whether or not 50BMG is used for hunting here in Hawaii or not, is totally off the point.
this is about your right to exercise the 2nd Amendment, and if you think that it's okay to ban 50BMG just because it's useless for hunting here in Hawaii, then you're falling for the Dems trap. "The 2A isn't about duck hunting" somebody once said. That means you're willing to sacrifice that to appease Karl Rhoads. Every year it's a new carve out.
I'd guess there's probably less than 100 Barrett 82's in Hawaii, at the most, maybe 200.
you're throwing those firearms enthusiasts under the bus, just to appease the anti-2A. I'd bet anybody with a Barrett 82 is a very firm believer in the 2A.
No criminal is ever going to rob the 7-Eleven, or the local Savings & Loan, with a 50BMG rifle. Ever.
Unless it's a comedy movie.
At the end of the first hearing on SB3196, Karl Rhoads said that nobody hunted with a 50 cal, so that was part of his rhetoric in favor of his bill.
Section 17 and the 2nd Amendment aren't about hunting, but I don't think it would've been a bad thing, to respond to Rhoads with pictures and anecdotes of Hawaii residents hunting with 50 Alaska/ 500 S&W lever actions, 50 Beowulf, 50 caliber buffalo rifles, etc.
When the task at hand is arguing against a new bill, I ask myself what sort of rhetoric would be persuasive to the undecided voter.
Ideally, I'd want to oppose a bill by pointing out it's fundamentally flawed; it contradicts itself, it's ambiguous, it's demonstratively unconstitutional and is just going to cost the state money in legal fees to defend it, etc. This sort of argument is effective regardless of whether somebody agrees with the intent behind the bill.
Then for a gun prohibition bill, if I can't argue flaws in the legal language, I'm happy if I can argue that it'd affect traditional cultural activities like hunting, small caliber target shooting, or shotgun sports. For whatever reason, "hunting" is often more revered in our culture than a right to self-defense, and fence-sitters who may be afraid of "assault rifles" often aren't afraid of Grandpa's hunting heirloom. Gun grabbers also know this, and usually go out of their way to reassure people that Elmer Fudd-style hunting weapons are not going to be targeted.
When it comes to opposing things like magazine capacity limits or bans on firearms that don't have traditional "sporting" uses, then it's time to argue fundamental gun rights and self-defense rights. And I'm happy to do so, but I don't expect it to be a winning argument among the masses, in the way it's a winning argument among those on this forum. In my experience, once the argument gets down to quoting the second amendment, undecided eyes glaze over.
I'd say it's still important for some people to argue against
ALL firearms regulations with the good ol' Pro-2A rhetoric. It's important to always have that voice, and that's probably the steady voice that'll over time do the most to slide the Overton window. But in the near term, pragmatically speaking, I believe other arguments are more effective to the ears that matter the most.
Everything is based on the hunter's skill level. If you have a 50bmg, and can hunt with it ethically, you should not need any other special reasons to go hunting with one. Theres also no legal reason as to why you shouldnt be able to do it if you wanted to, unless this bill passes.
Hunters hunt for many different reasons like strictly for meat, for trophy or for sport, extermination, etc. There is a term called fair chase which has to do with ethical hunting. But you decide for yourself what is fair chase, because its kind of based off of your own ability and skills.
You cant honestly state that a certain gun is "too heavy for hunting" or "does too much damage". Its the same kind of thing when they say you dont need an AR for this or that, or you dont need a 30 round magazine, etc...
I'm really just curious now about this story behind hunting in Hawaii with a 50 bmg. I would love to hear details about how, when, why this was done. Not from any sort of activist perspective, but because there must be an interesting story behind it.