1. Owners of AR-style rifles defend their chosen firearm

Let’s be clear what Hillary Clinton’s position on the Second Amendment is – she favors not just a gun registry and not even merely restrictions on gun purchases. She is in favor of gun confiscation, a radical measure that would inevitably lead to civil unrest if she actually carried it out.

Here’s what she said last week: “When it comes to guns, we have just too many guns. On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods.”

She said this at a gun forum in Philadelphia on Wednesday. And as TheWashington Times points out, “Last year, Mrs. Clinton said Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns was ‘worth considering’ in the United States, comparing it to President Obama’s so-called ‘cash for clunkers’ program.”

The key to that statement, which sounds harmless enough when invoking Cash for Clunkers, is the word “mandatory.” That means force.

That Australian program wasn’t the success many on the left see it as.

“Clinton and Obama tout a 1996 ‘gun buyback’ that was actually a compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns in response to the Port Arthur mass shooting,” Reason magazine reports. “The seizure took around 650,000 firearms out of civilian hands and tightened the rules on legal acquisition and ownership of weapons going forward.”

There was a clear effect on crime rates, which were already declining (as they are in the U.S.), but the program created a whole new class of criminals – those who didn’t want to give up their guns. Only an estimated 20 percent of the self-loading rifles that were mandated to be turned in actually were surrendered.

As Reason points out, “that defiance was mostly on the part of peaceful civilians who just didn’t want to bend their knees to politicians.”

But gun smuggling suddenly became big business.

Australia’s Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, recently held a press conference about the surge in smuggling.

“We don’t tolerate gun smuggling in Australia and we know outlaw motorcycle gangs are engaged in it,” he declared. “We have been keen to send the strongest possible message from Canberra that we’re not going to tolerate people smuggling in guns or smuggling in gun parts. You’d appreciate that even one smuggled gun can do an enormous amount of damage.”

It’s not just “one smuggled gun,” though – a government report says gun-related crime just in New South Wales jumped 83 percent between 2005 and 2015.

Gun confiscation didn’t work in Australia; why would anyone think it would work here? Yet TheNew York Times, in response to the 2015 shootings in San Bernardino, called for Australian-style confiscation in a front-page editorial.

“It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency,” the Times wrote.

But what would gun confiscation look like in the U.S.?

It would necessarily require martial law and the suspension of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.

That’s what Hillary Clinton is calling for.