Post by: changemyoil66 on January 09, 2024, 02:05:17 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 09, 2024, 02:10:13 PM
Will there be video cameras installed to catch these unsafe acts?
Will there be spot checks at the range by an enforcement official rating how these instructors behave?
Will there be a hotline/webpage set up to anonymously report unsafe instructions at the range?
Unless there is some sort of monitoring and corrective action, vetting won't stop unsafe individuals from giving classes.
Post by: zippz on January 09, 2024, 02:52:19 PM
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 09, 2024, 03:23:36 PM
Kit testified in person that he supports the new requirements for handgun safety classes. He also supports the vetting of instructors by HPD. Becuase he has seen unsafe instruction at the range.
Like it was mentioned earlier by another poster, HPD gets certified by NRA, but just being certified by NRA is not enough. They gotta certify. :wacko: :rofl:
Pretty funny. The student telling the teacher you're not good enough. HPD is so good they leave rifles unattended. :shaka:
Post by: Rocky on January 09, 2024, 04:38:49 PM
Kit n Gun has said other remarks that go against the 2A and from what I've heard, he had a couple applicant's have ND's doing the HPD tests and other issues.
https://www.kitv.com/news/local/illegal-gun-range-in-waianae-highlights-lack-of-shooting-ranges-on-oahu/article_81db7118-a9a3-11ed-8312-232b3d9e642b.html
Post by: zippz on January 09, 2024, 05:46:25 PM
Those could be good points. However what he should've said is there should be no requirements to carry a gun under the 2A. Instead people should be heavily encouraged to seek training on their own.
Or he should've stayed home since he didn't want anything changed in the policy.
Post by: dafrtknocker on January 09, 2024, 05:47:18 PM
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 05:49:00 PM
Post by: randay on January 09, 2024, 06:54:55 PM
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 09, 2024, 07:05:50 PM
Or he should've stayed home since he didn't want anything changed in the policy.
Yep. Should've stayed home.
Post by: macsak on January 09, 2024, 07:24:08 PM
after listening to Kits testimony, this is what I got from it. He seemed to go after people with no firearms training, like people who take hunters ed only to get and carry a handgun and that HPDs requirements ensure they get that training to carry.
Those could be good points. However what he should've said is there should be no requirements to carry a gun under the 2A. Instead people should be heavily encouraged to seek training on their own.
Or he should've stayed home since he didn't want anything changed in the policy.
Post by: zippz on January 09, 2024, 07:52:49 PM
so you want to deny his first amendment right?
There's a difference between can and should
Or in otherwords a term we use in the Army...good initiative, bad judgement.
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 07:56:13 PM
There's a difference between can and shouldJust like the difference between a chiropractor and a medical doctor...
Or in otherwords a term we use in the Army...good initiative, bad judgement.
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 07:57:14 PM
Unsafe Instructors, maybe that's why his classes got removed from another private range, putting dumb shit on Instagram.
I couldn't find it on IG
So now the Chinese own Hollywood, Hawaii real estate and now the Chinese own our rights! :grrr: :grrr: be careful they might start adding MSG to your ammo!
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 09, 2024, 08:11:11 PM
so you want to deny his first amendment right?Zipps isnt the government.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 09, 2024, 08:11:45 PM
Just like the difference between a chiropractor and a medical doctor...U mean dentist and real doctor.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Q on January 09, 2024, 08:19:08 PM
All you crybabies need to respect his freedom of speech while he criticizes you for your freedom of speech.
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 08:37:40 PM
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C16BFm3uHS3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (https://www.instagram.com/reel/C16BFm3uHS3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)
All you crybabies need to respect his freedom of speech while he criticizes you for your freedom of speech.
I couldn't understand what he was saying. Where's the CC button on Instagram? nvm...tanks you Google!
哈哈，我拥有你珍贵的第二修正案混蛋！
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 08:49:07 PM
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/26/article-1128584-033165BD000005DC-428_468x572.jpg)
Post by: oldfart on January 09, 2024, 09:04:59 PM
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 09:11:44 PM
Kit testified in person that he supports the new requirements for handgun safety classes. He also supports the vetting of instructors by HPD. Becuase he has seen unsafe instruction at the range.
absolutely remarkable ability given certain innate circumstances
Post by: mrgaf on January 09, 2024, 09:28:39 PM
absolutely remarkable ability given certain innate circumstances
How do you spell jack ass…. KIT N GUN. :shaka:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 09, 2024, 09:28:54 PM
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C16BFm3uHS3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (https://www.instagram.com/reel/C16BFm3uHS3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)
All you crybabies need to respect his freedom of speech while he criticizes you for your freedom of speech.
His IG profile says "No Sale No Pricing on IG".
But, there are videos and photos throughout his IG posts of guns with the prices prominently displayed.
That's a really nice Instagram page you have for you business. It would be a shame if someone reported you for violating IG's policies.
(https://i.imgur.com/nL4lzB4.png)
Post by: ren on January 09, 2024, 09:57:46 PM
I had difficulty understanding Kit's testimony.
here you go
(https://www.chinesetranslationservices.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/interpreting-4.jpg)
Post by: groveler on January 09, 2024, 10:19:58 PM
I know I'm not a "Hawaiian" and I tend to sandpaper
the local Aloha.
But given the shit you guys go through
to get guns, I ask why?
Most here have mainland ties, why don't you use them?
The state I'm now a "Legal" resident of just enacted a
ten day waiting period for all purchases. That won't last there by the way.
but at least we don't have to beg a guy to buy a gun like you do here,
And the guy isn't listening.
For Five hundred dollars you can fly to the mainland, and buy twenty guns.
and mail or ship them back to Hawaii.
You can try to register them all at once.
It won't work. There is a USSC decision about not being
held responsible for mandatory registration you could not do.
I'm sure Flapp could quote the 5th amendment.
Gun owners in Hawaii are already considered to be criminals,
start acting like one and use the system
Aloha.
:shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 10, 2024, 07:58:30 AM
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C16BFm3uHS3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (https://www.instagram.com/reel/C16BFm3uHS3/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)
All you crybabies need to respect his freedom of speech while he criticizes you for your freedom of speech.
How are the crybabies not respecting his freedom of speech? Is anyone forcing him to keep his mouth shut? BTW free speech is so the government cannot censor you, individuals and entities can censor as they please.
Post by: rpoL98 on January 10, 2024, 08:07:16 AM
jiminy chrissmas WTF! unless he intended to speak on behalf of the anti-2A.
and doubling down with an arrogant IG follow-up. Well, I guess he went all-in.
Post by: Rhed on January 10, 2024, 08:34:57 AM
Post by: randay on January 10, 2024, 09:01:02 AM
At least his student have basic understanding of gun. You all crybaby motherfucka. We made it. Muthafucka crybaby.
Post by: oldfart on January 10, 2024, 09:06:51 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/L81SZ2Hb/kitngun.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxmQC9LV)
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 10, 2024, 09:16:39 AM
I truly don't care about what he said, as long as he keeps bringing the girls to the gun show.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L81SZ2Hb/kitngun.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxmQC9LV)
We call this a honeypot.
Post by: rpoL98 on January 10, 2024, 09:28:07 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x7c006f942a7f127b%3A0xfad02d9b2808f71e!3m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2Fkit%2Bn%2Bgun%2F%4021.3247051%2C-157.8833661%2C3a%2C75y%2C63.18h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sE2xOiWwY9pNNYKkW1BVryQ*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x7c006f942a7f127b%3A0xfad02d9b2808f71e%3Fsa%3DX%26ved%3D2ahUKEwjRvabDv9ODAxWiJ0QIHQCOA4AQpx96BAgPEAA!5skit%20n%20gun%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipPAlTM30YvLiV0reTMFpGkQznPv6ULypXLS85at&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRvabDv9ODAxWiJ0QIHQCOA4AQpx96BAgvEA0 (https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x7c006f942a7f127b%3A0xfad02d9b2808f71e!3m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2Fkit%2Bn%2Bgun%2F%4021.3247051%2C-157.8833661%2C3a%2C75y%2C63.18h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sE2xOiWwY9pNNYKkW1BVryQ*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x7c006f942a7f127b%3A0xfad02d9b2808f71e%3Fsa%3DX%26ved%3D2ahUKEwjRvabDv9ODAxWiJ0QIHQCOA4AQpx96BAgPEAA!5skit%20n%20gun%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipPAlTM30YvLiV0reTMFpGkQznPv6ULypXLS85at&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRvabDv9ODAxWiJ0QIHQCOA4AQpx96BAgvEA0)if that's a 500 S&W, that kid's gonna be missing an eye after the first shot, despite eye-pro. :wacko:
At least his student have basic understanding of gun. You all crybaby motherfucka. We made it. Muthafucka crybaby.
Post by: Platinum808 on January 10, 2024, 09:47:06 AM
Post by: stangzilla on January 10, 2024, 09:54:21 AM
I truly don't care about what he said, as long as he keeps bringing the girls to the gun show.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L81SZ2Hb/kitngun.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxmQC9LV)
those models have the flat face triggers on their firearms ;)
Post by: oldfart on January 10, 2024, 10:16:03 AM
those models have the flat face triggers on their firearms ;)========
don't care if flat or rounded as long as it feels good to me :rofl:
:stopjack:
obviously, Kit is not anti-2A
I would also say that English is his second language, so I cut him some slack there.
He is a shrewd Chinese businessman.
His testimony will curry favor with HPD.
His girls will curry favor with his target audience at the upcoming gun show.
I don't know if that was the plan, but that is how I think this drama will play out..
There is a saying in the advertising business, any publicity is good publicity.
===========
RE: that picture of the kid with the scope pressed against his eye.
I don't know about that one.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 10, 2024, 10:19:08 AM
========
don't care if flat or rounded as long as it feels good to me :rofl:
:stopjack:
obviously, Kit is not anti-2A
I would also say that English is his second language, so I cut him some slack there.
He is a shrewd Chinese businessman.
His testimony will curry favor with HPD.
His girls will curry favor with his target audience at the upcoming gun show.
I don't know if that was the plan, but that is how I think this drama will play out..
===========
RE: that picture of the kid with the scope pressed against his eye.
I don't know about that one.
I wouldn't go as far to label him as "anti 2A", because he did submit testimonies in the past calling some bills unconstitutional. I forget which ones. But this recent hearing stating he supports the new requirements is BS IMO. WHich is why I won't shop there. I mean, I never have, but I was looking at his EDC fanny packs and would rather support local than buying online. But I will go online now. Also taking his "vetted" classes was an option, like 4th draft choice option, but now there's no way we will consider it.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 10, 2024, 10:21:04 AM
Darren Madrid is just as fucken bad the guy thinks he knows best for everyone!
He's with Kit. I overheard Darren saying they work together outside.
What Darren said about the military not knowing HI law when he asked them, you shouldn't need a class to exercise a right. It's on the gun owner to know any laws.
Post by: hvybarrels on January 10, 2024, 11:51:31 AM
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/x6bXoeBiLLDz1XBzDae3RZuMFMc2VT_inKfM3SYWeXM/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu/aWFuYnJpZ25lbGwu/Y29tL3dwLWNvbnRl/bnQvdXBsb2Fkcy8y/MDE2LzAxL0JVRExJ/R0hUY2FuLTU0OXgx/MDI0LmpwZw)
Post by: Hi state on January 10, 2024, 11:56:46 AM
He's with Kit. I overheard Darren saying they work together outside.I agree and thought the same..
What Darren said about the military not knowing HI law when he asked them, you shouldn't need a class to exercise a right. It's on the gun owner to know any laws.
In the testimony he agreed with kit and called him his partner.
Post by: randay on January 10, 2024, 11:59:33 AM
I truly don't care about what he said, as long as he keeps bringing the girls to the gun show.
You should just start shopping at keeaumoku walmart. ;)
Post by: ren on January 10, 2024, 12:23:15 PM
I truly don't care about what he said, as long as he keeps bringing the girls to the gun show.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L81SZ2Hb/kitngun.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxmQC9LV)
I call that mediocre substandard. Thats what happens with too much MSG
Post by: stangzilla on January 10, 2024, 12:32:13 PM
I truly don't care about what he said, as long as he keeps bringing the girls to the gun show.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L81SZ2Hb/kitngun.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxmQC9LV)
girls have the flat face trigger
kit has the snub nose :D
Post by: ren on January 10, 2024, 12:40:47 PM
We call this a honeypot.
I call that leftovers from a Chinese dim sum kitchen. The food stuff from underneath the pallets the cooks stand on.
Post by: oldfart on January 10, 2024, 12:43:01 PM
You should just start shopping at keeaumoku walmart. ;)...
Haha
I'm pretty familiar with the area.
Worked across the street for 34 years.
