Let’s go back in time to when Hillary Clinton said this in October of 2015 at a town hall event in Keene, New Hampshire. The voter’s question was about gun control:

VOTER: Back to handguns. Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we? HILLARY CLINTON: Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20-25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. 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 automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. Communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs. I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. After the terrible 2008 financial crisis, one of the programs that President Obama was able to get in place was Cash for Clunkers. You remember that? It was partially a way to get people to buy new cars because we wanted more economic activity, and to get old models that were polluting too much, off the roads. So I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at. [Applause]

Let’s not kid around here and dispense the pleasantries—Australian-style gun control, which Clinton said “is worth looking at,” means gun bans and confiscation. Period. Now, Stephen Gutowski of The Washington Free Beacon reported that new polls show overwhelming majorities oppose such policies, especially when it comes to handguns and rifles:

A poll published on Wednesday shows record opposition to gun bans from the American public. The survey, conducted by Gallup, found 76 percent of respondents thought there should not be a law banning civilian ownership of handguns, a four-point increase from last year and an all-time high in the 57 years the question has been asked. The poll also found that 61 percent of respondents are “against” a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles—often referred to as “assault weapons”—, a ten-point increase since the last time the poll was taken and an all-time high since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. Support for the gun bans are at all-time lows. The poll shows only 27 percent support for a ban on handgun ownership, a three-point drop from last year. It also shows support for an assault weapons ban at 36 percent, an eight-point decline from the last time the question was asked. […] The survey was taken between October 5-9 and collected responses from 1,017 adults.

So, if Clinton (should she win the election) wants to waste the very little political capital she’s going to gain after November on this issue, which will likely end in defeat—we of course shouldn’t stop her. At the same time, all of this could be rendered moot if the GOP unites and elects Donald Trump, but we seem to be incapable of maximizing on that end.