Sure, LE is just another cross section of society, however there are a lot of individuals in LE that are supportive of carry rights.

I was amazed that out of the three officers in the registration section one was supportive. The most out spoken one against guns simply stated that he doesn't believe Hawaii citizens should have any guns - PERIOD. The other officer was equally outspoken about the 2A for citizens and she was a former Marine. The third person who was in the block of instruction just followed the other SGTs lead and stated that yeah, citizens shouldn't have access to guns....
But off topic, this has nothing to do with the HPD's alleged possession of MRAPs. I couldn't afford one anyways - I'm waiting for Hawaiian Historic Arms Association to get one. Besides I don't think an MRAP would fit in our "new" re-striped, bike lanes.

I was amazed that out of the three officers in the registration section one was supportive. The most out spoken one against guns simply stated that he doesn't believe Hawaii citizens should have any guns - PERIOD. The other officer was equally outspoken about the 2A for citizens and she was a former Marine. The third person who was in the block of instruction just followed the other SGTs lead and stated that yeah, citizens shouldn't have access to guns....

This is somewhat disturbing to me.....      two out of three would be willing to violate your rights, if ordered. That's how I read this.

1. Good guess, assuming you guessed right. Both the U. S. Constitution and the Hawaii state Constitution state that "the people" have "the right" to "keep and bear arms" without that right being "infringed". I believe that would include "citizens". "Bear" makes no sense solely restricted to inside the home. Thus, unless one is traveling directly to or from some kind of gun venue (thought the gun is even then required to be unloaded and in a closed container), a "citizen" is disarmed (not just from firearm carry, but "stun guns", chemical sprays greater than 1/2 oz. content, etc.), UNLESS that "citizen" is also law enforcement. Why? The citizen disarmament movement parrots the phrase "the only ones who should have guns are cops". Why? Because they are the "ONLY ONES" professional and trained well-enough to deserve to use them for self-defense of their own lives and the lives of others? That's a joke. A very bad joke. Watch this video of a DEA agent demonstrating gun safety to a classroom of children and stating "I'm the ONLY ONE in this room professional enough to carry (a Glock 40)." Within seconds he then shoots himself in the foot. He's the "only one" professional enough? There is nothing in the Constitutions even vaguely indicating that those intended to have the right to keep and bear arms are members of law enforcement, and that they are the ONLY ONES who have such a right.

2. Let me re-phrase robtmc's statement:

"When you get some evidence of most cops being all for us peasants being as well armed as they are and for us being allowed to carry those weapons in the manner (or even just concealed) and in the places they are, please post it."

Perhaps that wasn't his intent, but I've extended it to the relevant issue of CCW, and carry in general, which is denied to 100% of the citizens of this state who are not law enforcement.

3. There may be "a lot of individuals in LE that are supportive of carry rights.," but the relevant and significant fact is that the people in law enforcement who have a say in who gets to carry in Hawaii (the county chiefs of police) are 100% unanimous in their refusal to issue a CCW license to even one single person in the entire state (as least as far as any official statistics exist), and the (deliberately?) vague (and seemingly disingenuous) answers I have gotten when communicating about these issues with the Hawaii County Chief. This isn't a "may issue" state, it is a de facto "no issue" state. Why? Because the people in law enforcement whose sworn duty it is to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and Hawaii by allowing people to carry weapons outside the home purposefully violate their oath of office and deny every single applicant. Yeah, they are the "ONLY ONES".

Your entire diatribe lumps everyone wearing a badge into the same category.  The fact of the matter is no matter how righteous you or robtmc may seem to feel in your beliefs, the reality is that your statements are not what benefits the overall cause that you support.  The extreme right is just as bad as the extreme left.     

This is somewhat disturbing to me.....      two out of three would be willing to violate your rights, if ordered. That's how I read this.

No reason to be disturbed.  Please remember that from a pure statistical standpoint, that lone sample is far too small to come to any conclusions.  According to that lone encounter 33% of LE is pro 2a and 66% is not.  What if by chance you happened to have 2 out of 3 pro 2a?  Would that mean that 66% of LE is pro 2a and 33% is not.  Results from small sample sizes are far from accurate. 

Your entire diatribe lumps everyone wearing a badge into the same category.  The fact of the matter is no matter how righteous you or robtmc may seem to feel in your beliefs, the reality is that your statements are not what benefits the overall cause that you support.  The extreme right is just as bad as the extreme left. 