Post by: stangzilla on January 10, 2024, 12:48:23 PM
yeah, I can see you two being "partners"
kit says he sees people at the range that shouldn't own a gun. maybe they don't own a gun. maybe they are there with a friend shooting the friend's gun. maybe it's their first time at the range. maybe they do need more training
he says some people shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.
how many instances have there been where a licensed to carry person shot someone in hawaii? never
kit also implies a difference between owning and carrying a gun
maybe he's not totally anti-2A, but he sure put his foot in his mouth on this day. and then today he goes on IG and insults people and tries to walk back what he said. bruddah, you said what you said. best thing you can do after that is sit down and STFU! bc you only digging a bigger hole for yourself
reminds me somewhat of Lebron James when he says something stupid and then tries to walk it back afterwards. should have kept your big mouth shut in the first place and secondly you digging a bigger hole for yourself by trying to explain it afterwards
kit has always rubbed me the wrong way, NH, with his IG posts calling people "madafuka's". bruddah, you da madafaka, not us. I'm going to encourage everyone I know to not go to his shop. and he just looks dumb in that LV hat
once in a while he posts on IG that he has some kind of LV gun with all this LV labeling. what real American is going to buy that sissy looking gun anyways? :rofl:
Post by: oldfart on January 10, 2024, 12:53:34 PM
I call that mediocre substandard. Thats what happens with too much MSG...
Oh ...be nice now.
That girl with the pistol is my friend.
Post by: ren on January 10, 2024, 01:03:05 PM
Here's my ClifNotes.
"You want lauwndree? You bring ticket! No tickey no lauwndree!"
Post by: hvybarrels on January 10, 2024, 01:18:46 PM
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/gpQJTE9T_9_25dCNYrwEWXiYtf16cmBXD69YVhNchoA/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLmRh/aWx5bWFpbC5jby51/ay8xcy8yMDI0LzAx/LzA1LzE3LzczODE4/MjA3LTEyOTMwNjA1/LUJ1ZF9MaWdodF9z/YXdfc2FsZXNfcGx1/bW1ldF9sYXN0X3ll/YXJfYWZ0ZXJfYV9i/b3ljb3R0X2ZvbGxv/d2luZ18tYS0xXzE3/MDQ0NzY3MTM1OTgu/anBn)
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 10, 2024, 02:45:00 PM
I have never seen such stellar kiss a$$es until now. Awesome.
I don't do social media otherwise I would trash his actions. I might stop by his website though and drop him a "greeting".
Post by: pacwire on January 10, 2024, 03:49:59 PM
Post by: Kentos on January 10, 2024, 05:58:43 PM
Post by: defend_hawaii on January 10, 2024, 06:07:46 PM
For everyone raging on him for his accent, that just low class and discredits your opinion. 🤙
Post by: hvybarrels on January 10, 2024, 06:41:25 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 10, 2024, 07:14:39 PM
We live in a capitalistic society, and I can understand them wanting to push classes for money. As a Veteran I can totally understand Darrens point on Military, we are taught use of force in the Military not state laws for each state. The problem I have is with what Kit said, "a lot of people that got the CCL I don't think they should even carry a gun!" These kinds of opinions only hurt us in the gun community, and you know they will use this against us in the future quoting him. If this is Kits opinion thats fine I totally support his freedom of speech. But I will never spend another dollar in his store. I will take my business else where.People are ragging on his accent cause he claims people discriminate on his language. Which is playing victim.
For everyone raging on him for his accent, that just low class and discredits your opinion.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: ren on January 10, 2024, 07:19:44 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 10, 2024, 08:21:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97TW1Zm1uMITaiwan credit.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 11, 2024, 02:10:23 AM
after listening to Kits testimony, this is what I got from it. He seemed to go after people with no firearms training, like people who take hunters ed only to get and carry a handgun and that HPDs requirements ensure they get that training to carry.
Those could be good points. However what he should've said is there should be no requirements to carry a gun under the 2A. Instead people should be heavily encouraged to seek training on their own.
Or he should've stayed home since he didn't want anything changed in the policy.
If I am not mistaken, he seemed to speak with an accent. I was wondering whether he wasn't articulating his point well out of a difficulty in English?
I get what he was getting at in terms of dangerous firearm carriers, I have seen numerous times where people either don't know or don't practice good firearm safety.
I think he is an example of the moderate type or gun rights supporters. I understand the grievances people have with what he has to say but I think we do worse to turn him into an enemy.
Post by: macsak on January 11, 2024, 05:11:04 AM
#objective
If I am not mistaken, he seemed to speak with an accent. I was wondering whether he wasn't articulating his point well out of a difficulty in English?
I get what he was getting at in terms of dangerous firearm carriers, I have seen numerous times where people either don't know or don't practice good firearm safety.
I think he is an example of the moderate type or gun rights supporters. I understand the grievances people have with what he has to say but I think we do worse to turn him into an enemy.
Post by: ren on January 11, 2024, 07:13:29 AM
I get what he was getting at in terms of dangerous firearm carriers, I have seen numerous times where people either don't know or don't practice good firearm safety.
If I'm not mistaken that is him in the background overlooking a child operating a rather large caliber handgun with a scope....eye relief anyone? Is that a teachable concept? Finger on the trigger :o
(https://i.imgur.com/oZ28AXj.jpg)
Post by: randay on January 11, 2024, 07:17:55 AM
If I'm not mistaken that is him in the background overlooking a child operating a rather large caliber handgun with a scope....eye relief anyone? Is that a teachable concept? Finger on the trigger :o
(https://i.imgur.com/oZ28AXj.jpg)
I see it all the time, instructors who should not be allowed to teach. In my opinion. mudafucka.
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 11, 2024, 08:18:28 AM
If I'm not mistaken that is him in the background overlooking a child operating a rather large caliber handgun with a scope....eye relief anyone? Is that a teachable concept? Finger on the trigger :o
(https://i.imgur.com/oZ28AXj.jpg)
I see it all the time, instructors who should not be allowed to teach. In my opinion. mudafucka.
For us we can tell when an instructor is full of shiite. Problem is, the gun hating sheeple out there wouldn't know sh*t from shinola about these things.
This yo-yo has done more damage for the 2a cause than anyone could possibly imagine. And it seems all in the name of good ole capitalism.
It seems he doesn't care about 2nd amendment rights, or whether the rules are constitutional or not. Just pay your f*ckn fees, and get the f*ck outta here. I made my money. Good Luck........Thank you for coming. ::) ::) ::) Oh by the way, did you like my gun-toting hotties? That'll be $50 more if you want your pic with them.
I still cannot wrap my head around some of his statements. If he is only interested in making money on his classes, then go and testify that he supports the new Chief's rules.
WTF is this about testifying about some CCW licensees shouldn't even carry a gun? Who the f*ck died and made him supreme grand poobah of who gets to carry a gun?
Total kiss-a$$ motherf*cker. :grrr:
Post by: stangzilla on January 11, 2024, 08:32:56 AM
Are you allowed to shoot that caliber at indoor range?
Is that an indoor range? I'm not sure
Either way, I just dont like this guy
If you not part of the solution, you part of the problem. Pick a side. Dont walk the fence. I hate fence walkers
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 11, 2024, 08:47:44 AM
If I am not mistaken, he seemed to speak with an accent. I was wondering whether he wasn't articulating his point well out of a difficulty in English?
I get what he was getting at in terms of dangerous firearm carriers, I have seen numerous times where people either don't know or don't practice good firearm safety.
I think he is an example of the moderate type or gun rights supporters. I understand the grievances people have with what he has to say but I think we do worse to turn him into an enemy.
I've spoken to him and he knows how to articulate his thoughts well. So there is no language barrier.
There are rumors about his classes, which I wasn't there so I cannot confirm them. So you thinking people can do worse to turn him into an enemy, isn't true.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 11, 2024, 08:49:28 AM
If I'm not mistaken that is him in the background overlooking a child operating a rather large caliber handgun with a scope....eye relief anyone? Is that a teachable concept? Finger on the trigger :o
(https://i.imgur.com/oZ28AXj.jpg)
I've seen worst. Prime Sports has a Vortex poster by their door. The guy's eye is about 1/4 an inch away from the scope. I expect more from Vortex.
Post by: rpoL98 on January 11, 2024, 08:57:00 AM
If I'm not mistaken that is him in the background overlooking a child operating a rather large caliber handgun with a scope....eye relief anyone? Is that a teachable concept? Finger on the trigger :oi am sure that is a staged photo. it has to be. otherwise, somewhere, there is a kid that's wearing a pirate eye patch. so, it's one for the IG & FB likes. we have to assume that, otherwise it defies logic.
(https://i.imgur.com/oZ28AXj.jpg)
probably cool for people who don't shoot, for for the kid to show his friends and class mates, or those who don't know any better.
perhaps not quite Alec Baldwin "Rust" level.
in any event, dat Mudafuka has certainly kicked the hornet's nest.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 11, 2024, 09:02:17 AM
i am sure that is a staged photo. it has to be. otherwise, somewhere, there is a kid that's wearing a pirate eye patch. so, it's one for the IG & FB likes. we have to assume that, otherwise it defies logic.
probably cool for people who don't shoot, for for the kid to show his friends and class mates, or those who don't know any better.
perhaps not quite Alec Baldwin "Rust" level.
in any event, dat Mudafuka has certainly kicked the hornet's nest.
Add in the rumors about his safety, and this adds to it.
Post by: drck1000 on January 11, 2024, 09:06:41 AM
If I am not mistaken, he seemed to speak with an accent. I was wondering whether he wasn't articulating his point well out of a difficulty in English?It's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure the message is conveyed in an appropriate manner, including being aware of audience and how the message would be received and could be used/twisted.
SNIP
His IG response, he double downed that folks who took issue "didn't understand him". No. . . I think many understood full well.
If ESL was truly an issue, then he should have considered that in his preparation for testimony on a scheduled event. No "I'm old Biden excuses". . .
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 11, 2024, 09:12:56 AM
I would but I don't know how.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 11, 2024, 09:22:35 AM
And his solution is more training that costs more?
Did he bother to talk to the "unsafe instructor?"
Did he bother to alert the RSO?
If at an indoor range, did he notify the management?
Did he stop the lesson and tell his student/s they were taking a break until the "unsafe shooters" left?
If he ignored the problem -- only to air it in a public setting for his own benefit -- then (1) the situation was not really that unsafe, and (2) he's not focused on safety if he allows this kind of behavior to continue near himself, his students and any other shooters.
A competent instructor would have brought it to the attention of the offender/s and the RSO or removed himself and his student/s from the danger zone.
I call bullshit. Either it never happened, or he sucks as a range patron. He sucks more as an instructor responsible for his clients' safety.
Post by: oldfart on January 11, 2024, 09:58:57 AM
A few days ago there was a thread about 8 annoying things at the range. One of the topics was offering unsolicited advice. If an instructor is doing bad things, I do not say anything unless it involves a safety issue. It's not my kuleana.
Note...
I used to work very near his shop but never went there and probably never will.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 11, 2024, 10:01:48 AM
I tend to cut people some slack because the truth is rarely a black and white issue. I have personally seen instructors who should not be instructors. I see people shooting guns at the range every week who couldn't hit the side of a house... Not exaggerating.
A few days ago there was a thread about 8 annoying things at the range. One of the topics was offering unsolicited advice. If an instructor is doing bad things, I do not say anything unless it involves a safety issue. It's not my kuleana.
Note...
I used to work very near his shop but never went there and probably never will.
That's the crux of my comment. If the situation warranted, saying something to the instructor and RSO would not just be wise, but IMO required, of anyone witnessing it -- especially if that someone is also an instructor and responsible for his class' safety.
Post by: Brystont1 on January 11, 2024, 10:38:28 AM
i am sure that is a staged photo. it has to be. otherwise, somewhere, there is a kid that's wearing a pirate eye patch. so, it's one for the IG & FB likes. we have to assume that, otherwise it defies logic.
probably cool for people who don't shoot, for for the kid to show his friends and class mates, or those who don't know any better.
perhaps not quite Alec Baldwin "Rust" level.
in any event, dat Mudafuka has certainly kicked the hornet's nest.
Could be staged photo. However doesn’t excuse the finger on the trigger. Ironic this picture is coming from the guy who teaches classes and complains about the need for firearm safety.
Post by: drck1000 on January 11, 2024, 10:40:41 AM
SNIP"you make me famous baybay" :rofl:
in any event, dat Mudafuka has certainly kicked the hornet's nest.
Post by: randay on January 11, 2024, 10:43:38 AM
I tend to cut people some slack because the truth is rarely a black and white issue. I have personally seen instructors who should not be instructors. I see people shooting guns at the range every week who couldn't hit the side of a house... Not exaggerating.
A few days ago there was a thread about 8 annoying things at the range. One of the topics was offering unsolicited advice. If an instructor is doing bad things, I do not say anything unless it involves a safety issue. It's not my kuleana.
Note...
I used to work very near his shop but never went there and probably never will.
but he made a response video. its time to stop cutting him slack at that point.
