Hillary Clinton said it’s “worth considering” a nationwide gun ban and a “buyback” program to eradicate private gun ownership.
The presidential candidate attacked the Second Amendment during an Oct. 16 town hall meeting in which she was asked if it were feasible for the U.S. to confiscate millions of firearms in a year.
You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. 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 … weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach.
But they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to, you know, curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.
Clinton also mentioned that several U.S. cities have done gun buyback programs and it would be “worth considering on a national level.”
But she failed to mention that she supported shipping guns to Syrian rebels, the majority of whom are either ISIS militants or affiliated with the Islamic State.
“In fact she was the biggest cheerleader for redistributing these arms to Syrian rebels,” presidential candidate Rand Paul told Fox News in July. “The reason this is an important issue is many of these people who received the arms are not friends of America.”
“Many of them are linked to al Qaeda and al-Nusra and some of these weapons may well have ended up in the hands of people who became ISIS.”
Virtually all of the rebels in Syria have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.
“The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, the vaunted bulwarks of the moderate opposition, only really exist in hotel lobbies and the minds of Western diplomats,” journalist Ben Reynolds wrote in November. “There is simply no real separation between ‘moderate’ rebel groups and hardline Salafists allied with al-Qaeda.”
The New York Times made a similar statement.
“Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the newspaper reported in 2013.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube: