Fact Checking Politifact on Clinton's Statement Supporting Australian Gun Confiscation as Model for US

On Monday, Politifact published this dismissive "fact check" of the NRA's anti-Clinton mailer that charges “Clinton said gun confiscation is ‘worth considering.” 

In the final rating of "Mostly False" the author, Warren Fiske, said Clinton was simply talking about "voluntary buyback programs" and not confiscation: 

Clinton made that statement last year at a New Hampshire campaign stop, when she was asked a vague question about an Australian program that gave gun owners one year to sell certain firearms to the government before those weapons became illegal. She left the NRA some room.

But the NRA stretches her words to an almost unrecognizable form. Clinton focused her comments on voluntary buyback programs similar to those some U.S. communities have instituted for guns and the federal "cash-for-clunkers" program.

Fiske however misses some key facts, like, the Australian "buyback" wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory, as the NRA was quick to point out:

Even an ad for the supposedly voluntary "Australian example" calls it...a ban. And @HillaryClinton says it's "worth looking at"@PolitiFact pic.twitter.com/zKu0xc13lB

— NRA (@NRA) October 17, 2016

.@Politifact thinks the "Australian example," which promised "severe penalties" like a 12 month prison sentence was...voluntary? pic.twitter.com/LnDDNHrfNt

— NRA (@NRA) October 17, 2016

The Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow did the work that Fiske apparently did not have time to do:

And that "Australian example" was an example of gun confiscation. It was not a voluntary program. Historian Varad Mehta wrote about the Australian program last year for the Federalist, breaking down exactly what it entailed.

"Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements," Mehta wrote. "The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax."

Not withstanding the long list of sources Fiske lists that he used to reach his conclusion, it is very clear to anyone interested in knowing the facts that the NRA in no way "stretched" Clinton's words in an "unrecognizable form" and if given the chance, she would do everything she can to make it much harder for Americans to own firearms.

The Hill: Gun Groups Launch Blitz to Counter Obama

Over the weekend The Hill had this story on recent steps by NRA and other pro-rights groups to counter President Obama's recent actions to restrict our rights and explain to the public what is really meant by Obama and Clinton when they talk about Australia's response to mass shootings:

The offensive includes a series of videos, newspaper ads and email alerts from the NRA, the Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation in an effort to swing public opinion against the measures.

The gun lobby hopes to rebut Obama, who cast the actions as reasonable steps to prevent senseless gun violence. They also hope to make the efforts politically unpalatable for any candidate that may back them in the 2016 election.

Here is the new NRA ad:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) full page ad referenced by The Hill ran last week in the Washington Post.  NSSF called it a "response to President Obama’s ongoing attacks on the men and women of America’s firearms and ammunition industry."

Hat tip to Sebastian and Breitbart.

Obama: I'm Not Going to Take Anyone's Guns Away

That's what he said in his remarks to the IACP as reported by The Hill:

“Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everyone’s guns away,” he told the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

“Every time a mass shootings happens, one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of guns and ammunition jumps up because folks scared into thinking that, ‘Obama’s gonna use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights,’” he added. “Nobody’s doing that."

"We’re talking about common-sense measures to make criminals don’t get them, to make sure background checks work, to make sure that we’re protecting ourselves.”

He went on to claim that his proposals would protect the lives of law enforcement and held up Chicago's gun laws as the reason that national laws should be tightened, but did not mention that Chicago is one of America's most dangerous cities even though it has some of the nations most restrictive gun laws.  Obama and the gun ban lobby counter that most of the guns used in crime in the windy city come from out of state.  But a quick look at ATF trace data indicates that is simply not true.  Illinois is the largest source state for firearms used in a crime and traced in Illinois.  Even when you add up all of the other states, about half of the firearms traced originally came from Illinois.

Obama also included what has become his standard line about gun sales:

“It is easier for a lot of young people in this city, and in a lot of your communities, to buy a gun than buy a book,” he said. “It is easier in some communities to find a gun than to find fresh vegetables in a supermarket. That’s a fact.” 

The NRA immediately responded to Obama's remarks with this video from Wayne LaPierre:

Katie Pavlich: Yes Obama Does Want to Take Your Guns

Katie Pavlich has this Op/Ed at The Hill that explains exactly what President Obama means when he says America should pass laws like Australia and Great Britain, "countries like ours, our allies" to address mass shootings.

The so-called “common-sense” and “modest” laws in Britain and Australia Obama refers to aren’t common-sense or modest at all, but rather require extreme confiscation and bans.

In 1996, the Australian government confiscated hundreds of thousands of personally owned firearms as part of their new “common-sense” gun control laws. In 1997, British citizens were forced to turn over their handguns for destruction. The prettier and more expensive versions were confiscated and placed in museums. Is this what Obama is suggesting should happen to the estimated 300 million firearms owned by American citizens? Is that what he means by “common sense,” “modest regulation” and “changing our laws?”

Of course it is.

Pavlich is not the only commentator to point out what Obama really means when he constantly points to those two countries as examples of great gun laws.  Last week Charles C. W. Cooke wrote over on National Review Online:

This is remarkable. Customarily, Democratic politicians react to mass shootings by calling for pointless around-the-edges reforms: “universal” background checks, hard limits on the size of commercially available magazines, rules that determine how certain rifles may look, etc. In fact, since 2012 Obama has tended to take this approach himself. Now, however, the president is openly praising two countries that confiscated — yes, confiscated — firearms. That matters — and a great deal.

Why? Well, because the president’s defenders like to mock those among his critics who argue that he wants to “take their guns away.” As of today, they will no longer be able to do so.

This is not “hysteria” or “a matter of opinion.” This is a cold, hard fact. If you praise Great Britain or Australia, you are praising confiscation. Before yesterday, Obama has always alluded to Australia in passing. Now he is praising it directly and adding Great Britain into the mix. That’s a significant change.

And Jonah Goldberg, also at National Review:

One can forgive the average American, not to mention the typical White House correspondent, for not knowing how Britain and Australia dealt with gun violence. But Obama knows. Both countries employed massive gun-confiscation programs (programs that depend on national gun registries so the government can find them). The British in effect banned handguns. Obama may consider that a reasonable, common-sense approach, but he knows full well that millions of Americans don’t.

Freed from having to run for re-election, Obama is making his true colors on guns known, yet the average American probably doesn't understand what he is pushing.  As long as he has the mainstream media to cover for him, most Americans probably won't know what Obama means when he points to Great Britain and Australia as perfect examples of gun control.

Update: On Tuesday, Pavlich spoke with NRANews' Cam Edwards about her article in The Hill.