2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: OldFaithful on April 30, 2014, 06:44:29 PM
-
Was watching the news earlier and a campaign commercial for Shatz came on. The theme of it was guns. "I voted for background checks for gun purchases." "Close the gun show loop hole." "Ban assault weapons." Also he said something like I'm doing it for my kids, with them sitting in front of him. Yuck.
-
I just watched it on KHON. He won't be getting my vote.
-
Was watching the news earlier and a campaign commercial for Shatz came on. The theme of it was guns. "I voted for background checks for gun purchases." "Close the gun show loop hole." "Ban assault weapons." Also he said something like I'm doing it for my kids, with them sitting in front of him. Yuck.
I saw that, too. I've been looking for the video online, but not able to find a link to post.
Schatz regurgitated an Obama stat that "40% of all gun sales are conducted without a background check."
The source of that stat is 20 years old and extremely flawed based on its statistical survey method. But, hey! Why use the truth when bad data helps your argument?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html)
...rather than being 30 to 40 percent (the original estimate of the range) or “up to 40 percent” (Obama’s words),
gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent. And since the survey sample is so small,
that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points.
-
.
-
But it's "for the children."
-
I just watched it on KHON. He won't be getting my vote.
Was he getting your vote BEFORE seeing the report?? :wacko:
-
Was he getting your vote BEFORE seeing the report?? :wacko:
Definitely NOT!!!!
-
The ad is on his campaign website and Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9q4WOIOLPw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9q4WOIOLPw)
I'm guessing Schatz and Hanabusa are going to have a knock-down drag-out battle to see who can out-liberal, out-progressive, out-statist, out-commie the other to garner the most votes from Hawaii's, uh, "progressive" citizens.
I also suspect that neither one of them has the slightest hesitation, compunction, or qualms about repeating lies (40% of gun transfers occur without a background check, etc.) over and over and over, if they think it will gain them a better chance at landing the job.
Hanabusa could do an aboutface (aka "lie") about her position on firearms to one degree or another if she thought that would somehow garner her more votes. Not likely in Hawaii. And given her record in the House:
03/13/2013
Rating: Colleen Hanabusa was rated 0% by Gun Owners of America (Key Votes Alignment on Gun Rights - Federal Vote Scorecard - 112th Congress 2nd Session)
12/18/2012
Rating: Colleen Hanabusa was rated 0% by Gun Owners of America (Ratings on Gun Rights - Elected to 113th Congress [12/2012])
10/12/2012
Rating: Colleen Hanabusa was rated 0% by National Rifle Association (Candidate Positions on Gun Rights)
http://votesmart.org/candidate/17745/colleen-hanabusa?categoryId=37#.U2H47PldX61 (http://votesmart.org/candidate/17745/colleen-hanabusa?categoryId=37#.U2H47PldX61)
Hanabusa positon paper on guns from January 1, 2014:
http://votesmart.org/public-statement/850397/issue-position-gun-control (http://votesmart.org/public-statement/850397/issue-position-gun-control)
[After going through the laws re full registration, magazine limits, minimum 14 day waiting period, ban on "assault pistols", etc. etc. etc., she concludes):
Hawaii law places reasonable limits on the persons who can possess firearms and the types of firearms that can be possessed. In doing so, Hawaii has been able to strike a balance between a citizen's right to possess a firearm and the safety of the public. Such a model, using reasonable -- but strict -- restrictions should be considered by Congress as it considers issues regarding gun control.
(She makes absolutely no mention of the fact that not a single person (or maybe one single person on Kauai) has been granted a CCW permit in the entire state. Wonder why? If she is so convinced the Hawaii model is right for the rest of the nation, you'd think she'd be proud to suggest to the other states that they do away with CCW too.)
:popcorn:
-
Haha let me be the first to disapprove of that video. Everyone should go to YouTube and give the thumbs down. I was number 1 :geekdanc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9q4WOIOLPw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9q4WOIOLPw)
-
Watching that just makes me cringe :grrr:
-
3 dislikes.
-
.
-
Great. Another Obama ass sucker/ communist clown - just what Hawaii needs more of.
-
If you click the "report" button, which is the flag icon at the top right of near the description section, you can select "infringes my rights" as one of your reasons for reporting. If you ask me his claims infringe my right to protect my two kids from those that will acquire guns illegally not matter what gun control laws he and his liberal posse try to enact.
