The fragment rounds comment made my head hurt. They apparently never heard of buckshot.

Yeah and I like bills rebuttal. Yeah same like hpd uses, to stop the threat. Lol

My brain still kinda hurts from listening to Calisle last night, so I thought maybe if I actually wrote out one of his arguments, and then go weed whack for a few hours I'll feel better. I might not have this exactly right, but I don't think I can watch that again without the possibility of permanent neurological damage.

1. Some people drink intoxicating beverages.
2. Some people drink intoxicating beverages to the point of mental/emotional/physical impairment.
3. Most people who drink intoxicating beverages, even if intending/planning not to, drink to the point of impairment.
4. Guns and alcohol do not mix.

THEREFORE:

No one should have a CCW license.

 

Of course it makes sense. Once you get your mouth wet, your gonna want to keep drinking.  Any alcoholic knows that.  It's like telling a drunk girl you taking home from the bar, club, etc just the tip!!

Just kidding.

He also seems to not like people exercising their 4th amendment and refusing a blood test/screening like deedy did.

     1st a gun is like the second most dangerous thing, a car.
 Then when your drinking,  it's not. 

    I think I'll have a bloddy mary this morning.
Based on Carlisle, I should be "Drunken Posting" by noon.


    Maybe somebody ought to take a TRO out on Carlisle and see how he feels having his family Heirlooms confiscated by SWAT.   

.

It seems the local show was timed to follow just after the PBS Frontline program "Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA" which aired on January 6. I haven't watched it yet, but from what I've read about it, it's another one-sided presentation. Who'd a thunk it? I'm going to have to wait another day or so before I can spend another hour sitting through a diktat produced by my collectivist enemies. It's available for viewing here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gunned-down/

    Maybe somebody ought to take a TRO out on Carlisle and see how he feels having his family Heirlooms confiscated by SWAT.   

Oh, I'm pretty sure Mr. Carlisle is an "exceptional case" (aka privileged elite) and not subject to the same law enforcement as the rest of us subjects of the state.

If you need more opportunity to clear your head via weed whacking, I can help provide the "source" for you.   

That's very kind and generous of you to want to look out for my mental health, but the four acres I've got seem to have the ability to produce more than enough weeds and grass to keep me quite "grounded".

I must say the opponent who was the asian guy (the link for video not working right now) was a fairly decent debtor. He came off as much more reasonable and articulate while Carlisle looked more like a crazy guy who could still recite a few facts.

I must say the opponent who was the asian guy (the link for video not working right now) was a fairly decent debtor. He came off as much more reasonable and articulate while Carlisle looked more like a crazy guy who could still recite a few facts.

David Louie, immediate past AG. Definitely more sane than Carlisle....

Would it be crazy to organize an open forum at, say, some sort of town hall, and then film and post it on youtube? That way we could show up, ask our questions and demand a direct answer, and put these idiots on blast via social media.

I literally cannot watch this discussion again because I feel like Hulk-smashing my computer every time the moderator or anti-gun reps talk.

Hey, that might be a worthwhile project. 

Video a few "Video Challenges", something like "Hawaii Gun Law Debate Topics", and ask for people in Hawaii to submit video responses.

First video would be to establish the topic and offer the 2A side.   

Then responses can be posted for rebuttals from the other side. 

Back and forth until the topic is thoroughly discussed and all relevant points have had an opportunity to be included.

The responses can be judged by a neutral party (assuming we can find one) and edited into a back and forth "virtual debate" video for each topic.

This way, you aren't limited to a few seconds of "blah blah blah" with points awarded for debate tactics and visual clues from opponents that you landed a "body blow" they couldn't counter.  Supporting documents, reports, charts, and news stories could be presented in the videos to support or refute each side's comments, subject to copyright use rules.


For example, video #1 could be ...

Question #1: If Hawaii passes a 'Shall Issue' Concealed Carry Permit law, what do you see as the positive and/or negative outcomes.
Assumptions: 
    (1)  The same background checks performed for a Permit to Acquire a firearm are performed on all applicants,
    (2)  All applicants must take and pass a CCW classroom training and hand-on CCW firearm skills requirement test, and
    (3)  Only Concealed Carry in public is permitted by law -- Open Carry is not allowed out in public other than for hunting areas.

There would need to be general rules and guidelines, and maybe a bit more detail per question to help the respondents focus on the specific question being asked.  Those can be elaborated on in the intro video.

This could be fun!         

.

