.

.

More fun with Rep. Lee! 


He recently posted a picture with this quote:

" A church's right to freely practice is inextricably linked to a person's right to freely marry." - CHRIS LEE


Here is my response:



Chris Lee,

I fully believe that all men and women are created equal, and are endowed upon them, by their creator, with the uncertain inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If two people, regardless of gender, find happiness with each other, then it is their right to do so, and I honor and respect their happiness as long as they do not encroach on the rights of others.

However, I still find it discerning that you would support such specific issues relating to a few, yet do not voice your opposition to the degradation and encroachment of other constitutional rights that effect ALL groups, i.e. 2nd amendment rights.

It is my belief, as well as the belief of millions of other Americans, that the 2nd amendment protects and enforces these unalienable rights that are guaranteed to all individuals, so that all may live in peace and without fear knowing that they can defend themselves. Because of this, I would like an explanation as to why you have decided to focus on specific issues of a particular group, all while ignoring and/or opposing support for the constitutional right to bear arms that would allow all couples to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Keep up the fight brother! Fight the good fight!

He supports specific issues relating to a few (dems, libs etc )  at the FORCED EXPENSE OF THE REST !!!!!!!! His definition of social justice    Where is our justice At the forced expense of ..................criminals

.

This guy is really a tool. Whenever I try to engage in 'friendly' discussion with him, he simply ignores my messages or comments. It is only when I 'hijack' his posts that he elects to respond.

This is why I believe we are beyond the point of solving this problem through discussion. If those whom oppose us aren't even willing to debate the issue for fear of being proved wrong, what is the point of trying to discuss/debate at all? People are influenced by only 2 things in life: hope and fear. They definitely don't have any hope for/from us, and damn sure don't fear us at the moment.

During the hearings etc. this past year on SB69 I wrote many legislators (and called some, too) asking them to provide me with their rationale and evidence as to why a person from out of state bringing in an "unusable... unserviceable" firearm needs to be fingerprinted (and pay $25 for the privilege) for a NICS check and sign a waiver for release of their mental health records. Surely there is some evidence that such people and such firearms have committed crimes in the past and this measure closes that criminal activity "loophole", right? Well, no, not really. Not one single legislator provided me with one scintilla of evidence as to why this bill ought to be passed for any public safety or any other reason (I guess "We want to control everything everyone does" might not be all that welcome an admission). I emailed this question to my representative here in Puna, Russell Rudermann, at least eight times, each time quoting his most recent response in which he gave absolutely no reasons or evidence for his support of the proposed law. How hard a question is that? You are voting for a bill: why? Please provide me with any evidence that there have been how many crimes committed, or if there has ever been even a single crime committed by a person who brought in an "unusable, unserviceable" firearm, which this bill is designed to prevent. (Of course, if someone brought in such a firearm with the intent to use such a non-functioning non-repairable firearm with the intent of committing a crime with it, I highly doubt they'd go do the already required registration, much less the proposed background checks. But don't let logic or rationality get in the way of imposing new laws on the law-abiding citizens of Hawaii.) Not one legislator could provide any such evidence. Most of them ignored my request for their rationale for supporting the bill. The few that responded sent canned generalized (and to me, meaningless) responses. 

They "damn sure don't fear us at the moment."

And I won't even go into the fact that the Hawaii Rifle Association SUPPORTED  this bill (which, of course, became law) despite the NRA-ILA sending out many alerts to oppose the bill.

And I won't even go into the fact that the Hawaii Rifle Association SUPPORTED  this bill (which, of course, became law) despite the NRA-ILA sending out many alerts to oppose the bill.

I don't understand HRA. They supported Rhoads who was very anti-gun.

I don't understand HRA. They supported Rhoads who was very anti-gun.

I was stunned when one of the legislators I was communicating with told me the HRA supported SB69, as I had only been receiving the NRA-ILA alerts that urged strong opposition to the bill, in all its forms. After learning of the HRA support for the bill I attempted to contact, via email, all of the officials of that organization that I could find in order to ask them for their rationale and evidence. I got zero (0) replies. So, to this day it is still a mystery to me why the HRA would oppose the NRA and support SB69. If they had reasons, a rationale or evidence, they weren't willing to tell me about it. Thanks for nothing.

I don't understand HRA. They supported Rhoads who was very anti-gun.

The HRA rates legislators in a very similar manner as the NRA, voting record and response to a survey. His rating was "favorable" based on those two criteria at the time the ratings were determined. Now, as he's revealed his true colors, his rating will be more accurate.

We are always looking for ways to improve this process, so if you're interested, please feel free to suggest alternates to the current method....and of course actively participate in the process of evaluating all the sitting legislators and candidates using your method.

I was stunned when one of the legislators I was communicating with told me the HRA supported SB69, as I had only been receiving the NRA-ILA alerts that urged strong opposition to the bill, in all its forms. After learning of the HRA support for the bill I attempted to contact, via email, all of the officials of that organization that I could find in order to ask them for their rationale and evidence. I got zero (0) replies. So, to this day it is still a mystery to me why the HRA would oppose the NRA and support SB69. If they had reasons, a rationale or evidence, they weren't willing to tell me about it. Thanks for nothing.