-
I actually feel sorry for the guy
Having to display your wife/kids to push your party's agenda... :(
-
I actually feel sorry for the guy
Having to display your wife/kids to push your party's agenda... :(
I have absolutely no sympathy for him nor any of the other statist candidates/politicians who want to expand government into every aspect of our lives and deny law-abiding citizens our natural rights (such as the right to self-defense outside our homes using the tools of our choice). He is part of an orchestrated plan to severely limit the ability of citizens to control most of what should be our private business and choices.
Just my personal, biased, based-on-no-data-at-all prediction: We are going to be hearing "because the children" for a long long time from these "useful idiots".
-
His job is to protect the constitution not destroy it.
We need to get the message out.
I made my friend in Kaimuki take down a huge banner they had put up.
I told him what BS was for and he said F' him and took down the banner, He left the Djou Banner up.
I asked the Djou election committee if they wanted our support, but no answer just like the last time.
-
I don't feel sorry for the guy. He does it willingly to pander to his idol, Obama.
-
"I'm Senator Brian Schatz. I am a complete moron and I want to take away your constitutional rights for your own safety"
::)
Just goes to show how stupid people are. Reason 1 none of the things he is even talking about pertain to Hawaii in the first place. "gun show loopholes, background checks... etc.."
Dems keep bantering on about this gun show "loophole" like it is a free for all where people are buying mini guns or something.
Why don't they start whining about the people who do nothing but sit at home watching tv popping out kids and getting paid for it loophole.
-
Why don't they start whining about the people who do nothing but sit at home watching tv popping out kids and getting paid for it loophole.
[I know that was snark/sarcasm, but...]
Because that's not a loophole. That's a deliberate policy instituted to bolster and further populate their "base". Which includes multitudes of the, shall we say, "less than informed"?
Only watch this if you want to witness something that might make you, uh, nauseous... or at least even more disillusioned about our electoral process...
How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8)
-
Don't forget to flag that shit.
Did that too.
-
14 dislikes. Debating if I should share this on different forums...
-
15
-
14 dislikes. Debating if I should share this on different forums...
(http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af82/jonlagon72/do-it_zpsfc8ac2ff.png) (http://s996.photobucket.com/user/jonlagon72/media/do-it_zpsfc8ac2ff.png.html)
-
I was #19
-
3 dislikes.
...
....
I was dislike 20.
Disgusting waste of money.
-
The Truth About Guns website (TTAG) notes the Schatz video ad...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/hawaii-lolo-gun-control/#more-314697 (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/hawaii-lolo-gun-control/#more-314697)
I guess getting things on a "big time" website helps... currently 3 thumbs up, 218 thumbs down on Youtube for the Schatz commercial!
-
.
-
Was reading some of the comments and I thought this one was funny. Marty the Lett said "I’m no English major, but isn’t Schatz the past present participle of Shits?"
And basically that's what Shatz want's to do all over the 2nd Amendment.
-
I was 335 dislikes. only 3 likes.
-
Can the HDF and HRA make a counter commercial and have it play on local TV and online? Isn't that why we pay them to get the public informed?
-
.
-
Firearm owners need to join NRA, HRA and HDF and pay their dues to help those organizations be more effective.
-
Only if you have thousands of dollars to run ads.
As of April 15, 2014 Schatz had $2,419,475 available. Spent $601,224 for the quarter.
As of January 31, 2014 Hanabusa had $878,880 available. Spent $354,469 for the quarter preceding.
Is there any doubt about where this is heading?
They don't even list the amounts of money for the other candidates, Republicans, Libertarian, and Independent. I'm guessing that maybe even between them these people don't have enough money to make and run one ad like Schatz'a anti-gun nonsense.
http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Hawaii,_2014 (http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Hawaii,_2014)
-
Figures. This Democrat lib pussy has his video set to no comments allowed. I thought liberals were all about free speech and the exchange of ideas.
-
Figures. This Democrat lib pussy has his video set to no comments allowed. I thought liberals were all about free speech and the exchange of ideas.
They are.......As long as you agree with them. If you don't you're a racist, hater, bigot, homophobe. :crazy:
-
Just goes to show how stupid people are. Reason 1 none of the things he is even talking about pertain to Hawaii in the first place. "gun show loopholes, background checks... etc.."
If you dont know about the loophole, you better ask somebody, youre missing out.
-
If you dont know about the loophole, you better ask somebody, youre missing out.
