go get um, guys! 
thanks for representing the 2A community!   

I kept hearing Carlisle say, "I don't get it" whenever he tried to quash a gun rights argument, like having the right to own a 50 cal sniper rifle.  He keeps trying to see the "need" for a particular gun, when the Constitution doesn't equate firearms with individual needs.  It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms because a free state needs an armed militia to remain free.  If we ever have to put that concept into practice, I bet he will then see the need for a 50 cal sniper rifle!!

Then he tries to use the ridiculous example of a sniper rifle shooting at a plane in flight.  He obviously has no real knowledge of firearms nor of the difficulty involved in hitting a moving target from a distance.  They make missiles and anti aircraft machine guns for a reason ... a sniper rifle isn't suited for that application!

The only thing I agreed with him on was "he doesn't get it."

Yep.  I can't stand the "need" argument.  All any person really "needs" is food, water, and air.  So if the argument is "need" , damn near everything else is unnecessary!

Yep.  I can't stand the "need" argument.  All any person really "needs" is food, water, and air.  So if the argument is "need" , damn near everything else is unnecessary!

What other material objects are the subject of an enumerated constitutionally-protected pre-existing right to keep and bear? Except for that, "need" isn't relevant.

Carlisle's "arguments" were a melange of ignorance, straw men, and red herrings. Other than that, he's spot on. I was rather shocked, considering that he was Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney from 1996 through 2010, that he was totally ignorant of the fact that the police have no legal duty to protect any citizen, but only the "public at large" (whatever that means... sometime do something to protect someone when it suits them?), considering that Warren v. District of Columbia was 1981 and Castle Rock v Gonzales was 2005. This is the level of legal knowledge and argumentation we have arrayed against us... I don't understand how we could be in the straits we're in re our rights given such ignorance. Oh, wait, I forgot, it's not intelligence or rationality that counts, only power. We're screwed.

What other material objects are the subject of an enumerated constitutionally-protected pre-existing right to keep and bear? Except for that, "need" isn't relevant.

Carlisle's "arguments" were a melange of ignorance, straw men, and red herrings. Other than that, he's spot on. I was rather shocked, considering that he was Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney from 1996 through 2010, that he was totally ignorant of the fact that the police have no legal duty to protect any citizen, but only the "public at large" (whatever that means... sometime do something to protect someone when it suits them?), considering that Warren v. District of Columbia was 1981 and Castle Rock v Gonzales was 2005. This is the level of legal knowledge and argumentation we have arrayed against us... I don't understand how we could be in the straits we're in re our rights given such ignorance. Oh, wait, I forgot, it's not intelligence or rationality that counts, only power. We're screwed.

Power and fear begets change.  We're fortunate that the popular opinion in our country has shifted towards the protection of individual gun rights and the second amendment.  I had the unfortunate opportunity to debate gun issues with an extremely liberal and misinformed friend of mine, although in all honesty he's more akin to a collectivist than a liberal.... like the rest of them..... however I digress. 

His argument was basically that we're all paranoid and he's right because the government didn't try to take our guns away, completely ignoring the fact that legislation was in fact proposed on the federal level but failed.  He also failed to acknowledge the state level legislation that did in fact pass in New York, Connecticut and Maryland which ranged from banning certain "Assault Weapons" to requiring registration and limiting magazine size.  The one that always gets me are the magazine restrictions, I'll never understand how these gun control warriors just don't get that the only people that bans and restrictions hurt are the people that follow the law.  I'm sure that most of the people on this forum have taken apart their "blocked" handgun magazines to see what they actually do to limit our round count and it is nothing more than a piece of plastic that can easily be cut off or shaved down without affecting the function of the magazine at all.......

Criminals don't follow the laws..... that's why they're criminals........ the only people that are affected are us, the law-abiding citizens.  It just boggles the mind that these people can just spew emotinoal rhetoric without offering ANY original thought on the subject.

What other material objects are the subject of an enumerated constitutionally-protected pre-existing right to keep and bear? Except for that, "need" isn't relevant.

Carlisle's "arguments" were a melange of ignorance, straw men, and red herrings. Other than that, he's spot on. I was rather shocked, considering that he was Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney from 1996 through 2010, that he was totally ignorant of the fact that the police have no legal duty to protect any citizen, but only the "public at large" (whatever that means... sometime do something to protect someone when it suits them?), considering that Warren v. District of Columbia was 1981 and Castle Rock v Gonzales was 2005. This is the level of legal knowledge and argumentation we have arrayed against us... I don't understand how we could be in the straits we're in re our rights given such ignorance. Oh, wait, I forgot, it's not intelligence or rationality that counts, only power. We're screwed.

But that "the police will protect you" false flag is so prevalent in the legal profession/politician here in Hawaii....when I was on in 2011 with Ed Case (lawyer), Keith Kaneshiro (Prosecuting Attorney), and Avri Sofio (Dean of the UH law school), all seemed to argue the police had some duty to protect individuals....sad.....

But that "the police will protect you" false flag is so prevalent in the legal profession/politician here in Hawaii....when I was on in 2011 with Ed Case (lawyer), Keith Kaneshiro (Prosecuting Attorney), and Avri Sofio (Dean of the UH law school), all seemed to argue the police had some duty to protect individuals....sad.....

I didn't want to mention the other possible explanation besides ignorance... which would be deliberate and intentional deceit (aka "lying"). Politicians choose that option frequently, as any of us who follow the Second Amendment debates know only too well.