Seriously.

Watch Dinesh D'Souza's debates; would serve as an excellent example.

I'm sure we have enough people to donate to rent a hall or room, and hopefully we'd have some tech savvy guys who can film and upload to YouTube.

Imagine the firestorm it would cause for the local 2a cause if it were forwarded to new networks abroad, as well as mass distributed amongst social media networks.

Best part: people like Peter pumpkin eater would get directly called out in their bullshit, and make even bigger fools of themselves.

And that's exactly why they would not get involved in such an un-biased debate forum. 

.

I am a little disappointed by Bill Richter. On some real serious issues it seems he beat around the bush and failed to answer a few of the issues. The one that most stood out was when the moderator was trying to get an answer on how to make sure we keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I don't know if he did it on purpose or just got sidetracked by the TRO question but I think it hurt his side for a lot of the undecided viewers.

.

There is nothing that can stop people who shouldn't have firearms from having them that won't effect law abiding citizens.

Criminals do not follow the law

But he kinda failed to address the issue. The undecided viewer might walk away thinking that the gun rights crowd thinks we shouldn't be able to stop crazy people from owning a firearm. Or the undecided viewer might think he is avoiding difficult questions.

Both sides brought up some good points and failed to address some good points. The conversation suffered too many tangents that could have addressed big issues but then got stuck on smaller technical ones. When Mr. Richter had the chance to rebut the belief that CCW never stops/rarely stops crime he got sidetracked and never brought the issue back up. That was one key argument that he could have easily pushed back in their faces and neglected to. I don't mean to attack him for it, I understand how an in an active debate things can move fast, I just wish it had been mentioned.

How did Carlisle get elected?  He is an idiot.  Not just to be mean and belittle him but an actual idiot.

But he kinda failed to address the issue. The undecided viewer might walk away thinking that the gun rights crowd thinks we shouldn't be able to stop crazy people from owning a firearm. Or the undecided viewer might think he is avoiding difficult questions.

Both sides brought up some good points and failed to address some good points. The conversation suffered too many tangents that could have addressed big issues but then got stuck on smaller technical ones. When Mr. Richter had the chance to rebut the belief that CCW never stops/rarely stops crime he got sidetracked and never brought the issue back up. That was one key argument that he could have easily pushed back in their faces and neglected to. I don't mean to attack him for it, I understand how an in an active debate things can move fast, I just wish it had been mentioned.

The only true solution to the problem you are dwelling on is to institutionalize the mentally impaired like we used to do.  That will not be a very popular answer, so the only way to answer it is, "We can't."  How do you think that is going to make the side pushing for reduced gun regulations look?

I am watching this debate and it is clear to me that the lefties have no idea about firearms, permitting, or even smart thoughts.  These dummies get elected?  I should run for office.  Geeeesh


How the hell did the Attorney not know what the home protection laws are?

One last point.  The moderator in all of these discussions should be educated and agnostic.  I know this is PBS but it is not a fair debate when the moderator is dumb as well.

The only true solution to the problem you are dwelling on is to institutionalize the mentally impaired like we used to do.  That will not be a very popular answer, so the only way to answer it is, "We can't."  How do you think that is going to make the side pushing for reduced gun regulations look?

The portion you highlighted in red was about CCW that is used to stop crime.

I don't think the issue of mental health and gun ownership is an all or nothing question requiring. It is a difficult thing to do and probably nearly impossible to make sure no innocent people have their rights restricted but I don't think that dictates the answer be that no regulation can be done on the matter. The severity of the infringement on someone's rights has to be weighed against the need. Requiring someone to have an ID to vote might make someone miss their chance to vote however the need for security of the voting system is a much greater need. Probably the bigger need than keeping crazies from having guns is keeping bad criminals from having guns. If we don't have some answers on ways of keeping criminals from buying guns and just say that it is more important that the rest of us don't have to have any sort of regulation at all then it looks like we are fine with letting criminals have guns.

One last point.  The moderator in all of these discussions should be educated and agnostic.  I know this is PBS but it is not a fair debate when the moderator is dumb as well.

Perhaps, but also consider that most viewers might not be that educated either. When it comes to technical information like frangible rounds and select fire the average citizen won't know what these things mean. Of course some background knowledge is always beneficial but they don't want a program that uses so much jargon that the average viewer gets lost. Viewers might like an average moderator who keeps it grounded. I wouldn't give him props for being completely fair to both sides but I think he did an OK job.