Pls let us know about this supposed loophole we're missing out on...
-
Pls let us know about this supposed loophole we're missing out on...
LOOPHOLE: An ambiguity or inadequacy in a law or set of rules that can be exploited.
Nobody is using any ambiguity to avoid background checks. The laws are EXTREMELY detailed and clear as to who is required to undergo a background check and when.
When the laws were written, the INTENT was to require background checks of new handgun buyers. period.
States like Hawaii and others extended that to include all firearms, whether purchased from an FFL or a private seller.
Go to the Gun Show at the Blaisdell, and try to buy a rifle without a current long gun permit. Go to anyone selling a pistol that isn't exempt from the permitting laws and see if you can do cash & carry.
If some states on the mainland decide to follow the actual federal laws and not require permits, registration, and background checks for long guns and in-state, private handgun sales, that is not a loophole. That is called following the law as written and intended.
Calling an act you don't think is right, and that should be included in a particular law, does not a loophole make. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the law as written.
-
I love the way they disabled the comments. Another jackass Democrap afraid of rebuttles!!
-
Pls let us know about this supposed loophole we're missing out on...
LOOPHOLE: An ambiguity or inadequacy in a law or set of rules that can be exploited.
Nobody is using any ambiguity to avoid background checks. The laws are EXTREMELY detailed and clear as to who is required to undergo a background check and when.
When the laws were written, the INTENT was to require background checks of new handgun buyers. period.
States like Hawaii and others extended that to include all firearms, whether purchased from an FFL or a private seller.
Go to the Gun Show at the Blaisdell, and try to buy a rifle without a current long gun permit. Go to anyone selling a pistol that isn't exempt from the permitting laws and see if you can do cash & carry.
If some states on the mainland decide to follow the actual federal laws and not require permits, registration, and background checks for long guns and in-state, private handgun sales, that is not a loophole. That is called following the law as written and intended.
Calling an act you don't think is right, and that should be included in a particular law, does not a loophole make. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the law as written.
call it what you want, basically mauidog spelled it out for you. its a beautiful thing. you need more, should be on pm.
-
Maybe the initials BS stand for something............
-
call it what you want, basically mauidog spelled it out for you. its a beautiful thing. you need more, should be on pm.
It's a slippery slope.
First, background checks for only new handgun purchases. Since most crimes are committed with handguns, surely no one will reject this "common sense" requirement.
What? Checks on new handgun buyers isn't working? Crime still happening with handguns? Now ALL FLL and PRIVATE handgun sales require a background investigation.
Holly cow! Now 4-5 crimes are happening with AR-15s! We need to start doing backgrounders on all FFL and Private LONG GUNS sold, too.
Still crime is happening? AMMUNITION! Let's do background checks on all ammunition sales. The person might have passed his firearm investigation years before. Ammo is purchased more often, so this will catch the whack jobs who are buying ammo to shoot up schools and malls.
Ammunition checks aren't preventing gun crimes? ANNUAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR ALL GUN OWNERS, INCLUDING PSYCH EVALS!!
Crap! None of these background checks and psychological tests are catching the CRIMINALS! How many background checks does it take to find the people most likely to go Rambo out there???
The answer is pretty obvious when you look at the PROBLEM, and quit trying to push an AGENDA. Criminals do not submit to background checks. No matter how difficult you make it for the law abiding gun buyers, the criminals find guns through theft, black market, loaners from friends/gang members, straw purchasers (girl friends and parents), and on and on.
Having said that, the laws have to punish anyone who knowingly transfers a firearm to someone twho is ineligible to possess one. Whether through negligence (leaving it out where it's easily stolen) or purposeful, the laws should be strict and STRICTLY ENFORCED. We have a market for illegal drugs just like illegal guns. When you find a solution that really stops one, it ought to work for the other, too.
Until we do find that solution, making it more and more difficult for legal gun owners to purchase guns or ammo is not a solution. Making guns UNAVAILABLE to criminals is the solution, and as we all know background checks don't catch every at-risk person. Background checks only catch obvious read flags. They in no way guarantee a gun buyer will not commit a gun crime.
BTW, gun show sales only account for less than 4% of gun transfers in the country.
Only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.
Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.
-
3 LIKES >:D
365 DISLIKES :thumbsup:
-
Both this Oxygen Thief and Aberchrombie are both neck deep in the eligibility scandal ... I know.. everyone thinks there is no there; there.. Just wait...
