The problem was you mentioned Constitution + Conservative + Hawaii in the same sentence. 

I'm a bit surprised that people on “2aHawaii, Hawaii's Firearm, Shooting, and Hunting Community” are so enthusiastic in support of someone who at virtually every turn attempted to take their firearms and Second Amendment rights away. I have no issue with people who respect Inouye because of his military service, but I fail to see how that service gives him a “pass” on Second Amendment issues, or any other issues (see below) for that matter. I also fail to understand how, because of his 50 (FIFTY!) YEARS of Senate seniority and thus his years as number two and then chairmanship position on the Senate Appropriations Committee, his ability to disproportionately steer federal tax dollars to Hawaii is due respect. Thanks for all the ”pork” (aka “earmarks”)? Maybe, but “respect”? Personally, I'd rather see taxpayers everywhere get to keep more of their earned income rather than having (under threat of incarceration) to give so much of it to the federal government where Senators like Inouye used their seniority influence to take more than their fair share:

Hawaii ranks 2nd in pork-barrel spending

Hawaii ranks 2nd among states in attracting 2008 [essentially the same for other years] federal earmark projects, averaging $220.63 per resident on "pork-barrel spending."
The annual list put out by Citizens Against Government Waste highlights projects added to federal budget spending without congressional debate.
Alaska again topped the states in 2008 earmarks with $379 million in earmarks for a population of 683,478, or per-capita pork spending of $555.54.
Hawaii has earmarked $283 million.
*****
Leading this feeding frenzy at the trough are Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and the number two Democrat on the committee, Senate Appropriations committee member Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), whose states ranked first and second, respectively, in per capita pork for FY 2001. Sen. Stevens secured $480.3 million for Alaska ($766 per person) and Sen. Inouye secured $474.6 million for Hawaii ($392 per person) in the FY 2001 march to the pork barrel. Per capita pork for Alaska was 30 times the national average, while Hawaii raked in 15 times the per capita national average of $25.52.
*****
That's ethical or deserving of  “respect”? To me, it's corruption, influence peddling, and pure political power being wielded for power's sake. How would Hawaii citizens feel if their share of the pork was 1/30th or 1/15th that of the national average? I suppose that is what commentors here are fearing or complaining about with the new senators... they simply won't have the power/seniority to give Hawaii far more than it's fair share of federal tax dollars and Hawaii would have to develop some kind of real sustainable economy based upon viable government laws influencing business practices and regulations.

So besides stealing money from other states to bolster Hawaii's poorly managed and governed economy, what else did Inouye do for us?

Besides the list in my previous post of Inouye's anti-Second Amendment anti-gun legislation support, he also voted against a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act: 07/22/2009
Daniel Inouye voted Nay (Amendment Vote) - S Amdt 1618 - Authorizing Concealed Firearms Across State Lines
He also voted FOR the original “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994-2004, and then voted again to extend the ban for another 10 years (which failed despite his efforts, or we'd still be laboring under that nonsense).
Here is a statement from Inouye re firearms:
“Our country needs a national gun law. We should limit the number and type of weapons an individual is allowed to own and they ought to be catalogued in a national database that every arms dealer has to check before making a sale. “ [“You don't need another rifle/handgun...one of each is enough... you don't need even ONE rifle like that...”]

If you like the “Affordable Care Act”, you can keep the “Affordable Care Act”, thanks in part to Inouye's votes for it.

How about being spied upon and surveilled by our government servants? How'd Inouye vote?

Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

How'd Inouye vote on border security/illegal immigration issues?

Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

How'd Inouye vote on justices nominated for the Supreme Court?

Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court. (Aug 2009)
Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
[Had Inouye been successful in blocking Alito and Roberts and replacing them with his preferred Sotomayor-types, we wouldn't be having any discussions about concealed carry based upon Heller, McDonald, etc.).

How “independent” was Inouye?
Voted with Democratic Party 96.9% of 293 votes. (Sep 2007)

I don't miss Inouye.

"How “independent” was Inouye?
Voted with Democratic Party 96.9% of 293 votes. (Sep 2007)

He traded money for our freedom. Good trade you say It wouldve gotten done without him. Still, dems no good for hawaii. Inouye played the game very well. No doubt. Still, I am a 2nd class citizen compared to the free states and his cronies. I dont think it was worth it. All it did was build his constituents. Just my opinion.

Pork as mentioned…with very few exceptions all politicians in DC do this, republican and democrat. Usually the junior guys with no clout are the biggest complainers because they get rolled over by the senior guys.
...
That’s politics and it won’t change.

Now…voting record. Of course he is going to vote along party lines….he was a lifelong democrat. This is how politics works…democrats generally vote along their platform philosophy and principles, whether we like them or not. Same is exactly true for republicans. Just because he was a combat veteran, did anyone think a democrat would cross party lines. Hell, if that was the case he would have been a republican.
...
Who ever said he was independent. Sounds to me that he voted exactly how his constituents wanted him to vote…he’s a democrat and those are the people who voted for him. Did you really expect a democrat to vote pro 2a…that’s not reality?

