Tune into HNN at 6 pm tonight. There will be a segment by Lynn Kawano on the red flag law. She was supposed to meet with Cliff Goo today at Koko Head so share concerns about the new law from a pro 2a perspective.

I wonder how long her and Cliff spoke vs. the snippet they produced.  Of course mentioning that there are already laws in place to remove guns from a dangerous individual would be too much to ask of HNN and the Brady campaign 

Pretty obvious that both sides did not get equal air time.

I wonder how long her and Cliff spoke vs. the snippet the produced.  Of course mentioning that there are already laws in place to remove guns from a dangerous individual would be too much to ask of HNN and the Brady campaign 

Just saw the segment on the 10 pm news.  The news seemed to focus on “medical professionals” and suicide. Not the vague verbiage of the bill.  They did get a couple of key points in Cliff’s portion. Not sure what else he shared that didn’t make it through, but I bet a lot.

Just saw the segment on the 10 pm news.  The news seemed to focus on “medical professionals” and suicide. Not the vague verbiage of the bill.  They did get a couple of key points in Cliff’s portion. Not sure what else he shared that didn’t make it through, but I bet a lot.

I have now seen the story (yet),  it I wonder if it came about from my post about the same thing on the HIFICO Facebook page.

Ok found the story on their website, and it directly mentions our research.

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/12/31/hawaii-joins-growing-number-states-enacting-red-flag-gun-law/

I have now seen the story (yet),  it I wonder if it came about from my post about the same thing on the HIFICO Facebook page.

She mentioned HIFICO that research shows “the vast majority of gun owners” would avoid seeking mental healthcare for fear of losing their guns.

At least we got some airtime. I am thinking if the HIFICO is opposing the bill in a legal challenge the judge might ask what idea we might have in its place. So my question to people here is this: What kind of red flag law would you propose to address the issue at hand while also protecting rights better?

At least we got some airtime. I am thinking if the HIFICO is opposing the bill in a legal challenge the judge might ask what idea we might have in its place. So my question to people here is this: What kind of red flag law would you propose to address the issue at hand while also protecting rights better?

that's not how it works...

that's not how it works...

I think it is. I have heard supreme court justices pose questions like this to people making arguments.

Regardless though, even if judges will never ask such a question I think it is still something we should address. We are saying it is a bad idea so what is our idea to do it better? I have stated my ideas on this before, do you have any?

Replace red flag with shall issue oc and ccw.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I think it is. I have heard supreme court justices pose questions like this to people making arguments.

Regardless though, even if judges will never ask such a question I think it is still something we should address. We are saying it is a bad idea so what is our idea to do it better? I have stated my ideas on this before, do you have any?

You're using a logical fallacy -- again.  You do this all the time.

Politician's syllogism

The politician's syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, is a logical fallacy of the form:

1. We must do something
2. This is something
3. Therefore, we must do this.

The politician's fallacy was identified in a 1988 episode of the BBC television political sitcom Yes, Prime Minister titled
"Power to the People", and has taken added life on the Internet.[1] The syllogism, invented by fictional British civil servants,
has been quoted in the real British Parliament.[2][3] The syllogism has also been quoted in American political discussion.[4]

In Yes, Prime Minister, the term is discussed between two high-ranking civil servants who are concerned that the prime
minister wants to implement a scheme to reform local government due to political opposition there. In this issue, as with
many other issues humorously explored by the show, the civil servants believe that doing anything is worse than doing
nothing because actions tend to undermine the dominance of the civil service. They identify the politician's logic as a fallacious
categorical syllogism:

1. All cats have four legs
2. My dog has four legs
3. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

This invalid form of argument, labeled AAA-2 among syllogisms, commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle: it says nothing
about all things having four legs (the middle term) and thus the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, even if
the premises are true. The politician's syllogism similarly says nothing about all known "somethings" that could be done. As is
common with fallacious undistributed middle arguments, it can also be seen as the fallacy of affirming the consequent when
restated as an equivalent hypothetical syllogism:[5]

1. To improve things, things must change
2. We are changing things
3. Therefore, we are improving things.

You believe that passing a bad law is helping solve the problem, while you simultaneously ignore the negatives of the law on people who haven't done anything wrong. 