-
It appears Like/Dislike has been disabled for his Youtube vid... Guess his political team can't stand to see how unpopular his stand is, and I'm sure they don't want his supporters to see as well.
Well he's certainly never had my vote, no way in hell he'll have it now...
Boomah :shaka:
-
This says a lot about his team. "Comments are disabled for this video." :closed: I'm not sure if anyone said it, but I think his agenda is national now, not so much Hawaii state laws. BHO parrot.
-
They are.......As long as you agree with them. If you don't you're a racist, hater, bigot, homophobe. :crazy:
+Infinity. Then they go to Hollywood/CNN and make propaganda movie or news feature about the issue
-
Ratings are disabled for the video lol
-
Ratings are disabled for the video lol
That's their legal option in posting videos on Youtube. I didn't know they could remove the ratings that had been left up to the point of disabling, but they were able to. (Thanks to everyone who took the time to view it and rate it! :shaka:) It's probably disturbing to them to see that the ratings against their lies are 100 to 1, meaning that their supporters are minimally interested in what their campaign actually promotes, while those opposed are active and vociferous.
I also watched the two other campaign ads they have posted on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqy3X-eY2yNorf1mxcFLXQg (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqy3X-eY2yNorf1mxcFLXQg)), in one of which Schatz repeats the lies about women being significantly underpaid for the same work as men... JFC, Christina Hoff Sommers clearly showed those statistics to be lies back in 1994 in her book "Who Stole Feminiism?". And nothing has really changed. And they still repeat the same lies 20 years later. What I found out is that even though it doesn't say "ratings disabled", and it shows the few ratings that have been made, MY RATING ability has been disabled! It's like Huffington Post or Moms Demand Action where all the "negative" (aka disagreeing) comments are removed, and you, as someone "disagreeable", are automatically banned/blocked from leaving any more comments. That's their right, or privilege actually, but I just wish they'd quit pretending that they are "reasonable" and welcome civil discussion, because they aren't and they don't. Of course, what's one more lie?
-
Did anyone notice that when he quotes the bogus "40% of gun sales occur without a background check" that he doesn't quote the actual article from which that stat was pulled, but rather quoted what BHO said?
Plausible deniability should the stat ever be questioned??
-
Did anyone notice that when he quotes the bogus "40% of gun sales occur without a background check" that he doesn't quote the actual article from which that stat was pulled, but rather quoted what BHO said?
Plausible deniability should the stat ever be questioned??
nope
just a direct suckup to the golden child
-
Did anyone notice that when he quotes the bogus "40% of gun sales occur without a background check" that he doesn't quote the actual article from which that stat was pulled, but rather quoted what BHO said?
Plausible deniability should the stat ever be questioned??
Utterances from the Lightworker shall not be questioned.
Similar to papal/scriptural inerrancy/infallibility. if he/it says it, it is, ipso facto, true.
Just ask his followers, er, constituents.
::)
Plus, Schatz knows that saying the word "Obama" garners him about another 50,000 votes from the people that go into a trance and obey when they hear that word. See above.
-
ratings just got disabled. what a snake.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3mG9fNOZp4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3mG9fNOZp4)
I bet you she would beat Schatz if she was running against him!
-
I'd vote for her. :thumbsup:
Lt. Col? What's up with the cup-and-saucer grip though? And her grip is kinda low.... :geekdanc:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3mG9fNOZp4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3mG9fNOZp4)
I bet you she would beat Schatz if she was running against him!
Probably would beat him in a fight, but in an election? Hardly. Ernst is far to the right of Lingle, who, when she ran for Senate in 2012 against Hirono, got a grand total of 37% (62% for Hirono) of Hawaii's citizens/voters to vote for her (And Lingle had defeated Hirono for Governor in 2002 51% to 47%... not a good trend.). Ernst may have a chance in Iowa, but we're not in Iowa Toto. Which really sucks if you'd prefer to be represented in the United States Senate by someone who believed in upholding the Constitution.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3mG9fNOZp4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I3mG9fNOZp4)
I bet you she would beat Schatz if she was running against him!
I'm always wary about former military running in civie leadership....my opinion.
-
I'm always wary about former military running in civie leadership....my opinion.
Yeah. Hillary, Bill, and Obama have done great things for our nation's foreign policies and use of the military around the world with their keen civilian, no military experience insight.
-
.
-
I'm always wary about former military running in civie leadership....my opinion.