Post by: Rocky on January 11, 2024, 10:48:38 AM
girls have the flat face trigger
kit has the snub nose :D
Not to mention FINGER ON THE TRIGGER ! :shake:
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 11, 2024, 10:53:17 AM
but he made a response video. its time to stop cutting him slack at that point.
To me making a response video is like he's doing damage control. He cannot undo what he said at the hearing. He's pouring gasoline on his own fire.
To Kit n Gun, whoever you are. I suggest next time, you think before opening your mouth.
Post by: Rocky on January 11, 2024, 11:04:58 AM
I don't do social media otherwise I would trash his actions. I might stop by his website though and drop him a "greeting".
I see the link to his site via facebook has been removed and links via instagram, yelp, mapquest, and youtube are not working.
Did you know that if you advertise on Google, you are CHARGED FOR EVERY CLICK to your site ? ::)
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 11, 2024, 11:08:26 AM
To me making a response video is like he's doing damage control. He cannot undo what he said at the hearing. He's pouring gasoline on his own fire.
To Kit n Gun, whoever you are. I suggest next time, you think before opening your mouth.
This is what we call a Fudd. "I support the 2A, but..."
I have a friend who's a new gun owner and agreed with Kit. Then I explained what happened during covid and BLM riots in HI. Range closed, PTA RSVP failure, etc...He then changed his tune and agreed that no class should be needed to buy a gun.
Post by: drck1000 on January 11, 2024, 11:11:02 AM
His response on IG is stil up. . .
I see the link to his site via facebook has been removed and links via instagram, yelp, mapquest, and youtube are not working.
Did you know that if you advertise on Google, you are CHARGED FOR EVERY CLICK to your site ? ::)
PEBKAC ???
:rofl:
Post by: randay on January 11, 2024, 11:12:22 AM
To me making a response video is like he's doing damage control. He cannot undo what he said at the hearing. He's pouring gasoline on his own fire.
To Kit n Gun, whoever you are. I suggest next time, you think before opening your mouth.
yes, but he did not do any damage control, except to claim that he is pro-2a. he then called everyone crybabies and mother fuckers, while jerking himself off.
Post by: drck1000 on January 11, 2024, 11:20:05 AM
To me making a response video is like he's doing damage control. He cannot undo what he said at the hearing. He's pouring gasoline on his own fire.IMO, it was a double down and "look at me". Maybe it was intended to explain, but I think he did very much poured gasoline on the fire.
To Kit n Gun, whoever you are. I suggest next time, you think before opening your mouth.
Very much agree with "think before opening your mouth", but that's the issue. He didn't and he's completely missing why people are outraged (or at least many).
yes, but he did not do any damage control, except to claim that he is pro-2a. he then called everyone crybabies and mother fuckers, while jerking himself off.Yeah. Def didn't do damage control. I don't think he intended it for damage control. The "crybaby" part did leave me scratching my head.
Post by: hvybarrels on January 11, 2024, 11:24:30 AM
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*NRiS60KUOCag7EDmEjsicw.png)
Post by: oldfart on January 11, 2024, 11:39:07 AM
It's also not going to help with economic recovery, nor with the crackhead crime problem.
Oh wait NVM,....Logan said crime rates are down. :rofl:
Post by: mrgaf on January 11, 2024, 04:31:16 PM
Possible new kitten gun spokesmodel? I hear she is looking for work.
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/gpQJTE9T_9_25dCNYrwEWXiYtf16cmBXD69YVhNchoA/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLmRh/aWx5bWFpbC5jby51/ay8xcy8yMDI0LzAx/LzA1LzE3LzczODE4/MjA3LTEyOTMwNjA1/LUJ1ZF9MaWdodF9z/YXdfc2FsZXNfcGx1/bW1ldF9sYXN0X3ll/YXJfYWZ0ZXJfYV9i/b3ljb3R0X2ZvbGxv/d2luZ18tYS0xXzE3/MDQ0NzY3MTM1OTgu/anBn)
I just fucking threw up in my mout! My eyes are burning! Thanks a lot! 8)
Post by: Q on January 11, 2024, 08:37:02 PM
I see the link to his site via facebook has been removed and links via instagram, yelp, mapquest, and youtube are not working.
Did you know that if you advertise on Google, you are CHARGED FOR EVERY CLICK to your site ? ::)
Anyone notice all the prices have magically disappeared overnight?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 11, 2024, 11:26:10 PM
I've spoken to him and he knows how to articulate his thoughts well. So there is no language barrier.
There are rumors about his classes, which I wasn't there so I cannot confirm them. So you thinking people can do worse to turn him into an enemy, isn't true.
I see so no excuse there.
I do not think we should alienate the moderate people, just my opinion. I have no opinion on his instructor capabilities.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 11, 2024, 11:34:29 PM
"if i am not mistaken"?
#objective
Yes. I watched part of the testimony video but I was not sure whether he was the one with the accent or not.
Post by: macsak on January 12, 2024, 04:56:48 AM
he said his first name and spelled his last name...
Yes. I watched part of the testimony video but I was not sure whether he was the one with the accent or not.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 12, 2024, 07:47:23 AM
Yes. I watched part of the testimony video but I was not sure whether he was the one with the accent or not.
Like other threads, I guess you didn't read the part of this thread that mentions him vs the other guy. Or the pic of Kit.
Post by: astroboy on January 12, 2024, 09:47:33 AM
while the rubber mask is pulled off of Kit's head to reveal it's: Darren H., Art O., or Warren
K. etc...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 14, 2024, 12:38:56 AM
Like other threads, I guess you didn't read the part of this thread that mentions him vs the other guy. Or the pic of Kit.
Sorry, I didn't read every post in this whole thread and then do a facial comparison to the video.
Post by: macsak on January 14, 2024, 05:38:37 AM
Sorry, I didn't read every post in this whole thread and then do a facial comparison to the video.
focus
you obviously watched the video
stop moving goalposts...
Post by: ren on January 14, 2024, 07:30:49 AM
Post by: rpoL98 on January 14, 2024, 07:38:07 AM
Sorry, I didn't read every post in this whole thread and then do a facial comparison to the video.the caddyshack bucket hat threw everybody off. or was it Col Blake from MASH? i get confused.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 14, 2024, 08:26:11 AM
Sorry, I didn't read every post in this whole thread and then do a facial comparison to the video.U should, that way u dont have to move goal post or thread needs to go on and on and on.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: stangzilla on January 15, 2024, 07:35:40 AM
Possible new kitten gun spokesmodel? I hear she is looking for work.
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/gpQJTE9T_9_25dCNYrwEWXiYtf16cmBXD69YVhNchoA/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLmRh/aWx5bWFpbC5jby51/ay8xcy8yMDI0LzAx/LzA1LzE3LzczODE4/MjA3LTEyOTMwNjA1/LUJ1ZF9MaWdodF9z/YXdfc2FsZXNfcGx1/bW1ldF9sYXN0X3ll/YXJfYWZ0ZXJfYV9i/b3ljb3R0X2ZvbGxv/d2luZ18tYS0xXzE3/MDQ0NzY3MTM1OTgu/anBn)
kin n gun drinks bud light
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 15, 2024, 07:44:25 AM
kin n gun drinks bud light
I would have thought Tsing Tao.
Post by: stangzilla on January 15, 2024, 08:15:08 AM
I would have thought Tsing Tao.
Sometimes I drink Tsing Tao
Got a friend from China and that's what he drinks
Now I'm into BeerLab beer. Pricey but it's some great beer. I think best "craft" beer locally
Post by: Stack_Xchange on January 15, 2024, 09:17:15 AM
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 15, 2024, 09:36:48 AM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
It's OK to have a different opinion. But others don't have to like it.
Here's a question to think about. I've taken a CCW test in NV and it's so easy that anyone can pass it. Even someone who just bough their gun. So how difficult should a test be made? I'm not an expert shooter, but passed HI's CCW with a 100% for both guns. What if HPD required a much more difficult test that required to hit a baseball size target at 25 yards under time? I can see that 99% of people would fail this, and those who did pass would have spend many hours and a lot of money practicing. This is why I'm against test or classes. So what good is a class/test that it's very difficult to fail?
Then add in what if the range is shut down? Oahu is lucky that 808GC is the only place allowing private instructors. With KHSC bay's closed and X-Ring only allowing their instructors, if 808GC decided to follow, then it would make the task even more unobtainable. This is another reason why I'm against classes. We saw with COVID when HI shut down the range, no one could buy a handgun. Then with the BS RSVP HPD system, it was almost impossible to get a RSVP for a year, unless you sat at your computer all day hitting the refresh button or you got lucky.
Even with the bays open, there's somethign about only non-profits allowed to use them. Which would still mean no private instructor can do the shooting qual there. And say they can, it would be at open shoots, which doesn't have enough cease fires to change targets out. It's not like NV where you can just go into the desert to shoot.
Then ask yourself, does any other right need to have a test taken in order to exercise it?
I'm not here to change your mind, but just give points of thought. I talked to 1 guy who agreed with the class/test, then I reminded him of what happened during covid when he tried to buy a gun. He wasn't able to do so due to the above I mentioned. He immediately changed his mind to say this is BS.
Post by: ren on January 15, 2024, 09:46:51 AM
None of local politicians are genuinely interested to make Hawaii affordable. This is just one small example.
Here's an example of government control over housing.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/09/years-before-indictments-honolulu-permitting-department-was-warned-about-corrupt-culture/
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/03/31/city-planning-department-employees-charged-months-long-federal-corruption-investigation/
With these cases in mind, why do Hawaii citizens always turn to the same government for solutions?
Post by: rpoL98 on January 15, 2024, 10:20:35 AM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...so, infringement of 2A. okay, got it.
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
You're exercising your 1A, good for you. Although, as you said, not a popular opinion on a 2A forum.
(https://i.imgur.com/lc6LbX2.gif)
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 15, 2024, 10:23:31 AM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
I understand your concern for a CCW holder to be trained and proficient. That can be attained without the stranglehold of government authority.
The current rules of the Chief of Police is a good example of government intervention and it won't stop there.
Post by: randay on January 15, 2024, 10:49:49 AM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
I dont think you mean to say that you agree with his opinions in his testimony. because that would mean that you believe that many legal gun owners and LTC permit carriers should not be allowed to own guns or carry guns. You would also believe that the legislation that the whole meeting was about(sb1230) is completely constitutional and you would have no issues with it. But you have expressed concerns with sensitive places which was a large part of sb1230.
I believe you are saying that education/training/competancy should be required, and thats not an unpopular opinion. In fact, that was already required from day 1. Every legal gun owner and LTC permit holder has already done all that.
Regarding education/training, you have to ask yourself, who determines exactly what that entails. Is it lawmakers who know next to nothing about the subject matter and are demonstrably anti-2A? Because thats where we are at.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 15, 2024, 10:55:05 AM
Seems the government is more concerned with law abiding people carrying than the criminals who carry. The evidence is obvious. Has Hunter Biden not become the poster boy for government turning a blind eye when gun laws are violated? How many others have we read about who used or possessed a gun illegally, but no gun charges were filed?
Did you know the state can't prosecute someone for failing to register a gun they are prohibited from owning? Yet, a person who follows the law and can pass a background check can be prosecuted for not registering a firearm. The 5th amendment shields the criminal, but the person who isn't prohibited is fair game.
As for the logic of forcing people to become trained to carry, who decides what those standards are? The same people in government trying to get the states to pass gun control laws the feds are Constitutionally barred from passing? These are the same people who believe a 10 round magazine saves lives, that an 11% additional tax on ammunition is going to offset the "cost" of guns in America, and that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets?
Ask yourself whether your logic can also apply to other civil rights. Would you support passing a test in order to vote? How about getting certified training at your cost to speak about government in public so you know what's legally permitted?
When the same government that the 2A was created to protect the people against is given the power to establish limits on that right, is that not the very definition of conflict of interest?
The odds that anyone will ever have to draw their concealed firearm is extremely small. Even cops report they went from rookie to retired without ever drawing, much less firing, their weapons. And in a comparison, cops hit more innocent bystanders and miss their targets more often than do concealed carriers who confront an active threat.
There are more than half the states now allowing Constitutional/Permit-less carry. There has not been an increase in concealed carriers committing crimes or irresponsibly shooting at others.
Even if there has been an uptick in criminals carrying guns in Constitutional Carry states, it is offset by the decrease in the number of murders.
CDC Data Shows Constitutional Carry States Have
Fewer Total and Gun-Related Homicides
Quote
As of 2020, the most recent year for which detailed CDC data is available, 16 stateshttps://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cdc-data-shows-constitutional-carry-states-have-fewer-total-and-gun-related-homicides/
had already embraced constitutional carry. By looking at the homicide rates in those
states as well as their gun homicide rates in particular, we can get an idea of whether
constitutional carry states actually are more dangerous than the nation as a whole.
