which cops should forgo due process and confiscate guns. Obama signed legislation allowing you to carry guns into the national parks and onto Amtrak trains. So STOP :stop_sign: lying.


Well… as we can see, politicians don’t necessarily create movement but they are many times loath, because of the importance of maintaining their careers, to ignore them… You think the parents who are pushing kids out in the streets are after only AR15’s… you are naive… and besides I have pointed out groups who have said that the objective is to remove the right to bear arms as a primary objective.

Just too add to that thought, comments like this guy don’t give me any confidence that their is any red line over which the will gleefully cross in disarming Americans…

And this of course is how you sell your tripe to young people… You say show me one politician who calls for the abolition of the 2nd amendment…

… I say show me one comment by an NRA official who has used the threat of ‘scary brown people’ to press its case for gun rights… for all we know, half of the weapons owned in the US are in the hands of brown people who exercised their constitutional rights…


The only one lying are the politicians on the left and the creatures living in the swamp !
They fear and despise a legally armed civilian population !


We’ve heard that tired line for decades. But the most recent gun restriction laws were just passed by REPUBLICANS!!!


You are stuck with a one trick horse and pony show ! Boring yawn :point_right::weary:


It is truly interesting that you can see a divide in the Republican party and in many cases it is along ideological lines that in any other situation would look like a difference of opinion between a democrat and a republican but you don’t see the ‘independence’ in that difference. You can still be an independent and vote for someone who happens to be in one of the major parties…


You do like to draw in to most recent history to make your points, the problem his that when you actually open up your world view, you would find far more indiscretions in both foreign and domestic policy than ‘republicans’… when you draw into more recent history, you have to take into account the infiltration of the Trotsky neocons into the party… Democrats get to have their wars and spread democracy and at the same time blame the republicans…


And how does a fake picture of Kim speak to your republicans passing what you believe to be unconstitutional law. :joy::joy::joy:


You forgot the government program that encourages fudging the records to keep the money coming


My post was “You are stuck with a one trick horse and pony show ! Boring yawn :point_right::weary:
I just threw a new convert to the Presidents charm as a bonus ! Yawn :point_right::weary: