Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Oops. More of that "public/private" position stuff. Can't blame this on a movie about Lincoln...

Maybe she can blame Mad Max?

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Big Bill takes the word of the lying gun manufacturers' lobby group over the word of Politifact fact checking organizaiton!

Just wow.

Sorry, Big Bill. You have now proven you are a Bubble Person, immune to reality.

I give up on you.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Good one! Hahahahahahahahhahahaha! No bias there...

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Thank you! Thank you!

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Did you bother to read the article?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Yes. And as a matter of fact, Australia had a buy back program, giving cash for guns.

Oh the article? Typical distortions on the part of a desperate lobby.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Yeah,really an article that will convince people to v**e for the other guy. Wh**ever floats your boat. I've been a NRA Life Member since '73 and an instructor since '90 and let's face it,politics is politics! I doubt that many will change their v**e due to this supposedly condemning article any more than her (and the Donald) both being certifiable liars. Grabbing at straws makes us look foolish. Then again,we grabbed Trump...

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Please point out the "distortion". Hillary said what she said. Did she "distort" what she said? Politifact failed. Are they perfect? No. But maybe in your eyes.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Distortions of facts are common for all. Others prefer to call it interpretations,inferences,implications,wh**ever. We're nit-picking over who the bigger loser is,besides our country, in either case.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

She said what she said. Period. How much plainer can that be? Dude asked her a specific question, she answered. Exactly as stated in the NRA bit. Do you libs refuse to listen to the words that come out of her mouth? There was no "distortion" in the NRA bit. Politifact tried to spin it but they failed.

God forbid if Trump had said something similar. The media would have been all over it with torches and pitchforks and you know it.

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Yes, they had what they called a "buy back" program. The problem is, it was mandatory.
And it wasn't a "buy back" because the government never owned the guns. Just like the "buy backs" we have here; the new buyers never owned t hem before, so they couldn't be buying them back.
Yes, semantics, I suppose, But words have meanings.

Could you please be so kind to show those distortions?

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

True.
I am an ardent supporter of the second amendment. I understand what it means, and how it was written, and why it was written the way it was.
I am absolutely surprised that so many let Clinton get away with saying she didn't study the Australian actions, when she is so ardently anti-gun. Does she simply think that everyone is stupid enough to not wonder? Quite possibly, I suppose, given the level of lack of understand of the very basics of the Constitution here, and the number of people who believe anything and everything she says, even when her own words betray her lies.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Distortions of facts are common for all. Others prefer to call it interpretations,inferences,implications,wh**ever. We're nit-picking over who the bigger loser is,besides our country, in either case.

I made a general statement not directed at any particular issue. If you want to assume I was being specific,apparently it wasn't plain enough for you. Because I don't like Trump,just like many other Pubs do not,that makes me a Dem? How nice that you can fall back on the typical rhetoric that is helping to destroy our party. Try looking at the whole picture with some sense of responsibility. Actually,that won't work for people blinded by hatred. Be careful what you wish for.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Here is the direct quote from the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting:

"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," she said. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of, you know, more of a background check, 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."

"Now (U.S.) communities have done that; communities have done gun buyback programs. But I think it would be worth considering doing that on the national level if that could be arranged. I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work. But certainly, the Australian example is worth considering."

Now, what is unreasonable about this? The government agrees to pay you to take dangerous guns off the street. You get to make money, communities are safer, and the manhole industry gets a lot of great scrap metal. This is a job creator. How can you possibly object since you've probably got hundreds of guns in your collection, right?