If the anti-gun argument is correct, constitutional carry states should be far more violent,
especially in the crime-surge year of 2020.
Fortunately, the CDC provides very detailed statistics on public health, including data
on underlying causes of death, so we can check. The statistics are reported online
through the CDC’s WONDER tool, an acronym which stands for “Wide-ranging ONline
Data for Epidemiologic Research.” All of the data I am about to discuss can be found
through that tool.
...
With that in mind, the results are as follows: the average overall homicide rate among
the sixteen constitutional carry states in 2020 was 6.9 per 100,000, beating the national
average of 7.5 per 100,000. Perhaps more surprisingly, constitutional carry states also
saw a lower gun-related homicide rate: 5.3 per 100,000, compared to the national figure
of 5.9 per 100,000.
Maybe instead of wanting government to mandate training requirements, we should use actual logic and trust that the majority will seek training and practice on their own, and trust the stats that prove few gun incidents involve law abiding individuals and violent crime rates drop in places where everyone is allowed to carry -- making the environment less safe for criminals to ply their trade.
Post by: rpoL98 on January 15, 2024, 11:03:46 AM
My perspective is: how many gang bangers and other criminals carrying without a permit are trained to carry a handgun?if the police in, say, Chicago or NYC, actually enforced a CCW training requirement on the lawless vibrant yutes, instead of just the law abiding, them being proficient might actually result in more of them becoming deaded. not a good look. doesn't fit the narrative.
...
not sure where that logic leads us...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 15, 2024, 11:11:23 AM
if the police in, say, Chicago or NYC, actually enforced a CCW training requirement on the lawless vibrant yutes, instead of just the law abiding, them being proficient might actually result in more of them becoming deaded. not a good look. doesn't fit the narrative.
not sure where that logic leads us...
Better than collateral damage...
When many/most of the deaded gangsters are under 21, seems to be common sense that current legal age limits are not working. Maybe firearm safety training in schools would eliminate the mystique around guns for young people and increase safety practices -- like never pointing a gun at anything/anyone you don't wish to destroy.
Post by: drck1000 on January 15, 2024, 11:21:43 AM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...So who gets to evaluate and decide if YOU are “qualified”, therefore has the power to control (within context of CCW permits) how you are able to choose to defend yourself and those you love?
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
Post by: hvybarrels on January 15, 2024, 11:22:43 AM
Post by: drck1000 on January 15, 2024, 11:50:52 AM
Better than collateral damage...The best kind
When many/most of the deaded gangsters are under 21, seems to be common sense that current legal age limits are not working. Maybe firearm safety training in schools would eliminate the mystique around guns for young people and increase safety practices -- like never pointing a gun at anything/anyone you don't wish to destroy.
Post by: stangzilla on January 16, 2024, 02:36:31 AM
Post by: oldfart on January 16, 2024, 04:47:06 AM
The best kind....
Darwin is my hero.
Post by: oldfart on January 16, 2024, 04:49:19 AM
Better than collateral damage.....
When many/most of the deaded gangsters are under 21, seems to be common sense that current legal age limits are not working. Maybe firearm safety training in schools would eliminate the mystique around guns for young people and increase safety practices -- like never pointing a gun at anything/anyone you don't wish to destroy.
Educate, don't legislate.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 16, 2024, 07:40:38 AM
Post by: surfmaster on January 16, 2024, 07:47:02 AM
https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1620744&utm_source=Civil+Beat+Master+List&utm_campaign=b37ced3fd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_11_29_12_00_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-82a4618625-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=b37ced3fd3&mc_eid=351795060a
Post by: Q on January 16, 2024, 08:01:59 AM
Kit says he has zero sales since 1/1/24 due to the law change.
"Due to the law"
Post by: stangzilla on January 16, 2024, 08:49:23 AM
Here's the article in today's Civil Beat featuring Kit.
https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1620744&utm_source=Civil+Beat+Master+List&utm_campaign=b37ced3fd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_11_29_12_00_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-82a4618625-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=b37ced3fd3&mc_eid=351795060a
how's his pink shirt and yellow fanny pack
Post by: ren on January 16, 2024, 08:53:35 AM
Kit says he has zero sales since 1/1/24 due to the law change.
madafaka cryebaby
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 16, 2024, 09:06:14 AM
Here's the article in today's Civil Beat featuring Kit.
https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1620744&utm_source=Civil+Beat+Master+List&utm_campaign=b37ced3fd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_11_29_12_00_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-82a4618625-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=b37ced3fd3&mc_eid=351795060a
I like what Butch Helemano said at the end of the article. I kinda customized it:
"We're not in Kansas anymore, you boto."
This message goes out with Aloha to all the Dorothy's in that fantasyland called the State Capitol.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 16, 2024, 10:39:04 AM
all other Hawaii gun stores
have sold zero firearms
since Jan 1st.
(https://i.imgur.com/I6omWWj.jpg)
Post by: rpoL98 on January 16, 2024, 11:02:46 AM
I'd be very interested to know whetherLong Gun sales are probably still happening, IMO I think it's handgun sales are are most adversely impacted, much to the joy of Karl Rhoads. His legislation is working as intended.
all other Hawaii gun stores
have sold zero firearms
since Jan 1st.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 16, 2024, 11:06:46 AM
Quote
Yiu is in favor of making more training available to those who want to learn,From his in-person testimony:
but he doesn’t think it should be mandated. He said the new rules have also
impacted his business because no one, even those who took a handgun safety
course as recently as last year, can purchase a gun until they take the new course.
Quote
Regarding on the new rule about having more class, I think it's necessary.
because, uh, I've been teaching over 500 to 800 student, I didn't count, but,uh,
the student that left my shop, at least they have a basic of handling the firearm.
i know that Honolulu, Hawaii, been doing the hunter educational for the past long
long time, whatever, whatever time. That's mean they don't need a handgun
safety class in order to buy a handgun. but trust me, a lot of people that shooting at
the range, a lot of people that got the concealed carry license, i don't think they
shouldn't even carry a gun.
Now, just you know, it's my opinion, okay. Yes, more training is necessary, especially
if you add the mental health and, um uh, domestic violence and also the suicide
prevention. Right. Um, yes.
i'm a certified right now on the island, so i can teach the newest, uh, class for anybody,
but the point is, by adding that it will help preventing a person that not even
supposed to own a gun and they can walk around with a gun.
Okay, so, more class i think is necessary, and to be honest, our Second Amendment
we still, uh, affected, so, I mean, we still have the freedom to carry a gun. I mean,
we still have the freedom to own a gun, so we should keep it that way.
Thank you very much.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 16, 2024, 11:09:27 AM
Long Gun sales are probably still happening, IMO I think it's handgun sales are are most adversely impacted, much to the joy of Karl Rhoads. His legislation is working as intended.
Quote
Kit Yiu, a Honolulu gun dealer and certified firearms instructor, hasn’t sold any guns since the start of the year.
He didn't say handguns. He said any guns.
Again, are other shops seeing zero sales OF ANY GUN -- long gun or handgun -- since the new law took effect?
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 16, 2024, 11:10:10 AM
how's his pink shirt and yellow fanny pack
:rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 16, 2024, 11:12:12 AM
how's his pink shirt and yellow fanny pack
If you wear a fanny pack closer to your head than your fanny, it says something ....
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 16, 2024, 11:12:37 AM
He didn't say handguns. He said any guns.
Again, are other shops seeing zero sales OF ANY GUN -- long gun or handgun -- since the new law took effect?
Maybe people are choosing to shop elsewhere.
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 16, 2024, 11:14:47 AM
If you wear a fanny pack closer to your head than your fanny, it says something ....
:rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Rocky on January 16, 2024, 01:21:11 PM
I see the links to his site via facebook, instagram, yelp, mapquest, and youtube are back up.
You could always "check" his reviews at the following: ::)
https://www.chamberofcommerce.com/business-directory/hawaii/honolulu/gun-shop/2023143263-kit-n-gun
https://www.yelp.com/biz/kit-n-gun-urban-honolulu-2
I see the link to his site via facebook has been removed and links via instagram, yelp, mapquest, and youtube are not working.
Did you know that if you advertise on Google, you are CHARGED FOR EVERY CLICK to your site ? ::)
Post by: oldfart on January 16, 2024, 02:50:12 PM
Maybe people are choosing to shop elsewhere.=============
(https://i.postimg.cc/KY6MGFBH/be2a1c89041b8c0aa1f17c12c40e5bfd.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 16, 2024, 04:59:17 PM
Then tell him: Oh well, too bad.....
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 08:17:41 PM
U should, that way u dont have to move goal post or thread needs to go on and on and on.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Another phrase you use frequently but don't seem to understand the meaning...
It doesn't need to go on and on, you make it go on and on. I was perfectly content with your explanation that you knew he understood english well despite the accent.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 08:27:45 PM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
Careful, you are going to awake the keyboard constitutional scholars.
In all seriousness though, your points aren't wrong but the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction so legislating your suggestions meets quick challenge.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 08:30:21 PM
Anytime a government entity (HPD) tells you what training is required, what instructors are certified by them, and what proficiency you must attain yet the only public shooting range prohibits you from training to acquire that proficiency, already shows they are trying to discourage, deny, and severely restrict your ability to exercise your 2a rights.
I understand your concern for a CCW holder to be trained and proficient. That can be attained without the stranglehold of government authority.
How do you think it could be enforced? Anyone can go out and get good CCW training but the question is what about someone who doesn't because it isn't a requirement?
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 16, 2024, 08:51:54 PM
How do you think it could be enforced? Anyone can go out and get good CCW training but the question is what about someone who doesn't because it isn't a requirement?
What about it? His fate will be revealed based on his effort towards training or lack of it.
To me, the training should be on the individual. And if the State and the nation as a whole has their act together, the laws in place would deter a CCW holder from becoming laxed. Because the consequences of their actions would put them in the hurt locker for sure.
And before we throw up our arms in the air and cry "But innocents could get hurt or killed" let me say this.
Yes. It could. We are all looking for solutions but we all know deep inside there is no magic scenario that will protect everyone. The best we can do is find the solution that doesn't trample on rights or the constitution.
Constitutional carry is a reality in over half the states in the nation. It's not a perfect solution but it is based on common sense and the Constitution of the United States.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 08:54:05 PM
Another phrase you use frequently but don't seem to understand the meaning...
It doesn't need to go on and on, you make it go on and on. I was perfectly content with your explanation that you knew he understood english well despite the accent.
Post by: ren on January 16, 2024, 08:56:57 PM
so you moving goalpost from claiming you watched the video, yet didn't know which guy kit was?
"facial comparison" but doesn't one have to establish a facial reference?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 09:11:59 PM
What about it? His fate will be revealed based on his effort towards training or lack of it.
To me, the training should be on the individual. And if the State and the nation as a whole has their act together, the laws in place would deter a CCW holder from becoming laxed. Because the consequences of their actions would put them in the hurt locker for sure.
And before we throw up our arms in the air and cry "But innocents could get hurt or killed" let me say this.
Yes. It could. We are all looking for solutions but we all know deep inside there is no magic scenario that will protect everyone. The best we can do is find the solution that doesn't trample on rights or the constitution.
Constitutional carry is a reality in over half the states in the nation. It's not a perfect solution but it is based on common sense and the Constitution of the United States.
I think the issue is not the fate of the CCW who doesn't know what he is doing but the fate of those around him who get hurt by said person's actions.
I fully agree that any individual wanting to carry a firearm should seek training. The con to not requiring training is that we then have to rely on social pressure/culture to convince CCW holders to get training on their own.
Personally I am on the fence on this issue. I have given quite a bit of thought to how you could strongly incentivize training without having to pull the trigger on letting the government start putting in more requirements.
In Japan during covid everyone wore masks all over the place, but it was never actually a law, The Japanese just did it out of respect and responsibility.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 09:13:06 PM
so you moving goalpost from claiming you watched the video, yet didn't know which guy kit was?
I watched the video, I just don't recall the part where they introduced themselves, therefore I don't recall which one of them was kit. That's not goal post moving, I am just answering your question about how I could have watched the video and not know which one Kit is.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:23:23 PM
he said his first name, spelled his last name, and said he owned a gun shop
you are either not very observant, or a really bad liar
both are not good traits in someone who works in law enforcement...
I watched the video, I just don't recall the part where they introduced themselves, therefore I don't recall which one of them was kit. That's not goal post moving, I am just answering your question about how I could have watched the video and not know which one Kit is.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:24:00 PM
I think the issue is not the fate of the CCW who doesn't know what he is doing but the fate of those around him who get hurt by said person's actions.
I fully agree that any individual wanting to carry a firearm should seek training. The con to not requiring training is that we then have to rely on social pressure/culture to convince CCW holders to get training on their own.
Personally I am on the fence on this issue. I have given quite a bit of thought to how you could strongly incentivize training without having to pull the trigger on letting the government start putting in more requirements.