My comments ("diatribe" is your opinion and judgment, which of course you are entitled to, just don't pretend you're stating any facts) didn't do any lumping of any kind regarding "everyone". Please show me the statement(s) that say "everyone", or even directly imply "everyone". And your "diatribes" don't reveal your "righteousness" about your beliefs? What is your evidence that my statements "are not what benefits the overall cause that (I) support"? Or is that just your righteous opinion? You mean if I make statements of fact about the arbitrary and capricious, not to mention oath-of-office-violating 100% denials of applications by law-abiding Hawaii citizens for CCW licenses, that pointing out that fact somehow works against CCW implementation as prescribed by the Constitution(s), and/or Second Amendment rights in general? Will that kind of talk turn the county police chiefs against CCW? Or who, exactly? Back up your claim. Where is your research, or even polling? Or is it just another opinion of yours, stated by you as if it were a fact?

People being able to exercise their natural, civil, fundamental, individual, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is not an issue of "left" nor "right". Please tell me how advocating for the full implementation of the Constitutional Amendments known as The Bill of Rights is extreme right or left. Which amendments do you believe ought to be legally allowed to be infringed, so as to avoid any kind of "extreme"? First? Second? Fourth? Fifth? Which?

 
No reason to be disturbed.  Please remember that from a pure statistical standpoint, that lone sample is far too small to come to any conclusions.  According to that lone encounter 33% of LE is pro 2a and 66% is not.  What if by chance you happened to have 2 out of 3 pro 2a?  Would that mean that 66% of LE is pro 2a and 33% is not.  Results from small sample sizes are far from accurate.

You're the person that started making claims about numbers: "Sure, LE is just another cross section of society, however there are a lot of individuals in LE that are supportive of carry rights." "A lot"? "Supportive of carry rights"? Could you please be more specific about that number? Could you please provide us with the sources of your claims? How big was your sample (that you were able to come to YOUR conclusion)? How was the study or poll conducted? Where? When? How? By whom? Where was it published? What specific questions were asked?

                                           

Where's Tom_G and his call a spade a spade idea!!!!

My comments ("diatribe" is your opinion and judgment, which of course you are entitled to, just don't pretend you're stating any facts) didn't do any lumping of any kind regarding "everyone". Please show me the statement(s) that say "everyone", or even directly imply "everyone". And your "diatribes" don't reveal your "righteousness" about your beliefs? What is your evidence that my statements "are not what benefits the overall cause that (I) support"? Or is that just your righteous opinion? You mean if I make statements of fact about the arbitrary and capricious, not to mention oath-of-office-violating 100% denials of applications by law-abiding Hawaii citizens for CCW licenses, that pointing out that fact somehow works against CCW implementation as prescribed by the Constitution(s), and/or Second Amendment rights in general? Will that kind of talk turn the county police chiefs against CCW? Or who, exactly? Back up your claim. Where is your research, or even polling? Or is it just another opinion of yours, stated by you as if it were a fact?

People being able to exercise their natural, civil, fundamental, individual, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is not an issue of "left" nor "right". Please tell me how advocating for the full implementation of the Constitutional Amendments known as The Bill of Rights is extreme right or left. Which amendments do you believe ought to be legally allowed to be infringed, so as to avoid any kind of "extreme"? First? Second? Fourth? Fifth? Which?
You're the person that started making claims about numbers: "Sure, LE is just another cross section of society, however there are a lot of individuals in LE that are supportive of carry rights." "A lot"? "Supportive of carry rights"? Could you please be more specific about that number? Could you please provide us with the sources of your claims? How big was your sample (that you were able to come to YOUR conclusion)? How was the study or poll conducted? Where? When? How? By whom? Where was it published? What specific questions were asked?

Uhhh yea. 

Everyone can see this for what it is.  It would be pointless to continue. 

Uhhh yea. 

Everyone can see this for what it is.  It would be pointless to continue.

Uhhh yea, indeed. You wouldn't want to provide any data or facts or references to support you assertions. "Everyone" knows that your utterances are spoken from on high, and thus not subject to question. Please forgive my failure to recognize your Authority, and my consequent insubordination.

Uhhh yea, indeed. You wouldn't want to provide any data or facts or references to support you assertions. "Everyone" knows that your utterances are spoken from on high, and thus not subject to question. Please forgive my failure to recognize your Authority, and my consequent insubordination.

Sad to see you resulting in making this personal.  From the direction that your posts were headed this is exactly why I chose not to continue the discussion as I was pretty sure this is where you would have ended up anyway.  You lump everyone into the same category and are unable to see the forest for the trees.

I will leave with this.   The extreme lefts and extreme rights are the minority.  Most lie somewhere in the middle area's either left or right on these topics, but many are still left sitting on the fence.  The extreme rights are more subversive then helpful to the 2A cause.  They push those in the "grey area", the undecideds, who are sitting on the fence, right off to the other side.  Alienating those who share similar beliefs on certain issues, because of personal bias, political bias or affiliation, (ya know lumping everyone into the same category) is also not helpful.

 

HPD no moa MRAPs.Pau. Done. LOCK!

-- huge ass picture removed. - Funtimes.

Uhhh yea. 

Everyone can see this for what it is.  It would be pointless to continue.

I agree.