And you don't call that "corruption", nor consider it to be unethical? Using one's power to disproportionately allocate money to one's home state at the expense of other states to the tune of 15 or 20 or 30 TIMES or more per capita than what the "junior" lacking-in-seniority politicians are able to garner for their states is de facto corruption and unethical to me. Just because "everyone does it" doesn't make ethical, or right, or even acceptable. To me. You can define it as "politics" and state that "it won't change", but what would those claims, even if they were facts, have to do with ethics or the corrupt use of power?
My comments on this thread were based upon reading people here asserting that Inouye was missed, and that the people in power now are somehow worse than him. From a Second Amendment view, as well as the many others I listed from Inouye's voting record (and I could have listed many many more examples) I find that hard to believe (Though Representative Gabbard, and possibly others, appear to be attempting to do just that). What could the new senators vote for/against that would be worse than what Inouye voted for/against? Like I said, I'm surprised people interested in preserving Second Amendment rights supported such a person (just?) because he used his seniority power to garner massive federal funding for Hawaii projects at the expense of the taxpayers of other states. I wonder if you would still support such power grabs if you lived in one of the states robbed by Inouye? "Ho hum. Oh well. So my tax money is going to Hawaii rather than my state. That’s politics and it won’t change." Would you really be that accepting and sanguine?

I never asserted that Inouye was or ought to have been "independent", but listed that among his voting stats merely to show that he almost exclusively followed the party line. I'd prefer politicians who are capable of examining each issue on it's merits and vote on evidence, rather than political kowtowing to the bosses. Surely Inouye had absolutely no valid evidence that the "Assault Weapons Ban" would result in greater public safety by preventing people from having firearms with certain cosmetic features. Yet he voted for it, and for it's renewal/extension. That'd be just one example of using critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion about legislation rather than parroting the party line, no matter how irrational and illogical that party line is.

And you don't call that "corruption", nor consider it to be unethical? Using one's power to disproportionately allocate money to one's home state at the expense of other states to the tune of 15 or 20 or 30 TIMES or more per capita than what the "junior" lacking-in-seniority politicians are able to garner for their states is de facto corruption and unethical to me. Just because "everyone does it" doesn't make ethical, or right, or even acceptable. To me. You can define it as "politics" and state that "it won't change", but what would those claims, even if they were facts, have to do with ethics or the corrupt use of power? Hawaii has one of the largest military presence in the United States and warrants a lot of attention, resources and money...trust me on this one. We are what's between the enemy and the mainland US. If valid requirements are warranted that were not appropriated, that is a valid requirement that should be funded. I can tell you without going into details many of these requirements involved national security. Often infrastructure and improving our service members accommodations or quality of life in necessary and I support that. It wasn't that way when I served. Plus-ups are not corrupt but BS pork projects are just that and I don't think that was Inouye's MO, and I don't support or agree with those.
My comments on this thread were based upon reading people here asserting that Inouye was missed, and that the people in power now are somehow worse than him. From a Second Amendment view, as well as the many others I listed from Inouye's voting record (and I could have listed many many more examples) I find that hard to believe (Though Representative Gabbard, and possibly others, appear to be attempting to do just that). What could the new senators vote for/against that would be worse than what Inouye voted for/against? Like I said, I'm surprised people interested in preserving Second Amendment rights supported such a person (just?) because he used his seniority power to garner massive federal funding for Hawaii projects at the expense of the taxpayers of other states. I wonder if you would still support such power grabs if you lived in one of the states robbed by Inouye? "Ho hum. Oh well. So my tax money is going to Hawaii rather than my state. That’s politics and it won’t change." Would you really be that accepting and sanguine? Hawaii is so Democratic...I said I don't support his position (s). If you don't think Hawaii will suffer, so be it. Does a place like Detroit require Defense Appropriations money that Inouye headed? After all this is the corruption you are referring to...military misappropriations, which is a strong accusation. BTW I lived in Detroit during the 67 riot and been to some pretty bad places in the military to quantify what consists of a bad situation and appreciating what to be grateful for.  Sounds to me that you never served or been associated with the DoD by your comments. Not saying that negatively.

I never asserted that Inouye was or ought to have been "independent", but listed that among his voting stats merely to show that he almost exclusively followed the party line. I'd prefer politicians who are capable of examining each issue on it's merits and vote on evidence, rather than political kowtowing to the bosses. Surely Inouye had absolutely no valid evidence that the "Assault Weapons Ban" would result in greater public safety by preventing people from having firearms with certain cosmetic features. Yet he voted for it, and for it's renewal/extension. That'd be just one example of using critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion about legislation rather than parroting the party line, no matter how irrational and illogical that party line is. I agree with that statement but that is truly wishful thinking.

I was all cool with everything up until h-3.  My understanding is that it was one of the most expensive bungled ass projects ever.   A road that small, taking that long, is nothing to be happy about. 

Hey Chris. One man's "bungled ass project" is another man's federal dollars paycheck. The Wikipedia article on the H-3 is fairly brief, but it has some good examples of, uh, our government tax dollars, and politicians, at work:

"Construction resumed during the late 1980s due to an unprecedented move by U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, who in 1986 had the freeway exempted from most environmental laws as a rider on a Department of Defense budget bill.

H-3 is one of the most expensive Interstate Highways ever built, on a cost per mile basis. Its final cost was $1.3 billion, or approximately $80 million per mile."

I'm sure Inouye had a serious, but likely highly classified (perhaps even "Top Secret"), military and/or national security reason for exempting this construction from environmental laws... otherwise, why would he put it in a DoD budget bill? [/end sarcasm]

One might have been a medal of honor recipient, but turning your back and voting at every turn for things that are staunchly against the constitution makes me lose lots of respect.  Additionally, I would think that a man who has experienced a world war, would have truly understood the necessity of an armed populace in defense of your country.