In Japan during covid everyone wore masks all over the place, but it was never actually a law, The Japanese just did it out of respect and responsibility.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:25:19 PM
a keyboard constitutional scholar in the kettle calling others black...
Careful, you are going to awake the keyboard constitutional scholars.
In all seriousness though, your points aren't wrong but the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction so legislating your suggestions meets quick challenge.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:28:19 PM
could the keyboard constitutional scholar please show me where anywhere in the constitution, bill of rights, or in the amendments where it says you need to get into a "level of distinction"
Careful, you are going to awake the keyboard constitutional scholars.
In all seriousness though, your points aren't wrong but the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction so legislating your suggestions meets quick challenge.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 09:52:05 PM
it was literally the first line of his statement
he said his first name, spelled his last name, and said he owned a gun shop
you are either not very observant, or a really bad liar
both are not good traits in someone who works in law enforcement...
I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?
Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 09:53:16 PM
bruh
a keyboard constitutional scholar in the kettle calling others black...
Allow me to translate for you.
"In all seriousness though..." means I was making a joke.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:55:19 PM
I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?
Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:56:30 PM
I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?
Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 09:57:47 PM
it's whether the speaker that had the accent was kit
#nuance
I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?
Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 10:02:23 PM
lul
could the keyboard constitutional scholar please show me where anywhere in the constitution, bill of rights, or in the amendments where it says you need to get into a "level of distinction"
The constitution wasn't written in a way that clearly answered every single question that would come up. Case law is full of laws and actions by the government which turn into levels of distinction. The constitution doesn't mention distinctions but they are inherently necessary. Absolutism as an ideal does not work in practice, lines have to be drawn somewhere on so many issues for a system to succeed. That doesn't mean you can torture the bill of rights to draw out anything you want but it also doesn't mean distinctions can never be made.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 10:03:58 PM
please show me where i said i never forget any details of anything i watch...
For you to criticize me for not remembering the part where he introduced himself suggests you must have much greater memory. Maybe you don't though, maybe you are just being hypocritical?
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 10:05:27 PM
i thought you said you don't lie often
you said that the 2nd amendment needs to have "levels of distinction" or else it will face challenge...
The constitution wasn't written in a way that clearly answered every single question that would come up. Case law is full of laws and actions by the government which turn into levels of distinction. The constitution doesn't mention distinctions but they are inherently necessary. Absolutism as an ideal does not work in practice, lines have to be drawn somewhere on so many issues for a system to succeed. That doesn't mean you can torture the bill of rights to draw out anything you want but it also doesn't mean distinctions can never be made.
Post by: macsak on January 16, 2024, 10:07:32 PM
it has nothing to do with me being hypocritical nor that i have a photographic memory...
For you to criticize me for not remembering the part where he introduced himself suggests you must have much greater memory. Maybe you don't though, maybe you are just being hypocritical?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 16, 2024, 11:14:17 PM
that's not what you said
i thought you said you don't lie often
you said that the 2nd amendment needs to have "levels of distinction" or else it will face challenge...
I said " the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction"
If you are going to call my a liar you shouldn't lie about what I said to support your allegation Just saying.
What are you even trying to argue here?
Post by: Stack_Xchange on January 17, 2024, 02:56:33 AM
I think the issue is not the fate of the CCW who doesn't know what he is doing but the fate of those around him who get hurt by said person's actions.
I fully agree that any individual wanting to carry a firearm should seek training. The con to not requiring training is that we then have to rely on social pressure/culture to convince CCW holders to get training on their own.
Personally I am on the fence on this issue. I have given quite a bit of thought to how you could strongly incentivize training without having to pull the trigger on letting the government start putting in more requirements.
In Japan during covid everyone wore masks all over the place, but it was never actually a law, The Japanese just did it out of respect and responsibility.
I think I qualify as a "master scientist". In my studies, the biggest, lingering question is: "What causes crime?" The science was invented around 100 years ago, since then, no one has been able to answer the question definitively.
However, there seems to be two common factors for crime: 1) Population density; 2) Socio-cultural factors impacting behavior. The more people there are in a geographical area and the weaker the social bonds of society at large, the more crime there will be. We have more than 330,000,000 people in America, most of which are packed into a few zip codes per state. To make matters worse, a lack of social bonds, accountability, and unity towards 'healthy' common goals in the general populous of America are really the driving forces behind our crime rates. We are literally battling for the polar extremes in this country rather than a sensible middle ground and that is a good indicator we're falling apart from the inside.
Despite the Japanese having some "curious" sub/microcultures, I think the Japanese macroculture as a whole would probably lead to less crime than rates seen in America assuming they owned the same amount of guns as we do.
Post by: hdu on January 17, 2024, 07:07:40 AM
I just love his IG post in response he blame the public vs saying sorry.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 08:16:28 AM
Another phrase you use frequently but don't seem to understand the meaning...
It doesn't need to go on and on, you make it go on and on. I was perfectly content with your explanation that you knew he understood english well despite the accent.
And yet here you are trying to justify yourself. InB4 Goalpost moving.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 08:19:09 AM
And before we throw up our arms in the air and cry "But innocents could get hurt or killed" let me say this.
Yes. It could. We are all looking for solutions but we all know deep inside there is no magic scenario that will protect everyone. The best we can do is find the solution that doesn't trample on rights or the constitution.
HI CCW holders got the training APPROVED by HPD. Yet the Retail Merchants of Hawaii state that this isn't good enough, because you cannot mimic real life stress. So no training will be "guud enuff" and like someone here, goal post will be moved as each requirement is met.
Same org said they rather see an active shooter not be stopped by a CCW holder, but rather by HPD. Which means wait till help arrives and teh shooter will keep killing until that happens.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 08:20:18 AM
I watched the video, I just don't recall the part where they introduced themselves, therefore I don't recall which one of them was kit. That's not goal post moving, I am just answering your question about how I could have watched the video and not know which one Kit is.
He spelled his name.
Instead of goal post moving, now denying something happened.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 08:21:13 AM
I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?
Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.
Yes, because this shows you're wrong again.
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 17, 2024, 08:48:09 AM
HI CCW holders got the training APPROVED by HPD. Yet the Retail Merchants of Hawaii state that this isn't good enough, because you cannot mimic real life stress. So no training will be "guud enuff" and like someone here, goal post will be moved as each requirement is met.
Same org said they rather see an active shooter not be stopped by a CCW holder, but rather by HPD. Which means wait till help arrives and teh shooter will keep killing until that happens.
Retail Merchants of Hawaii:
The perfect epitome of "Silence of the LAMBS."
No wonder lamb chops are so tender and delicious. Well, tender anyway.
Post by: Brystont1 on January 17, 2024, 10:26:47 AM
It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...
I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.
My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.
Just my 2 cents
I see. So if a woman who wants to carry a firearm because her ex husband has made credible threats to her life, she should be prevented from carrying unless she can meet certain arbitrary requirements?
When she is murdered in cold blood because she didn’t have the means to protect herself will that be something you still support? That’s a wild interpretation of “shall not be infringed”.
Post by: rpoL98 on January 17, 2024, 10:31:25 AM
I see. So if a woman who wants to carry a firearm because her ex husband has made credible threats to her life, she should be prevented from carrying unless she can meet certain arbitrary requirements?sounds familiar.
When she is murdered in cold blood because she didn’t have the means to protect herself will that be something you still support? That’s a wild interpretation of “shall not be infringed”.
Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023 (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=52163.0)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 17, 2024, 10:37:01 AM
I hardly ever lie ...
LOL! Now we need a decoder to know when it's "hardly ever".
Maybe you can add a numeric value at the end of your sentences, something like 1 to 10, just to give us a degree of confidence in the honesty of your post?
That would be great!
1 = a complete lie
10 = absolutely true
Or, just leave it up to us to know when you're lying.
"Hardly ever" only applies because you don't count false statements you believed to be true.
Post by: Brystont1 on January 17, 2024, 10:50:35 AM
sounds familiar.
Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023 (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=52163.0)
Yup. Also the lady in New Jersey who applied for a firearm permit and was murdered in her driveway because the state took too long to process her permit. But hey some people think that your rights stop where their feelings begin.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 11:15:26 AM
sounds familiar.
Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023 (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=52163.0)
Many years ago, there was a lawsuit about this delay. But the woman was killed and the lawsuit was declared over since she was dead.
Post by: Rocky on January 17, 2024, 12:07:14 PM
"I hardly ever lie "
Like
I hardly ever steal
I hardly ever cheat on my wife
I hardly ever kill
I hardly ever blaspheme
I hardly ever dishonor my mother and father
etc . . ?
Post by: stangzilla on January 17, 2024, 12:17:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNSnMFgNq1Q
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 17, 2024, 01:13:05 PM
sounds familiar.
Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023 (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=52163.0)
Yup. Also the lady in New Jersey who applied for a firearm permit and was murdered in her driveway because the state took too long to process her permit. But hey some people think that your rights stop where their feelings begin.
Many years ago, there was a lawsuit about this delay. But the woman was killed and the lawsuit was declared over since she was dead.
All of this in the interest of public safety. They lie.
Public disarmament. Firearm bans. Firearms only for US military and Federal and State, local Law Enforcement.
Now this is the truth.^^ Public safety was all smoke and mirrors. Until LE can guarantee protection of every US citizen all of these laws and restrictions are lies.
Post by: Stack_Xchange on January 17, 2024, 01:13:46 PM
I see. So if a woman who wants to carry a firearm because her ex husband has made credible threats to her life, she should be prevented from carrying unless she can meet certain arbitrary requirements?
When she is murdered in cold blood because she didn’t have the means to protect herself will that be something you still support? That’s a wild interpretation of “shall not be infringed”.
Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:
Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.
Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?
And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...
Post by: stangzilla on January 17, 2024, 01:43:25 PM
Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:
Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.
Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?
And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...
remember 1992 and the Los Angeles riots?
and remember the rooftop Koreans?
the Koreans probably did not have a permit for their AK47's and SKS rifles and whatever else they had. but they were not the lawless part of this story. it was the rioters that were the lawless ones. if the Koreans were not armed, they probably would have got killed or at least their businesses burnt to the ground
it took the National guards at least a few days to come in and stop the riots
you would not allow these people to defend themselves and their property, by what you said above. and the rioters would have won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWMj-mFUDGA
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 17, 2024, 01:59:47 PM
We will have a society where actions have consequences. Good and bad. Depends on the individual and which side he wants to side: with or against the law.
The citizens are the ones who will define a society. It was never the presence or absence, of guns.
It really is very simple. And the forefathers didn't see any complications in it. (Constitution and 2nd amendment).
What complicated things is when those in power wanted more than just power. The f*ckers wanted control.
This is where the smoke and mirrors and all the bullsh*t comes from.
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 17, 2024, 02:05:20 PM
remember 1992 and the Los Angeles riots?
and remember the rooftop Koreans?
the Koreans probably did not have a permit for their AK47's and SKS rifles and whatever else they had. but they were not the lawless part of this story. it was the rioters that were the lawless ones. if the Koreans were not armed, they probably would have got killed or at least their businesses burnt to the ground
it took the National guards at least a few days to come in and stop the riots
you would not allow these people to defend themselves and their property, by what you said above. and the rioters would have won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWMj-mFUDGA
Right on, Brother Stang! :shaka: God Bless the fact we are still free to defend ourselves. The rooftop Koreans proved that LE will never be able to protect everyone everywhere.
Those who still think government is the answer to all their prayers, wants and needs will not last long if something like the LA riots happen again.
Post by: Brystont1 on January 17, 2024, 02:10:02 PM
Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:
Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.
Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?
And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...
No I don’t need to “assume” anything. It already happened. Google NJ woman murdered in driveway waiting for handgun permit.
Im not responding to your middle paragraph because I don’t even understand what point you’re trying to make. “What if a person just doesn’t want to carry a gun?” What? Why would you ask that question?
Israel doesn’t have a 2A. No country does, which should tell you that our laws should look nothing like anyone else’s.
Post by: Stack_Xchange on January 17, 2024, 02:15:21 PM
remember 1992 and the Los Angeles riots?
and remember the rooftop Koreans?
the Koreans probably did not have a permit for their AK47's and SKS rifles and whatever else they had. but they were not the lawless part of this story. it was the rioters that were the lawless ones. if the Koreans were not armed, they probably would have got killed or at least their businesses burnt to the ground
it took the National guards at least a few days to come in and stop the riots
you would not allow these people to defend themselves and their property, by what you said above. and the rioters would have won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWMj-mFUDGA
When there is a complete breakdown in lawlessness and emergence of disorder (as in the RK Riots), feel free to interpret the 2A in the literal sense. I'm pretty sure society as a whole would endorse this, and in that sense, that's probably why none of them were indicted.
What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".
As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.
Post by: Brystont1 on January 17, 2024, 02:25:11 PM
What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".
“Firing rounds into masses of people, citing “constitutional carry”” who has said this?
Post by: stangzilla on January 17, 2024, 02:26:18 PM
What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".
when did this happen?