So you don't think Tulsi Gabbard is progressive enough, or what?
-
.
-
So you don't think Tulsi Gabbard is progressive enough, or what?
Progressive yes but in light of representing our 2A rights, nope.
As far as I know she wasn't in the Green Zone.
I'm wary because military leadership is obviously very different from civilian leadership. For example, in Arizona there is no gun registration EXCEPT if you are on a military base. The grooming of military leaders are of course different from civ leadership - there's a myriad of examples. And this is just looking at it from a 2A perspective. If a political candidate had his/her entire career shaped around a military leadership role, one has to wonder if they have the ability to adjust to a civilian leadership role and not implement military style leadership. Remember the military is designed as a quasi-socialist organization.
One officer in mind would destroy our 2A.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/gen (http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/gen)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html)
-
.
-
Have you ever seen LSA Anaconda? That place is a vacation spot.
And based upon the lack of a Combat Action Badge or any other military service award, other than the 3 awards that basically all soldiers who keep their nose clean get, it is pretty evident that she saw no combat, and was most likely not involved in any type of legitimate military patrol or combat situation, if she even left the base for that matter.
So your one example of a military officer is the same man whose 'work together with the people' policies in the middle east made it harder for soldiers as well? Newsflash: NO ONE LIKES MCCRYSTAL. He was a good general when he was in charge of SOCOM, but when he became regional commander for Afghanistan, his policies sucked balls and made it easier for the enemy and harder for the troops. Using him as an example of a service member being in public office is like saying BO is a prime example of what an American should be.
I find it offensive that you disregard previous military leaders/officers/commanders who have served in public office with distinction and honor, specifically people like LTC Allen West, or even Sen. Ron Paul. I don't know what 'grooming' you are talking about, because the best military commanders worked their way up from an enlisted private before transitioning over to become a commissioned officer, and when those men went on to serve in public office, they served their community/country well. The only grooming that takes place is for those officers who are ribbon chasers and want to fast track to COL or General, but they are shitty leaders who only care about themselves, and are not good examples of what a true military commander should be. Example of such people: Tulsi Gabbard.
Like any organization, you will always have 3 types of people: those who do anything necessary to advance their career, those who don't have a backbone and do what they are told, and those who lead their men like a real leader should. Name one political or private organization that doesn't have these types of people present.
I agree with you. I know there are some good officers who would be great civie leaders and hence my use of the term wary - it was not my intent to be a blanket statement. I'm just speaking on my behalf, as a voter and on my beliefs. I don't represent anyone else. My one example was GEN McChrystal adn doesn't represent a great sample - I just used his beliefs as an example of what kind of regulation we can expect IF he was elected in office. Total hypothetical. It just seems that there are more liberal leaders in the spotlight in current news. i.e. Tulsi Gabbard and it seems that she is on her way to greater positions of leadership.
-
Progressive yes but in light of representing our 2A rights, nope.
pretty sure he was being facetious.
-
pretty sure he was being facetious.
He does that quite a bit. We both seen quite a bit of this the Tulsi phenomena.
-
Shatz: Over 300 Million guns in America...
Me: That's right! Consider the cost of firearms, ammunition, accessories, training, and government regulation.
You should appreciate how this one sector has prospered, creating jobs in manufacturing, retail, and gun-related services.
Most other areas of this economy have suffered under this president's administration.
You should be saying "Thank you, law-abiding gun owners of America!"
-
Shatz: Over 300 Million guns in America...
Me: That's right! Consider the cost of firearms, ammunition, accessories, training, and government regulation.
You should appreciate how this one sector has prospered, creating jobs in manufacturing, retail, and gun-related services.
Most other areas of this economy have suffered under this president's administration.
You should be saying "Thank you, law-abiding gun owners of America!"
Schatz response: Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. For the children.
-
Schatz response: Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. Gun bad. More guns more bad. For the children.
hop·lo·pho·bi·a /hɒpləˈfəʊbɪə/ noun:
1. a fear of firearms, usually irrationally based on lack of knowledge, understanding, and familiarization.
pol·i·ti·cian /päləˈtiSHən/ noun:
1. a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.
synonyms: legislator, elected official, statesman, stateswoman, public servant;
2. a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/uQxTKnK.jpg) (http://imgur.com/uQxTKnK)
-
He wants to ban "assault weapons".....does this include knives and anything that can be used as a weapon to assault someone or something? That's my interpretation of his ad!