Are you a single issue voter? There are a lot of people who will pick a candidate based on their stance on a single issue. I will vote for Aiona for his positions as a whole, not a single issue. I realize that no candidate (unless I run for office) will share my views on everything, there will never be a perfect candidate. Aiona might not be the best pro gun cadidate but he has a much much better chance at winning than the libertarian. So you have to weigh the risks. Would you rather vote for the guy you most prefer but probably wont win and risk the least favorite candidate winning or vote for the guy who has a better chance at winning but doesn't quite meet all your desired issue stances?

I'm not a "single issue" voter, unless you consider liberty, i.e. freedom from government interference in areas of my life that are none of their business, to be a single issue. This would rule out all the Democrats, and almost all of the Republicans and Independents. It's not a question of "doesn't quite meet all your desired issue stances", but rather doesn't have a f-ing clue about "small government"... never saw a law extending government intervention/control they didn't like. Two very different examples. Example 1: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is literally derided by the mainstream candidates despite taking an oath of office to support both the U.S. and Hawaii state constitutions, both of which use those exact words. Example 2: My home has no central heating nor air conditioning, yet the building code requires me to build with double-glazed thermally insulated windows. Yet despite their claims that this law is for "energy conservation", they build enormous government structures with huge rooms, some of which include very high ceilings (if you ever have to go to court, this will subconsciously impress upon the fact that the government has unlimited resources compared to you and can pretty much do whatever they want) thus creating massive waste of energy to cool those structures. I'd bet that the energy cost of cooling one of those rooms for ONE DAY exceeds my ANNUAL energy cost for rarely running a fan for twenty minutes.  I hate hypocrites.

I think that with Aiona you might not get more gun rights but you probably wont get less. However with Ige you might be more apt to lose some rights.

Really? What do you know that NRA-ILA and HRA don't? They have rated, respectively, Aiona C+/C, and Ige B/A. Hanneman gets a B from HRA and no rating from NRA-ILA. Libertarian Jeff Davis gets no rating from either. It's sad, and totally ridiculous to me, that someone (Ige) who opposes CCW and supports full registration (including "unusable" and "unserviceable" firearms) and the 14-20 day "waiting period" (even if you just bought a gun yesterday and completed the "background check" 24 hours earlier), among other preposterous and unconstitutional Hawaii laws, etc., would get even a "B" rating, much less an "A". That bar has been set not just "low", but in a damn deep hole. What'd Stalin get, an A+?

That being said I don't think the second ammendment seems like a hot issue in Hawaii, it doesn't seem like one of the top priorities here so I don't think politicians bother to take a strong stance. Some do take strong anti gun stances but thankfully it is not a majority proposing anti gun laws.

Yeah, clearly they don't care. We know that. And the vast majorityof legislators DO support anti-gun laws, that's why this is one of the states with the strictest gun laws and the only other venue besides Washington, D.C. that has virtually no CCW "may issue" license holders. You want me to vote for one of these (WARNING: judgmental language ahead) clowns who will support the status quo or make things even worse?

The only option I would feel really good about voting in this race would be "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Of course in Hawaii we have no recall, no referendum, and no initiative (bills introduced by Senator Slom have never been heard)... so the last thing that is going to happen is for there to be a realistic option wherein the politicians could see a legally-binding statement from the electorate that the politicians (almost) ALL suck.

Thankfully and greatfully, In my district all the choices where clear cut.  All that I voted for are 2a supporters and coincidentally Republicans.  Only choice that I needed to make was ige or duke.  Even though duke has been rated C, I have no problms voting for the republican. The democrats have been ruining this state for over 50 years, and with some help from above opening the eyes of those brainwashed plantation mentality people out there,  maybe this place can get turned around from this liberal utopia, in which our hard working and shrinking middle class bear the burden supporting those who care not to make something of themselves and expect handouts.   

I am sick of it...  hopefully many more are too. Turn it around and stop nit picking candidates.  Big picture, check it out.

You guys are forgetting about the "other" option.  If you don't like the positions of the candidates or think the legislature is corrupt, then you should be running for office yourselves.  Then you can push your agenda.  Something I've been thinking about later in the future for myself.

I suspect there are several others besides you who are "sick of it". I'm REALLY sick of it. My "problem" is that I don't see Aiona or Ige or Hanneman offering any real solutions to many problems, nor supporting civil liberties. I see them offering (bullshit) platitudes ("trust, respect and balance", "moving forward together", "think independently, come home to the middle"), yet none of them make available serious detailed position papers on any but a couple of issues, and even those are far too vague to be able to determine what their actual policy would entail. None of them even mention the issue of Second Amendment rights, nor will any of them respond to email or phone calls asking them to publicly reveal their positions on related issues such as "shall issue" CCW (firearms or other banned tools) or handgun magazine capacity limits, etc. All of them support squelching personal freedom and liberty in one form or another. I could not, in good conscience, vote for anyone who supports a policy that results in one more person being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and/or being imprisoned for possessing and/or using cannabis. I won't get into the lengthy arguments and data, but any politician whose policies allows one single person to suffer the legal consequences of cannabis possession while condoning the legality of alcohol is full of shit and either a liar, an ignoramus, or beholden to special interests (prison industrial complex, law enforcement unions, etc.), or all three. And the list goes on: [url=http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/28/vote-libertarian-to-stop-the-next-bipart/]http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/28/vote-libertarian-to-stop-the-next-bipart/[/url]

Anyone interested in personal liberty and freedom could not vote for any of the three above candidates unless they buy into the "lesser of evils" argument. Let's not support ANY evil.

If you are suggesting not voting for anyone then you are a part of the problem, not the solution. 

Life will always give you choices, nearly all the time these choices are not going to be the best for all situations.  Life will not get you a total solution for every single issue that you hold dear.  You must make a choice that seems best for your ideals, and even though you may not get there in one big step, you can get there in small steps at a time.  It is very rare that you can achieve all huge goals at once, and many think it is impossible, however, making these small steps is the key to moving in the right direction.  This is one of the big reasons that the anti crowd is sucsessful, they slowly methodically chip at your rights, it is high time we start chipping back....  and if it takes electing a moderate righty, then at lease we are moving in the right direction.

If you are suggesting not voting for anyone then you are a part of the problem, not the solution. 

There is a Libertarian candidate on the ballot for governor. He is the candidate most amenable to all the issues involving personal liberty and freedom and minimizing state intervention in all personal matters. I'd also like to see "none of the above" as a ballot option for each office or issue.

Life will always give you choices, nearly all the time these choices are not going to be the best for all situations.  Life will not get you a total solution for every single issue that you hold dear.  You must make a choice that seems best for your ideals, and even though you may not get there in one big step, you can get there in small steps at a time.  It is very rare that you can achieve all huge goals at once, and many think it is impossible, however, making these small steps is the key to moving in the right direction.  This is one of the big reasons that the anti crowd is sucsessful, they slowly methodically chip at your rights, it is high time we start chipping back....  and if it takes electing a moderate righty, then at lease we are moving in the right direction.

Please name three specific legislative proposals by Aiona (or Ige or Hanneman) that prove to you that "we are moving in the right direction". "Trust, respect and balance" doesn't count (as that meaningless doublespeak slogan is total bullshit. How could anyone respect, let alone trust someone who parrots such tripe?).