What happens when an organization hated by the liberal media points out something a Democratic politician says? They get a “mostly false” rating from Politifact.
So it goes with the National Rifle Association, which sent out a flier earlier in October that asked: “What did Hillary Clinton say when she was asked about gun confiscation in America?” The flier answers the question by quoting Clinton as saying: “I think it would be worth considering doing it on a national level, if that can be arranged.”
Politifact’s Warren Fiske then breaks down the context of that remark from Clinton. Clinton made the claim at a town hall in New Hampshire a year ago. Clinton was asked if America could model Australia in its removal of millions of guns.
“Australia managed to take away tens of thousands — millions — of handguns and in one year they were all gone,” the questioner said. “Can we do that and why? If we can’t, why not?”
Clinton responded, in part, by bringing up Australia’s “buyback program.”
“In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program,” Clinton 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.”
She added: “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.”
Then the money quote: “Now communities [in the U.S.] 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.”
Clinton also brought up the Obama administration’s (failed) “cash for clunkers” as an example of a buyback program, and said it was “worth considering.”
“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,” Clinton said.
Fiske argues that 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.”
That’s demonstrably false. Clinton clearly said “the Australian example is worth considering.”
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.”
That buyback program was mandatory, Mehta wrote. One cannot claim to consider the Australian example and its effectiveness in removing guns without acknowledging that the reason it worked was that it was mandatory.
A Clinton spokesman told Politifact that the Democratic candidate “does not support national mandatory gun buyback programs, including those modeled after Australia’s program” and that she was only discussing voluntary buyback programs.
But the candidate absolutely discussed Australia’s program — which was a mandatory buyback program — and said it was “worth considering,” just as the NRA claimed.
At best, Clinton’s comments were scattered, as she praised voluntary programs and the mandatory one in Australia (without noting it was mandatory, something the Left routinely does). At worst, she was cloaking her desire for gun confiscation in comments about voluntary programs and “cash for clunkers.”
Either way, the NRA certainly didn’t “stretch her words to an almost unrecognizable form” worthy of a “mostly false” rating.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