“Firing rounds into masses of people, citing “constitutional carry”” who has said this?
exactly. who said that?
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 02:26:46 PM
Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:
Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.
Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?
And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...
Israel doesn't have a 2A like how the US does. The 2A isn't lawless, people just shouldn't need a test in order to exercise that right. No one here argues that a felon shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. This is a law.
Why must the 2a be defined as a lieteral interpretation? BEcause if not, anti 2a people will find reasons to deny people of it. Just like how you support the classes. Which means no class, no 2A at all in HI as a class is required to purchase a gun and another to carry it outside your home.
Seems like your mind is made up, so you do you and we will continue to do us.
Post by: stangzilla on January 17, 2024, 02:29:27 PM
When there is a complete breakdown in lawlessness and emergence of disorder (as in the RK Riots), feel free to interpret the 2A in the literal sense. I'm pretty sure society as a whole would endorse this, and in that sense, that's probably why none of them were indicted.
What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".
As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.
now you look more and more like kit n gun
you said something that wasn't completely right. and now you are trying to walk it back. but only digging yourself a bigger hole
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 02:29:38 PM
As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.
With all the video of Hummus attacking, how many do you see any Israeli shooting back? I have yet to see even 1. So where are all these regularly carrying machine gun IDF open carriers? I say IDF because only certain units are allowed to carry their rifles 24/7. "Citizens" are not allowed to and need a special permit to CCW that only allows like 15 bullets or something too.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 02:30:04 PM
now you look more and more like kit n gun
you said something that wasn't completely right. and now you are trying to walk it back. but only digging yourself a bigger hole
Maybe he's the other guy Darren?
Post by: Stack_Xchange on January 17, 2024, 02:31:00 PM
No I don’t need to “assume” anything. It already happened. Google NJ woman murdered in driveway waiting for handgun permit.
Im not responding to your middle paragraph because I don’t even understand what point you’re trying to make. “What if a person just doesn’t want to carry a gun?” What? Why would you ask that question?
Israel doesn’t have a 2A. No country does, which should tell you that our laws should look nothing like anyone else’s.
Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*
Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...
A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.
For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?
Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.
Post by: Brystont1 on January 17, 2024, 02:40:50 PM
Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*
Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...
A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.
For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?
Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.
Your scenario is neither a training issue nor a constitutional carry issue. It is a competence issue.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 17, 2024, 02:45:34 PM
Like
I hardly ever steal
I hardly ever cheat on my wife
I hardly ever kill
I hardly ever blaspheme
I hardly ever dishonor my mother and father
etc . . ?
and "I hardly ever know much about every single topic, but that hardly ever stops me from posting an opposing viewpoint."
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 03:03:52 PM
Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*
Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...
A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.
For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?
Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.
The woman I used in my example is real. Not a fictional character.
In your scenario, the person is breaking the machine gun federal and state law. We can discuss later how unconstituional these are as well. But to have a handgun carried mexian style go off (plausable) and then kill 6 people is not plausible. IF you're going to make up an example, make it more believe able.
Think of it this way, all the anti gunners who testified agree with you that a class is needed. So how pro 2A is one really if anti gunners and you believe in the same laws.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 17, 2024, 03:15:23 PM
Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*
Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...
A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.
For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?
Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.
Okay, I'll play along ...
What kind of training must I take in order for that other guy who:
"has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry";
not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry.
He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man
underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger
guard, killing 6 people, including himself. "
to change his ways?
What you are describing can happen regardless of mandated training requirements, testing and mental evals. That type of person will buy a firearm -- legally after jumping through all the hoops, or illegally -- and still have the same level of respect for firearms you "created."
Training is not a solution for poor judgement or immature attitudes. In the scope of this discussion, training is a panacea for the anti-gun crowd and the government, so they don't have to admit their former unconstitutional laws and rules have actually done nothing for public safety.
Think about it. if I sell you a plastic bracelet with the promise that as long as you wear it, nothing bad will befall you. Then one day you forget to wear it, and nothing bad happens to you. One week later, however, you're the victim of a home invasion -- beaten, robbed and your wife raped. Then you realize you were wearing your lucky bracelet. How could such a bad thing have happened to you? and, why didn't this happen when you weren't wearing it?
That's when you realize the promises were all BS, that I didn't have the power to protect you, and you were a fool to part with your money believing the BS I fed you.
That's exactly how government approaches gun control. Every single new hurdle to gun ownership, use, and carrying is always, without fail, pronounced a new and better way to make the people, our children, schools, communities, state, homes, families, etc., etc. safer.
If you actually take time to read the bills/laws, look at the problems they say they address in them, and logically work out how that law solves anything close to those problems, you'll be just as pissed off after realizing you've been placing your faith and safety in a plastic bracelet.
For every law you THINK makes us safer, you should research how many other places don't have that law -- and whether all those places have more or fewer gun-related deaths, murders, muggings, rapes and/or other crimes of violence. You'll soon learn the truth. There's no solution for any of that. There are ways to reduce crime, but none of it will be "solved."
If HI adopts an assault weapons ban, as some other states have done, look at the rate of crime in all other cities as they relate to criminals using assault weapons. What you'll find is there really isn't a problem with that specific weapon. The anti-gunners simply target it because it's (1) in common use -- most owned semi-auto rifle in the US, and (2) most people who know nothing about guns are easily scared when lied to about them being "weapons of war," "high powered" and "are a bad choice for self-/home-defense."
If they can ban the one firearm most people own, they can mark it down as a huge victory for gun control. No different than the 1970s and 1980s when they were calling to ban all semi-auto handguns ("nobody but criminals have a need for those").
Funny how you said you agreed with Kit, but then Kit changed from his testimony and now magically believes the training SHOULD NOT BE MANDATED BY THE STATE.
So, is that still the answer you're going with? What Kit said in testimony, or have you also changed your mind and now agree with his interview?
Post by: randay on January 17, 2024, 03:41:56 PM
IF you're going to make up an example, make it more believe able.
ok, how about he drops the gun down a flight of stairs, killing 72 orphaned children that were on a school trip including himself(hes also an orphaned child). There you have it, scientific proof that the consitution is wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBIrQV9PxHg
Post by: mrgaf on January 17, 2024, 04:06:56 PM
Post by: oldfart on January 17, 2024, 04:13:05 PM
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping::popcorn: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 17, 2024, 04:57:39 PM
ok, how about he drops the gun down a flight of stairs, killing 72 orphaned children that were on a school trip including himself(hes also an orphaned child). There you have it, scientific proof that the consitution is wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBIrQV9PxHg
All depends if one "gets to da choppah" after.
Post by: ren on January 17, 2024, 05:33:00 PM
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 17, 2024, 06:08:34 PM
Okay, I'll play along ...
What kind of training must I take in order for that other guy who:
"has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry";
not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry.
He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man
underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger
guard, killing 6 people, including himself. "
to change his ways?
What you are describing can happen regardless of mandated training requirements, testing and mental evals. That type of person will buy a firearm -- legally after jumping through all the hoops, or illegally -- and still have the same level of respect for firearms you "created."
Training is not a solution for poor judgement or immature attitudes. In the scope of this discussion, training is a panacea for the anti-gun crowd and the government, so they don't have to admit their former unconstitutional laws and rules have actually done nothing for public safety.
Think about it. if I sell you a plastic bracelet with the promise that as long as you wear it, nothing bad will befall you. Then one day you forget to wear it, and nothing bad happens to you. One week later, however, you're the victim of a home invasion -- beaten, robbed and your wife raped. Then you realize you were wearing your lucky bracelet. How could such a bad thing have happened to you? and, why didn't this happen when you weren't wearing it?
That's when you realize the promises were all BS, that I didn't have the power to protect you, and you were a fool to part with your money believing the BS I fed you.
That's exactly how government approaches gun control. Every single new hurdle to gun ownership, use, and carrying is always, without fail, pronounced a new and better way to make the people, our children, schools, communities, state, homes, families, etc., etc. safer.
If you actually take time to read the bills/laws, look at the problems they say they address in them, and logically work out how that law solves anything close to those problems, you'll be just as pissed off after realizing you've been placing your faith and safety in a plastic bracelet.
For every law you THINK makes us safer, you should research how many other places don't have that law -- and whether all those places have more or fewer gun-related deaths, murders, muggings, rapes and/or other crimes of violence. You'll soon learn the truth. There's no solution for any of that. There are ways to reduce crime, but none of it will be "solved."
If HI adopts an assault weapons ban, as some other states have done, look at the rate of crime in all other cities as they relate to criminals using assault weapons. What you'll find is there really isn't a problem with that specific weapon. The anti-gunners simply target it because it's (1) in common use -- most owned semi-auto rifle in the US, and (2) most people who know nothing about guns are easily scared when lied to about them being "weapons of war," "high powered" and "are a bad choice for self-/home-defense."
If they can ban the one firearm most people own, they can mark it down as a huge victory for gun control. No different than the 1970s and 1980s when they were calling to ban all semi-auto handguns ("nobody but criminals have a need for those").
I tried to explain what was on my mind but failed miserably. You explained it perfectly. :thumbsup:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 17, 2024, 06:43:40 PM
I tried to explain what was on my mind but failed miserably. You explained it perfectly. :thumbsup:
That's somewhat disturbing .... that I can read your mind.
:geekdanc: :shaka: :thumbsup:
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 17, 2024, 06:50:55 PM
That's somewhat disturbing .... that I can read your mind.
:geekdanc: :shaka: :thumbsup:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: stangzilla on January 17, 2024, 10:02:04 PM
When there is a complete breakdown in lawlessness and emergence of disorder (as in the RK Riots), feel free to interpret the 2A in the literal sense. I'm pretty sure society as a whole would endorse this, and in that sense, that's probably why none of them were indicted.
What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".
As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.
So you want to pick and choose how you interpret the 2A from person to person
That's just plain stupid. That is a stupid arguement based on stupid reasoning
Can't reason with stupid. So I won't
The best thing you could do now is not comment any more. But you will probably keep coming back bc you are not smart
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 17, 2024, 10:31:41 PM
Despite the Japanese having some "curious" sub/microcultures, I think the Japanese macroculture as a whole would probably lead to less crime than rates seen in America assuming they owned the same amount of guns as we do.
I suspect that would be the case. I love our independent, freedom loving, don't tell me what to do American attitude but it also brings its own social problems.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 17, 2024, 10:32:35 PM
He spelled his name.
Instead of goal post moving, now denying something happened.
Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 17, 2024, 10:33:14 PM
Yes, because this shows you're wrong again.
Wrong about what? By all means, point to any statement I made here that is factually incorrect.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 17, 2024, 10:37:59 PM
LOL! Now we need a decoder to know when it's "hardly ever".
Maybe you can add a numeric value at the end of your sentences, something like 1 to 10, just to give us a degree of confidence in the honesty of your post?
That would be great!
1 = a complete lie
10 = absolutely true
Or, just leave it up to us to know when you're lying.
"Hardly ever" only applies because you don't count false statements you believed to be true.
Wrong.
I say hardly ever lie because there are rare occasions where I do not tell the truth. For example if I bought my wife a present at a store and she sees the credit charge and asks me what I bought I tell her I bought something different than I actually bought. I also told my children Santa Clause is real.
If I said I never lie that would be a lie because right there are two instances I did in fact lie. Thus I try to be more accurate by saying I hardly ever lie.
Anything else you want to troll me about?
Post by: macsak on January 17, 2024, 11:01:29 PM
Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 17, 2024, 11:37:30 PM
like i said before, having poor memory or recall is not a good trait in a cop...
Shucks, i guess i'll never make it in the academy :(
Post by: randay on January 18, 2024, 04:39:04 AM
Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?
The source material is still available to watch. We've ALL come here and watched it before commenting. So far, noone else has been unnable to identify the individual in question, or remember other facts or details about his testimony and response video. Theres are a few possible explanations for your inability to accurately comment on this subject. Some of the more plausible explanations could be considered offensive, so lets pick the kindest one: You're just here for attention.
Post by: macsak on January 18, 2024, 06:22:21 AM
Shucks, i guess i'll never make it in the academy :(
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 18, 2024, 07:30:11 AM
Oh so if he spelled his name then I am not allowed to forget? Do you not understand what "don't recall" means?
AKA leaving room for goal post moving. #definativestatement
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 18, 2024, 07:30:49 AM
Wrong about what? By all means, point to any statement I made here that is factually incorrect.
Pretty much everything. Do we need to go back to the Red Flag topic?
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 18, 2024, 07:32:54 AM
Wrong.
I say hardly ever lie because there are rare occasions where I do not tell the truth. For example if I bought my wife a present at a store and she sees the credit charge and asks me what I bought I tell her I bought something different than I actually bought. I also told my children Santa Clause is real.
If I said I never lie that would be a lie because right there are two instances I did in fact lie. Thus I try to be more accurate by saying I hardly ever lie.
Anything else you want to troll me about?
