See sig line.

You are using big words that do not justify your point. In fact, I'm very confused with the point you are trying to make, because basically you stated that you already have a biased towards the 'exploiters', which you deem to be non-Hawaiians, yet out of all the monarchs and chiefs that ruled over the people of Hawaii, I did not see any of them taking the steps to relinquish their power, nor provide the opportunity for their people to pursue the path to individual achievement and prosperity. In a more specific example, Kalakaua depleted much of the kingdom's resources to build 'Iolani palace, which was a testimate to his power, and had no significant benefit to the Hawaiian people at all. Aside from Pauahi (to an extent), our chiefs and monarchs did not thing but exploit the population of Hawaii to consolidate their power, so they are no better, if not worse, than these western exploiters that you speak of.

To expand upon the highlighted points:

1) The original missionaries came here with the sole intent of spreading Christianity, at the bequest of of Henry Opukaha'ia, who had changed his life through Christianity and wanted the same for his people. It was only after the industrialization of Hawaii, which was allowed by King Kamehameha II and all subsequent monarchs, that allowed westerner ambition and greed to take hold in the islands. Most, if not all, of those 'white exploiters' were the descendants of missionaries, not missionaries themselves.

2) You claim that the 'exploitees' had no idea what was going on, and that they wholeheartedly believed that the unfair actions of their western counterparts were acting out of benevolence and in the name of Christianity. When you make statements like this, you basically state that our people were ignorant idiots, who had no idea what was going on, and blindly followed along because they had no intelligence whatsoever. This, again, is false, as is evident throughout history not only during the Hawaiian kingdom, but prior to it as well. When chiefs overstepped their grounds, the people rose up and killed them (in rare instances). When Captain Cooke overstayed his welcome, they grew suspicious that he was not a god, and when he returned after his ship was damaged by a storm shortly after leaving Hawaii, it validated their claim that he was not Lono, which was further validated after they killed him. These, as well as many other instances, prove that our people fully understood what was going on in the world, and in a basic sense could distinguish between what was BS and what was real. To say otherwise and claim they had no basic idea that they were being taken advantage of is ludicrous.

To say that they followed along blindly is to basically associate our ancestors with modern day liberals, a point which I beg to differ on. I believe that the people had no alternative other than to follow the demands of their monarchs, as they did not possess the individual freedoms that we enjoy today. Prior to the Hawaiian kingdom and the introduction of Christianity, the Ali'i and Mo'i were Gods. Though there have been instances when the people rose up against the Ali'i, those in power have, for the moat part, been revered and feared by the people. After the establishment of the Kingdom and Monarchy, they still maintained their political symbolism, regardless of if they were believed to be gods or not. The people, afraid of superstitious and physical retaliation (such as death or imprisonment), essentially had no choice but to go along with the decisions of the monarchy. To verify this claim, how many protests against the decisions of the Hawaiian monarchy can you recall? ZERO, because they would have been imprisoned or put to death, just as it was before the establishment of the kingdom. The only protest that took place was after the election of Kalakaua, as the supporters of Queen Emma were not happy with the results.

Given that the people had no concept other than following their monarchs, who was it that made the decisions and allowed the actions that would, in time, destroy our natural resources and independence? The monarchy. The could have easily resisted the encroachment of foreigners, and rallied people to support their cause. However, like modern day legislators in this country and across the world, they were only concerned with themselves and their own wealth and political power. In another light, the people should have had the courage to fight for their beliefs and ways of life, just as our colonial ancestors did during the American Revolution. Instead, they followed the will of their kings and queens, whose decisions and actions eventually lead to the destruction and overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom.

To equate this theory in modern terms, do we blame the Chinese for the economic decisions of our country? Do we blame the followers of Islam for the destruction of Christianity within America? No; we blame the legislators and those in political office for their decisions. In more lament terms, claiming that the evil westerners are primarily responsible for what happened in Hawaii is like stating that the reason someone is fat is because of the spoon.

In conclusion, while those whom did extort Hawaii did so unjustly and immorally, I believe that most of the responsibility lies with those who failed to act in the best interest of our kingdom and our people, and those people being the monarchy and our ancestors. As Jefferson stated, "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." I guess the independence of our nation was not something our people and monarchy felt was worth fighting and dying for.

I personally have sympathy for her.  She was the victim of a random attack by a certified nut job.  The shooter SHOULD have been stopped before it ever happened, if you read all the background on the lunatic.

I also feel pity that she is being manipulated into a spokesperson and symbol for a liberal political agenda.  That agenda's resulting laws would have had zero effect on the events that culminated in her being shot. 

She is being used by the people she trusts to take care of her.  Propping her up in an emotional appeal to pass anti second amendment legislation is unforgivable.

These progressive Liberals have no morals.  They only have an agenda and the ingrained belief that the ends justify the means...

My guess as to why a gun show would allow these people entry to propagandize their false narrative is that when the Attorney General of your state shows up with them and asks to be allowed entry and media time, the people running the show, and probably any vendors that hold FFLs suspect that if they were to say "NO", that they'd likely be facing serious scrutiny from various government licensing and taxation agencies in the near future. I did read a couple of articles that mentioned that there were a few boos and hisses when the Giffords were introduced, but like I say, I'm guessing most people in that situation error on the side of caution when it comes to placing their livelihood in possible jeopardy. Bottom line: government intimidation. And given the documented IRS targeting of a certain spectrum of political advocacy groups, it's not paranoid to think that any "resistance" might result in reprisals.