Even though it's unquestionably clear legally that the police have no duty to protect any individual (excepting those alleged criminals in their custody... how's that for irony?), the whole question is really irrelevant. I'd guess that 99.9% of the time when a criminal selects a victim and engages in criminal activity with that victim they look around first and if they see a cop standing there they defer to another victim in another place at another time. So even if cops DID have a duty to protect an individual, the chance that they would be present to act on that duty is, in reality, infinitesimally small. Therefore we need to have our right to bear arms for self-defense unobstructed by the state/government (as per the constitutions, federal and state: "bear arms shall not be infringed") so we can bear full responsibility for the defense and safety of ourselves and our families and our fellow citizens at all times. QED.

Give 'em hell!  ( As per Truman: "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.")

But that "the police will protect you" false flag is so prevalent in the legal profession/politician here in Hawaii....when I was on in 2011 with Ed Case (lawyer), Keith Kaneshiro (Prosecuting Attorney), and Avri Sofio (Dean of the UH law school), all seemed to argue the police had some duty to protect individuals....sad.....

Carlisle kept using the term, "They have a sworn duty to protect."  As a lawyer, he should know that taking an oath is just that:  an oath to uphold some principle or abide by some legal obligation (obey the orders of my superiors).

Have you ever known a Cop, politician, or military member to be disciplined for failure to uphold their oath of office/position?  I know I have never heard of that.  When someone is caught doing something against their oath, they are punished for that act.  There is never an additional charge of "failure to execute the oath you swore".

If somebody knows of an instance where I am wrong, please correct me.  I'd be very interested.

As a lawyer, Carlisle knows the oath in and of itself doesn't bind you legally to anyone in the public.  Therefore, the oath is not proof the officers will protect you.  The LAW has to guide officers, not a ceremonial oath they take when they graduate the academy, and we all know where the law stands on protecting individuals.

When I hear "the public at large", I think of a rabid dog walking down the road.  The police are responsible to eliminate that threat to the public.  If the dog is attacking you, and a Cop decides he can't help you without getting bit himself, you can't sue him for failing to assist you.  The Cop has a duty, however,  to prevent the dog from leaving and hurting "the public at large".  That might not be the best example, but it's what comes to mind.

When I hear "the public at large", I think of a rabid dog walking down the road.  The police are responsible to eliminate that threat to the public.  If the dog is attacking you, and a Cop decides he can't help you without getting bit himself, you can't sue him for failing to assist you.  The Cop has a duty, however,  to prevent the dog from leaving and hurting "the public at large".  That might not be the best example, but it's what comes to mind.

Whatever that phrase ("the public at large") means, as decided in a court of law, when the state denies us the legal right to bear arms for self-defense outside our homes, we are victimized twice... by the criminal(s) and the government, but I repeat myself.

As for that rabid dog, I think you are being too hard on it, and unfair. After all it is not the dog's fault... it is a victim of difficult circumstances beyond it's control, and if we as a compassionate society would expend whatever is necessary to capture and treat that animal with the best therapy money could buy, in a few short years or even months or days, that dog could be out in public again as a wholesome canine contributing to society.

Whatever that phrase ("the public at large") means, as decided in a court of law, when the state denies us the legal right to bear arms for self-defense outside our homes, we are victimized twice... by the criminal(s) and the government, but I repeat myself.

As for that rabid dog, I think you are being too hard on it, and unfair. After all it is not the dog's fault... it is a victim of difficult circumstances beyond it's control, and if we as a compassionate society would expend whatever is necessary to capture and treat that animal with the best therapy money could buy, in a few short years or even months or days, that dog could be out in public again as a wholesome canine contributing to society.

Spoken like someone who lives on a rabies-free island!

 

I didn't want to mention the other possible explanation besides ignorance... which would be deliberate and intentional deceit (aka "lying"). Politicians choose that option frequently, as any of us who follow the Second Amendment debates know only too well.

Even though it's unquestionably clear legally that the police have no duty to protect any individual (excepting those alleged criminals in their custody... how's that for irony?), the whole question is really irrelevant. I'd guess that 99.9% of the time when a criminal selects a victim and engages in criminal activity with that victim they look around first and if they see a cop standing there they defer to another victim in another place at another time. So even if cops DID have a duty to protect an individual, the chance that they would be present to act on that duty is, in reality, infinitesimally small. Therefore we need to have our right to bear arms for self-defense unobstructed by the state/government (as per the constitutions, federal and state: "bear arms shall not be infringed") so we can bear full responsibility for the defense and safety of ourselves and our families and our fellow citizens at all times. QED.

Give 'em hell!  ( As per Truman: "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.")

Not to discount everything you've said, but it reminds me of the old joke: How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.....

Thanks again for the info...

I thought a lot about any questions for this and honestly, I couldn't think of anything that hasn't been brought up before at some point.

However, after reading this thread:

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=17704.0

...I was wondering, if our current process can be abused where an individuals rights are compromised, what keeps any further legislation from doing the same or worse?

I hindsight, I've experienced prejudice concerning my choice of a firearm (and even hard copy to indicate it...) and had been told in so many words given the opportunity, said firearm would be confiscated.  What assurances do I have this isn't going to happen through some kind of abuse of the system with additional Laws?

Spoken like someone who lives on a rabies-free island!

 

Not only "rabid dog free", but lots of unicorns and rainbows! It's paradise! I may even have seen a flying pig the other day...

.

On now, send your 2A questions.  Thank you HC for bringing up the historic aspects of "gun control"!

.

Now they are distracting viewers with talk about machine guns.....

Now talking on castle doc.. 

.

.

Now Carl is talking about drunk hunters in Tennessee....  WTF?