Wrong
Post by: Rocky on January 18, 2024, 07:53:34 AM
so dumb. M4s are regulated and and M4 pistol is even MOAR regulated and its existence is like looking for a wallabee on Oahuhttps://www.hawaiimagazine.com/someone-captured-video-of-the-rare-kalihi-valley-wallaby/
Post by: ren on January 18, 2024, 08:48:04 AM
https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/someone-captured-video-of-the-rare-kalihi-valley-wallaby/
madabiotch!
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 18, 2024, 08:50:49 AM
https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/someone-captured-video-of-the-rare-kalihi-valley-wallaby/
"So there's a chance" Dumb n Dumber reference.
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 20, 2024, 04:47:12 PM
Watch this video on constitutional carry just recently permitted in Ohio and other states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd0DvoXiRZI
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 08:00:56 PM
The source material is still available to watch. We've ALL come here and watched it before commenting. So far, noone else has been unnable to identify the individual in question, or remember other facts or details about his testimony and response video. Theres are a few possible explanations for your inability to accurately comment on this subject. Some of the more plausible explanations could be considered offensive, so lets pick the kindest one: You're just here for attention.
I am not giving an excuse I am giving an explanation. I am not disputing the person with the accent was Kit.
I made a simply statement in the beginning.
"If I am not mistaken, he seemed to speak with an accent. I was wondering whether he wasn't articulating his point well out of a difficulty in English?"
I wasn't 100% sure that the person with the accent was Kit so I made the statement allowing for error of my memory. Sure, I could go back and watch the video again but that wouldn't be honest to my original comment.
If I am just here for attention, why are you giving it to me? I would much prefer not spending pages explaining this.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 08:02:13 PM
Pretty much everything. Do we need to go back to the Red Flag topic?
Talk about goalpost moving, you couldn't even reference anything here.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 08:04:02 PM
Wrong
You can't even articulate anything. I gave you an honest explanation of why I said I almost never lie and you just reply wrong. Are you a mind reader? You have no grounds to say I am wrong and no balls to even say why.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 08:05:05 PM
AKA leaving room for goal post moving. #definativestatement
You really have no understanding of the human brain do you?
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2024, 08:18:28 PM
Talk about goalpost moving, you couldn't even reference anything here.And why is that?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2024, 08:18:45 PM
You can't even articulate anything. I gave you an honest explanation of why I said I almost never lie and you just reply wrong. Are you a mind reader? You have no grounds to say I am wrong and no balls to even say why.Wwrrroooonnngggg again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2024, 08:19:02 PM
You really have no understanding of the human brain do you?Shape shifting argument.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 21, 2024, 08:46:04 PM
I am not giving an excuse I am giving an explanation. I am not disputing the person with the accent was Kit.
I made a simply statement in the beginning.
"If I am not mistaken, he seemed to speak with an accent. I was wondering whether he wasn't articulating his point well out of a difficulty in English?"
I wasn't 100% sure that the person with the accent was Kit so I made the statement allowing for error of my memory. Sure, I could go back and watch the video again but that wouldn't be honest to my original comment.
If I am just here for attention, why are you giving it to me? I would much prefer not spending pages explaining this.
You wouldn't have to explain your comments and opinions so very, very, VERY often if you took the time (probably less time than you use to argue) to rewatch the damn video. Watch it as many times as it takes to figure out which one was Kit. Then, watch it again to understand whether his English was the reason for everyone ragging on him, or if his message was plain and 100% understood.
I went back and transcribed what he said and posted it. Did you bother to read that? Would have been a better place to start discussing what he actually said rather than pontificating about second languages.
To me, he sounded like a commercial for his training classes. He's happy the classes are being mandated by HPD, and he mentioned multiple times he's a verified trainer.
i'm an old White guy, but I've never had trouble understanding people who speak English with an accent or don't have the best grammar or vocabulary skills.
So, instead of posting yet another hypothetical, objective mind experiment based on what MIGHT have occurred, why mot go look at what actually occurred, and quit being so argumentative. Why not stop to THINK before posting -- think about whether you can find the answers you are incessantly asking all by your lonesome?
i bet the threads will be much, much shorter, and the arguing kept to a more reasonable level.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2024, 09:31:52 PM
You wouldn't have to explain your comments and opinions so very, very, VERY often if you took the time (probably less time than you use to argue) to rewatch the damn video. Watch it as many times as it takes to figure out which one was Kit. Then, watch it again to understand whether his English was the reason for everyone ragging on him, or if his message was plain and 100% understood.Ive suggested he re-read threads and he ignores it. Instead takes time to be more wrong by posting bad examples, goal post moving, shape shifting arguments, objective, etc...
I went back and transcribed what he said and posted it. Did you bother to read that? Would have been a better place to start discussing what he actually said rather than pontificating about second languages.
To me, he sounded like a commercial for his training classes. He's happy the classes are being mandated by HPD, and he mentioned multiple times he's a verified trainer.
i'm an old White guy, but I've never had trouble understanding people who speak English with an accent or don't have the best grammar or vocabulary skills.
So, instead of posting yet another hypothetical, objective mind experiment based on what MIGHT have occurred, why mot go look at what actually occurred, and quit being so argumentative. Why not stop to THINK before posting -- think about whether you can find the answers you are incessantly asking all by your lonesome?
i bet the threads will be much, much shorter, and the arguing kept to a more reasonable level.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 09:33:56 PM
And why is that?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Because I haven't said anything wrong here :closed:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 09:34:10 PM
Wwrrroooonnngggg again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Prove it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 21, 2024, 09:37:17 PM
You wouldn't have to explain your comments and opinions so very, very, VERY often if you took the time (probably less time than you use to argue) to rewatch the damn video. Watch it as many times as it takes to figure out which one was Kit. Then, watch it again to understand whether his English was the reason for everyone ragging on him, or if his message was plain and 100% understood.
I went back and transcribed what he said and posted it. Did you bother to read that? Would have been a better place to start discussing what he actually said rather than pontificating about second languages.
To me, he sounded like a commercial for his training classes. He's happy the classes are being mandated by HPD, and he mentioned multiple times he's a verified trainer.
i'm an old White guy, but I've never had trouble understanding people who speak English with an accent or don't have the best grammar or vocabulary skills.
So, instead of posting yet another hypothetical, objective mind experiment based on what MIGHT have occurred, why mot go look at what actually occurred, and quit being so argumentative. Why not stop to THINK before posting -- think about whether you can find the answers you are incessantly asking all by your lonesome?
i bet the threads will be much, much shorter, and the arguing kept to a more reasonable level.
I wasn't being argumentative. I made my comment, you guys had to start a whole issue about it. CMO managed to reply just fine initially by confirming it was Kit and that he had a good understanding of the English language. But you, like usual, want to troll and start an argument over something tiny and insignificant. :stopjack:
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 22, 2024, 07:56:03 AM
Prove it.
Hahhahahahha, why? U will just move goal post.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 22, 2024, 07:56:17 AM
Because I haven't said anything wrong here :closed:
Wrooonnngggg again.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 22, 2024, 07:56:49 AM
I wasn't being argumentative. I made my comment, you guys had to start a whole issue about it. CMO managed to reply just fine initially by confirming it was Kit and that he had a good understanding of the English language. But you, like usual, want to troll and start an argument over something tiny and insignificant. :stopjack:
And now here we are with you being argumentive.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 22, 2024, 09:07:45 AM
I wasn't being argumentative. I made my comment, you guys had to start a whole issue about it. CMO managed to reply just fine initially by confirming it was Kit and that he had a good understanding of the English language. But you, like usual, want to troll and start an argument over something tiny and insignificant. :stopjack:
You left out the fact that your comment was stupid and lazy. It drew the reaction it deserved.
Just because one member was kind enough to treat you gently with a response doesn't mean your post wasn't worthy of ridicule.
Like i said, in the time it took to post the first comment and participate in this argumentative exchange, you could have gone back to the video many times and realized that you're the only one who was confused about Kit's name and testimonial message.
But, maybe English is your second language? That would explain a lot!
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 22, 2024, 10:19:10 AM
You left out the fact that your comment was stupid and lazy. It drew the reaction it deserved.
Just because one member was kind enough to treat you gently with a response doesn't mean your post wasn't worthy of ridicule.
Like i said, in the time it took to post the first comment and participate in this argumentative exchange, you could have gone back to the video many times and realized that you're the only one who was confused about Kit's name and testimonial message.
But, maybe English is your second language? That would explain a lot!
Some of his comments deserve good answers/replies and the above he mentioned was 1 of them. I don't automatically argue with a persons comments. Their comments/post have to warrant it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 22, 2024, 01:38:03 PM
Some of his comments deserve good answers/replies and the above he mentioned was 1 of them. I don't automatically argue with a persons comments. Their comments/post have to warrant it.
With EEF, most of the time you have to read between the lines to know if he's being genuine about his opinions, or if he's just trying to be contrary while simultaneously implying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the rest of us are biased, haven't considered the "nuance", don't think objectively, or don't know enough to even have an opinion.
His condescension may not even be intentional, but it comes across that way in many posts just the same.
When you post your opinion based on the facts provided in an article or video, EEF posts that you can't rely on your opinion because there might be other facts not included in reports to consider. Captain. Obvious? or just oblivious?
That seems to be one of his M.O.s -- telling others they don't know enough to form an opinion, but he can't comprehension that he also can't produce opposing evidence to contradict your opinion. It's pointless and argumentative, nothing more.
I just read a bunch of facts on a particular car. My opinion is that's a car I'd like to own.
EEF-ism: There might be recalls not included in the report you read. Also, there might be unsatisfied owners who haven't posted to any forums. The plant the car is made in might be in Mexico, too. Do you really want to support Mexican workers over American workers?
Nothing he said is proven to be false, but neither has he looked deep enough to know either way. He just throws that crap on the wall to start arguments.
#Contraryism
:popcorn:
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 23, 2024, 09:39:36 AM
With EEF, most of the time you have to read between the lines to know if he's being genuine about his opinions, or if he's just trying to be contrary while simultaneously implying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the rest of us are biased, haven't considered the "nuance", don't think objectively, or don't know enough to even have an opinion.
His condescension may not even be intentional, but it comes across that way in many posts just the same.
When you post your opinion based on the facts provided in an article or video, EEF posts that you can't rely on your opinion because there might be other facts not included in reports to consider. Captain. Obvious? or just oblivious?
That seems to be one of his M.O.s -- telling others they don't know enough to form an opinion, but he can't comprehension that he also can't produce opposing evidence to contradict your opinion. It's pointless and argumentative, nothing more.
I just read a bunch of facts on a particular car. My opinion is that's a car I'd like to own.
EEF-ism: There might be recalls not included in the report you read. Also, there might be unsatisfied owners who haven't posted to any forums. The plant the car is made in might be in Mexico, too. Do you really want to support Mexican workers over American workers?
Nothing he said is proven to be false, but neither has he looked deep enough to know either way. He just throws that crap on the wall to start arguments.
#Contraryism
:popcorn:
THis is why I rarely read links he post as he has no street credit to warrant taking the time to do so.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 23, 2024, 11:33:33 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 26, 2024, 05:37:12 PM
People have to learn language before they can have freedom of speech. Sometimes you have to be reasonable. Criminals can't own guns. You have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm. To carry you have to take a short class.What kind of learning?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 26, 2024, 09:22:25 PM
What kind of learning?
Maybe start with conversational sarcasm?
:rofl: :geekdanc: :shaka:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 26, 2024, 11:19:24 PM
And now here we are with you being argumentive.
Takes two to tango
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 26, 2024, 11:19:41 PM
Hahhahahahha, why? U will just move goal post.
You're backpedaling.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 26, 2024, 11:26:55 PM
With EEF, most of the time you have to read between the lines to know if he's being genuine about his opinions, or if he's just trying to be contrary while simultaneously implying -- implicitly or explicitly -- that the rest of us are biased, haven't considered the "nuance", don't think objectively, or don't know enough to even have an opinion.
His condescension may not even be intentional, but it comes across that way in many posts just the same.
When you post your opinion based on the facts provided in an article or video, EEF posts that you can't rely on your opinion because there might be other facts not included in reports to consider. Captain. Obvious? or just oblivious?
That seems to be one of his M.O.s -- telling others they don't know enough to form an opinion, but he can't comprehension that he also can't produce opposing evidence to contradict your opinion. It's pointless and argumentative, nothing more.
I just read a bunch of facts on a particular car. My opinion is that's a car I'd like to own.
EEF-ism: There might be recalls not included in the report you read. Also, there might be unsatisfied owners who haven't posted to any forums. The plant the car is made in might be in Mexico, too. Do you really want to support Mexican workers over American workers?
Nothing he said is proven to be false, but neither has he looked deep enough to know either way. He just throws that crap on the wall to start arguments.
#Contraryism
:popcorn:
Swoosh.
The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.