I'm not sure who you tried to contact, but the HRA sent out many communications to members and non-members about our position on SB69. Yes, the HRA took a position contrary to the NRA on this bill. The information about why we took this position is on the website. Here's the link:

http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/latest-news/8-legislative-reports/18-hra-legislative-report-sb69

http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/latest-news/8-legislative-reports/11-hra-legislative-report-april-25-2013-by-dr-maxwell-cooper

I'm sorry if you had some difficulty getting answers at that time. We try to be responsive but all of the HRA are volunteers with real jobs and during the legislative session things are even busier than "normal." That's not an excuse for not getting back to you, just the reality of working with an all volunteer organization...

.

[Rep. Lee wrote:]

As a longtime gun owner I'm entirely familiar with the 2nd Amendment. The issues I choose to focus on are those both within my jurisdiction, and those our community has made priorities.

Nothing the state can do will ever trump federal law, and there is nothing the state can do to infringe upon any Constitutional right, including the 2nd Amendment. More to the point though, in the spectrum of issues that our community has asked be addressed, this issue isn't one the district has reached out on. In fact, in the two surveys done on the issue, an overwhelming majority prefer no change to our laws (not that ours could trump federal law anyway) and wish to maintain the status quo.

I'm really not sure what infringement of the 2nd Amendment you are referring to, because anything the state did would be overturned in court. However, if it's federal law you would like to see changed I suggest reaching out to our federal representatives.

Translation: "Neither I nor my constituents (as polled by me, of course [I'd like to see the exact wording of the questions.]) care about this issue. It is not important to any of us. Besides, whatever the courts say is the law, IS the law, and we all know that never changes as cases work their way through various levels of appeal. Like, for instance, you are not allowed to own a handgun in your home if you live in Washington, D.C. or Chicago, Illinois... oh, wait. I agree with whatever the courts say. If they rule a 180 degree change tomorrow, I will then agree with that. In the meantime please leave me alone and stop the silly pestering about some issues that no one cares about except a fringe minority of extremists that really has no power at the polls. Why should I care, much less take a position?"

Similar to my State Senator (Russell Rudermann) who when asked to provide detailed specifics about the reasoning and evidence he has used to support his anti-Second Amendment policy positions simply replies "No one is trying to take your guns away. These laws are reasonable." I seriously doubt these people could be influenced by anything other than receiving fewer votes than their opponent on election day. Until then, they will say whatever they think they need to say to get the most votes.

Keep informing us of Mr. Lee's responses. I'm not expecting anything substantive, but curious about his strategy. Thanks.

Translation: "Neither I nor my constituents (as polled by me, of course [I'd like to see the exact wording of the questions.]) care about this issue. It is not important to any of us. Besides, whatever the courts say is the law, IS the law, and we all know that never changes as cases work their way through various levels of appeal. Like, for instance, you are not allowed to own a handgun in your home if you live in Washington, D.C. or Chicago, Illinois... oh, wait. I agree with whatever the courts say. If they rule a 180 degree change tomorrow, I will then agree with that. In the meantime please leave me alone and stop the silly pestering about some issues that no one cares about except a fringe minority of extremists that really has no power at the polls. Why should I care, much less take a position?"

Similar to my State Senator (Russell Rudermann) who when asked to provide detailed specifics about the reasoning and evidence he has used to support his anti-Second Amendment policy positions simply replies "No one is trying to take your guns away. These laws are reasonable." I seriously doubt these people could be influenced by anything other than receiving fewer votes than their opponent on election day. Until then, they will say whatever they think they need to say to get the most votes.

Keep informing us of Mr. Lee's responses. I'm not expecting anything substantive, but curious about his strategy. Thanks.

Fortunately Ruderman is focused on GMO and Fracking so firearms takes a backseat to his efforts.  But it does seem he blindly follows the party line and seems to be a supporter of Roger Chritsie.  At least he reponds to your messages.  Faye Hano-Hano?  Never heard from here after sending how many messages??/

Heller made any references to the militia a moot point. The right is an individual one, unrelated to membership in a militia (or non-membership...)

McDonald incorporated the right under the 14 Amendment, so that the individual right interpretation cannot be ignored by the states.

.

I was going to incorporate the Heller and McDonald cases, but I have a feeling that I would just be wasting my time. What I did want to do was prove that we are, under law, members of the unorganized milita, and thus we can tell them to shove it up their ass if they decide to use specific terminology and say 'hold the phone...you aren't militia, and the 2nd amendment says militia!'

His story is beginning to crack, though. First he was a 'former owner of firearms', and now he is a 'long term owner of firearms'.

I say he is just a frickin' tool!   

.

.

I hope they -have- woken the "sleeping giant". We really need new blood. Red american blood. These people do not respect us. Or our cause. Nor our constitution. They will interpret it as they see fit.I believe in the in alienable right to self protection.Those that shirk or try to prevent others from protecting or defending women, children and all that is Gods-which is our DUTY- refuses to believe it is their responsibility as a God fearing and freedom loving American.A gun is neither good -nor bad-it is simply a tool. A tool that OUR founders liberated themselves with to achieve what we call freedom. Responsible U.S. citizens use guns 2739 times every day to defend the old, weak and those unable to defend themselves. From evil.......and now a tyrannical government gone wild. Far beyond our fore fathers dream.My gladiator days are over. At 57, I believe at being peaceful and avoiding conflict.But if conflict should come, let it come in my time.That my children may-be- free.The line has been drawn. "They will not pass here".I'm with you on this one Q.

.