There doesn't have to ba an alternate proposal for an adopted bad solution to be deemed to cause more harm than good.

Replace red flag with shall issue oc and ccw.

That’s what I’m talking about.

Red flag is not terrible in theory (application different story. no due process, Willy nilly application, discourages mental health treatment, etc.)
Don’t tell anyone you own a firearm ! Especially your not like minded neighbors, pissed off wife/girlfriend who’s soon to be your ex or your shrink.

Snowflapp,
You gonna be at the rally on January 30th ?
Talk to some legislators about passing some bad laws?

That’s what I’m talking about.

Red flag is not terrible in theory (application different story. no due process, Willy nilly application, discourages mental health treatment, etc.)
Don’t tell anyone you own a firearm ! Especially your not like minded neighbors, pissed off wife/girlfriend who’s soon to be your ex or your shrink.

Snowflapp,
You gonna be at the rally on January 30th ?
Talk to some legislators about passing some bad laws?

You don't give two shits about what I'll do.  Don't even try to pretend.

At least we got some airtime. I am thinking if the HIFICO is opposing the bill in a legal challenge the judge might ask what idea we might have in its place. So my question to people here is this: What kind of red flag law would you propose to address the issue at hand while also protecting rights better?

Allow constitutional carry in Hawaii,  so future victims can defend themselves.
The duration of a shooting is always dependent on the arrival of a good guy with a gun

I think it is. I have heard supreme court justices pose questions like this to people making arguments.

Regardless though, even if judges will never ask such a question I think it is still something we should address. We are saying it is a bad idea so what is our idea to do it better? I have stated my ideas on this before, do you have any?

Gun owners are trying to fight against laws that would infringe on due process and our individual rights. IMHO thats the extent of what gun owners should be worried about.

Its asinine to think its somehow incumbent on US to propose how to fix what government selectively dictates as "public safety concerns".

If Government is imposing laws that would drastically effect your rights, why should we put in work to propose something in place of it so that they "back off" infringing on basic rights?

So what's better than the current Red Flag Law signed in to "law"? Easy. Having it NOT exist at all. Pau.

You're using a logical fallacy -- again.  You do this all the time.

Politician's syllogism

You believe that passing a bad law is helping solve the problem, while you simultaneously ignore the negatives of the law on people who haven't done anything wrong. 

There doesn't have to ba an alternate proposal for an adopted bad solution to be deemed to cause more harm than good.

Not at all. You believe it is a politician's syllogism because you fail to understand my point.

I am saying that politicians are going to do something (are doing something) with or without us. We can pout and complain that we don't like their solution or we can come up with an alternative solution for them to pursue thereby protecting our rights and preventing them from claiming we didn't do anything to try and address the problem.

Allow constitutional carry in Hawaii,  so future victims can defend themselves.
The duration of a shooting is always dependent on the arrival of a good guy with a gun

That is a reactionary way to address the problem, one I am all for. The thing is what they are trying to address is a preventative measure before it happens. I think it is good to both try to prevent a problem as well as have an answer for if it happens anyway. So CCW is great but it only addresses half of the equation.

If Government is imposing laws that would drastically effect your rights, why should we put in work to propose something in place of it so that they "back off" infringing on basic rights?

Because if we do nothing they will point to us and say we didn't have any better ideas or that we didn't contribute. They will paint us as resisting laws that try to stop mass shooters. Consider that a big part of the battle is not just legal but also the optics.

Because if we do nothing they will point to us and say we didn't have any better ideas or that we didn't contribute. They will paint us as resisting laws that try to stop mass shooters. Consider that a big part of the battle is not just legal but also the optics.

So, you're saying we need to come up with laws that infringe on our rights that we find tolerable to prevent the other side from passing laws that we would find intolerable?

That's like telling someone to give up a slice of their cake or have the whole thing taken.  That solution only lasts until you've voluntarily given up the whole thing piece by piece.