You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 26, 2024, 11:28:37 PM
THis is why I rarely read links he post as he has no street credit to warrant taking the time to do so.
Self fulfilling prophecy.
Besides, if I had no "street cred" then all the better to read the links because you don't have to take my word for anything.
Post by: macsak on January 27, 2024, 05:03:34 AM
#objectiveexceptwhensubjective
Swoosh.
The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.
You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 27, 2024, 06:46:10 AM
Takes two to tangoSwooossshhhh
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 27, 2024, 06:46:25 AM
You're backpedaling.Hahahhahha
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 27, 2024, 06:46:57 AM
Self fulfilling prophecy.Wrong.
Besides, if I had no "street cred" then all the better to read the links because you don't have to take my word for anything.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 27, 2024, 09:23:13 AM
Any learning so you can exercise your right to free speech. The bare minimum is needed.U didnt answer, what kind of learning to exercise free speech?
As for ccw, the bare minimum to be able to shoot straight and know when it's allowed to shoot.
Everyone needs a teacher.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on January 27, 2024, 09:39:31 AM
Swoosh.
The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.
You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.
What EEF says serves a purpose. A big problem here and with other groups that passionately support a subject is group think and too narrowly focused. Where everyone thinks a certain way and aren't able to give consideration to other ideas. That can become dangerous and leads to ineffectiveness.
To be the most effective you need to know as much relevant information as possible on both sides and be unbiased when making decisions. When it comes to the 2A, that would be researching things from supporters and opponents, and being neither for or against the 2A for decision making. That requires sometimes playing devil's advocate and bringing in outside ideas.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 27, 2024, 09:43:30 AM
Swoosh.
The whole point of half my comments is to try and get people to think about an issue or story more, to consider what they might not have considered. To recognize the unknown unknowns and not jump to conclusions.
There is no harm in recognizing that one does not know enough yet and delay the forming of an opinion till more information comes.
You don't have to read between the lines, I speak very frankly and genuinely. If you read between the lines you are reading something that isn't there.
Maybe if you spent more time looking up facts about a topic and actually contributing to the discussion, your comments would be better received?
Seems you just want to be included, even though you really have nothing relevant to add.
Many of your posts that ask questions, like maybe the person was just doing something that changes the situation, were already answered in videos or reports not linked in the topic. it takes just a few seconds to do a search and see if that question was answered before posting something that's already answered and makes your question incorrect.
Lazy? Or just trying to be contrary?
It's one thing to tryng get others to think, but maybe it should start with you actually knowing what you're talking about first? Then you could contribute more than a random thought, like "I found a link that refers to the person doing this that changes the situation."
Most of your questions can ba applied to every single thread. Maybe this, perhaps that, this might have been the case, that could have been his mindset ....
I admit the "news" is poorly research nowadays, yet you cite them when it supports your arguments -- so, the entire world of news can't be 100% lacking in "nuance".
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 29, 2024, 10:46:48 PM
What EEF says serves a purpose. A big problem here and with other groups that passionately support a subject is group think and too narrowly focused. Where everyone thinks a certain way and aren't able to give consideration to other ideas. That can become dangerous and leads to ineffectiveness.
To be the most effective you need to know as much relevant information as possible on both sides and be unbiased when making decisions. When it comes to the 2A, that would be researching things from supporters and opponents, and being neither for or against the 2A for decision making. That requires sometimes playing devil's advocate and bringing in outside ideas.
Thank you. You are, as usual, good at seeing through the emotion, and probably better at articulating them than I am.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 29, 2024, 11:06:08 PM
Maybe if you spent more time looking up facts about a topic and actually contributing to the discussion, your comments would be better received?
Do you feel it is not contributing to step back for a second and ask a question that might bring into question someone's conclusion?
Quote
Most of your questions can ba applied to every single thread. Maybe this, perhaps that, this might have been the case, that could have been his mindset ....
That is how I try/tend to look at things, very analytically.
I am not perfect at it by any means, I am often tempted to side with some study that supports a certain side, I am human and subject to bias, But I do try to ask challenging questions of everything, even of myself. I find it batter, or at least harmless, to not jump to a conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJY6NzJiw8
Post by: Heavies on January 30, 2024, 06:37:00 AM
Post by: ren on January 30, 2024, 08:47:54 AM
What EEF says serves a purpose. A big problem here and with other groups that passionately support a subject is group think and too narrowly focused. Where everyone thinks a certain way and aren't able to give consideration to other ideas. That can become dangerous and leads to ineffectiveness.
To be the most effective you need to know as much relevant information as possible on both sides and be unbiased when making decisions. When it comes to the 2A, that would be researching things from supporters and opponents, and being neither for or against the 2A for decision making. That requires sometimes playing devil's advocate and bringing in outside ideas.
What "research"? Searching for things on the internet is not research. i.e. last time someone did "research" on ricochets from Kokohead it was used to justify the banning of steel targets.
Theres no purpose in putting out bogus information and having it used against the 2a community
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 30, 2024, 08:56:01 AM
Thank you. You are, as usual, good at seeing through the emotion, and probably better at articulating them than I am.
Don't let this give you a hard on. He doesn't participate here as much.
In the past, I agreed that you're "objectiveness" was valid on some issues. But recently all you do is object, even when the issue is clear. Hence why my replies to you have changed as well.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 30, 2024, 09:56:51 AM
Don't let this give you a hard on. He doesn't participate here as much.
In the past, I agreed that you're "objectiveness" was valid on some issues. But recently all you do is object, even when the issue is clear. Hence why my replies to you have changed as well.
Especially in the last year or two -- when he only shows up here every week or once a month.
It's like a drive-by with him now. Rather than actually discuss anything, he gives his opinion (usually contrary) and disappears, only to come back days or weeks later to pick up where he left. The real discussion has moved on, but he's still arguing and turning every thread into a pissing contest, arguing about nuance, definitions and hypotheticals that are not well thought out.
https://youtu.be/VsfDngFIe_8
Post by: ren on January 30, 2024, 10:16:56 AM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 01, 2024, 11:04:33 PM
Don't let this give you a hard on. He doesn't participate here as much.
Shucks, I was really going for popularity here :(
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 01, 2024, 11:07:37 PM
Especially in the last year or two -- when he only shows up here every week or once a month.
It's like a drive-by with him now. Rather than actually discuss anything, he gives his opinion (usually contrary) and disappears, only to come back days or weeks later to pick up where he left. The real discussion has moved on, but he's still arguing and turning every thread into a pissing contest, arguing about nuance, definitions and hypotheticals that are not well thought out.
Are you offended that I don't show up to debate you daily? Sorry I don't dedicate more time to respond to you on your timing preference.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 02, 2024, 09:02:29 AM
Language. Without learning language one can't speak.
You don't have to speak to exercise "free speech". The middle finger, Nazi salute, or even holding a sign made by someone else (holder can't read or write), are all protected.
But thank you for replying on what you think is required in order to exercise ones right. I'm glad our government doesn't require one to learn language before exercising their right.
Post by: aletheuo137 on February 02, 2024, 09:42:25 AM
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 02, 2024, 11:30:24 AM
You don't have to speak to exercise "free speech". The middle finger, Nazi salute, or even holding a sign made by someone else (holder can't read or write), are all protected.
But thank you for replying on what you think is required in order to exercise ones right. I'm glad our government doesn't require one to learn language before exercising their right.
Exactly. The 1A doesn't cover speech specifically. The SCOTUS has ruled any form of expression is covered.
Larry Flynt (Hustler Mag) won his 1A cases because photography and drawn artwork was deemed a protected, free expression.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 02, 2024, 11:58:16 AM
You do know that's mostly language. You learn all of that. No one is born knowing anything you said. Point is that no matter what you have to learn and be taught. Only a few things like breathing you get just by being born.
Are you saying almost anything that you "have to" learn and is not an involuntary or instinctual trait counts as language?
I think that's what you are saying, but your use of the language is somewhat incoherent.
I don't think anyone had to take a class on appreciating the human body in the nude. Photography is just a medium for expression. Don't confuse that with the actual message.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 02, 2024, 12:22:06 PM
You do know that's mostly language. You learn all of that. No one is born knowing anything you said. Even holding a sign is a taught skill. Point is that no matter what you have to learn and be taught. Only a few things like breathing you get just by being born.
Mostly, but not 100%. I've seen kids hold signs that I'm sure they don't comprehend what they're protesting against or for. Also are you saying someone who's mentally handicap and cannot comprehend language is not afforded the 1st amendment? You're right, holding a sign may be a taught skill, but it also may not be either. And if it's the latter, then language has nothing to do with it.
Homeless are camping on the street. No one "taught" them to do it, they just did it. And they do have rights.
So now lets apply your classes to other rights. How about search and seizure, what class does 1 need to attend so the government doesn't violate this? How about quartering of soldiers? Or the right to due process or the right not to self incriminate?
Do you see where you're logic fails? If you don't then I guess unless you took any of the classes for the above rights, you must not have them?
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 02, 2024, 12:39:57 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 02, 2024, 08:30:52 PM
I used language as an example because it's 99% of free speech. But since it was nitpicked I had to elaborate to include all aspects of learning. Point is you have to learn stuff. 2nd ammendment isn't some magical exemption. We must be practical.
Where did you get that "fact?"
Did you know that making a donation to a political campaign is protected under free speech?
You can also now wear a political badge, political button, or anything bearing political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day because it's free speech.
The state or federal government can't force a web designer to to create expressive designs containing messages with which the designer disagrees.
A baker can't be forced to bake a cake with decorations or other expressive messaging (including language) that violates the baker's freedom to disagree.
Video games also qualify for first amendment free speech protection, as do books, plays, movies, etc.
Placing a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech, and therefore protected as free speech.
Burning a US Flag is protected free speech.
Burning a cross unless done in a way to terrorize or intimidate is protected free speech.
Nude dancing is protected free expression, but may be limited by local gov't to bar totally nude performance based on public indecency laws.
The list goes on...
(https://i.imgur.com/kUi6Yc3.png)
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 03, 2024, 08:09:32 AM
Where did you get that "fact?"I thing i agree with is HI law allows all to be topless in public.
Did you know that making a donation to a political campaign is protected under free speech?
You can also now wear a political badge, political button, or anything bearing political insignia inside a polling place on Election Day because it's free speech.
The state or federal government can't force a web designer to to create expressive designs containing messages with which the designer disagrees.
A baker can't be forced to bake a cake with decorations or other expressive messaging (including language) that violates the baker's freedom to disagree.
Video games also qualify for first amendment free speech protection, as do books, plays, movies, etc.
Placing a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech, and therefore protected as free speech.
Burning a US Flag is protected free speech.
Burning a cross unless done in a way to terrorize or intimidate is protected free speech.
Nude dancing is protected free expression, but may be limited by local gov't to bar totally nude performance based on public indecency laws.
The list goes on...
(https://i.imgur.com/kUi6Yc3.png)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: ren on February 03, 2024, 08:52:56 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 03, 2024, 09:21:42 AM
Hmmm you guys make some good points. But I still think many of that is still learned. You have to have comprehension. I personally believe if you are braindead you are dead. The mentally ill have less rights. (Can't own guns). Etc
So do you believe that a drivers license is against your rights? Having insurance? What about degrees? Permits?
Where do we as a society draw the line?
You started out stating "Language. Without learning language one can't speak. "
Now you're lumping in everything the human mind can do under the label "learning," and trying to expand your belief beyond just language -- now that you realize generalizing the way you did was incorrect. That's a classic case of goal post moving.
Given your new logic, shooting someone is protected expression because you had to learn to use the gun.
As for your obvious attempt to muddy the water, there are rights, there are privileges and there are restrictions on both.
You're certainly free to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. There may actually be smoke, and you are raising an alarm. Or, it was a prank, and the attendees may evacuate calmly and without injury. Therefore, no unfortunate consequences to your false alarm, and no laws broken. You may be trespassed from that theater and all their other properties. Rights allow you to act without government repercussion, so as a private theater company, they can certainly punish you for your behavior. Nobody prevented you from yelling "fire!" is the point. You chose to yell, and that speech is protected from government action as long as nothing bad resulted from it -- injury, death, property damage, etc. Charges would be based on those outcomes, not the speech alone.
Operating a motor vehicle on public streets is not a right. Unless you identify as a Sovereign Citizen, which would explain a lot. :geekdanc:
i don't know what you mean by "What about degrees?". Maybe i never learned how to interpret an incomplete interrogative sentence fragment without proper context.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 03, 2024, 04:12:14 PM
Hmmm you guys make some good points. But I still think many of that is still learned. You have to have comprehension. I personally believe if you are braindead you are dead. The mentally ill have less rights. (Can't own guns). EtcSociety draws/should draw the line on rights. Drivers lic, insurance, all you mentioned are not constitutionally protected.
So do you believe that a drivers license is against your rights? Having insurance? What about degrees? Permits?
Where do we as a society draw the line?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk