Did you all also notice how they made like it was "no big deal" to get your rights restored, when you are wrongly or falsely denied?

I'm sure it only takes a day or two and that any ordinary non-lawyer citizen can waltz into the courtroom and for zero fees and costs get his guns back right away. Sure. Like that could happen in anything resembling Hawaii's legal system. Where's the [headslap] icon when you need it?

Did you all also notice how they made like it was "no big deal" to get your rights restored, when you are wrongly or falsely denied?

Yup theres a process involved to correct the problem.   Nevermind the time you have to spend to correct this "problem" that shouldn't even be a problem.  Guilty until proven innocent!!!!

Man I seen chris biting his tongue a lot to not make remarks, im surprised he never bit it off!!!
Great job guys, thanks for the representation.

It did seem like the moderator was selecting which questions to ask and avoid.  Next time we should submit twice as many questions so they run out of questions to ask and have a pile of "uh should we even ask these" questions.

Note that Carlisle's defense of no-confiscation-using-registration-information was the standard "it can't happen here". He then went on to assert that anyone who thought it could happen was (borderline?) "delusional". Now THAT'S funny,,, in a really sad pathetic way. He didn't seem to have any response when it was pointed out that some states are already doing that exact thing, and Louie chimed in that just because you have a gun that was once legal and registered, if the state decides that it is now illegal to possess that gun, what's the problem with the state coming to get it? These guys are dense, or just your run of the mill socialists, but I repeat myself.

It was just another example of presenting emotional instead of fact based arguments and attempting to belittle your opponent instead of actually debating them.

I'm sure it only takes a day or two and that any ordinary non-lawyer citizen can waltz into the courtroom and for zero fees and costs get his guns back right away. Sure. Like that could happen in anything resembling Hawaii's legal system. Where's the [headslap] icon when you need it?

Also avoided was the fact that someone that is intent on causing harm to someone but won't because the person they want to harm has a gun can then request a TRO on that person to disarm them. 

It was just another example of presenting emotional instead of fact based arguments and attempting to belittle your opponent instead of actually debating them.

Don't forget ignoring factual counter arguments (California, New York).

.

.

Did you all also notice how they made like it was "no big deal" to get your rights restored, when you are wrongly or falsely denied?

Rights?  What rights?  This pair only wanted to talk about "NEEDS". 

These rights are afforded in the Constitution.  Need should only be a question for the individual to answer, not some lowest-common-denominator, one-size-fits-all arbitrary law.

The show was pretty biased even at the very start.  A big thank you to Harvey and Bill for representing on that statist-leaning show. 

Great job, HiCarry.

This was an extremely biased discussion, and there were tens of questions that were on that table that he clearly avoided.

Who the hell picks these moderators?

There were at least 50-60 cards that didn't get read....I saw several about the police protection issue. Seems like he only picked the few that were not pro-2A

Holy crap I give you two mad props for dealing with those idiots.... I could swear I saw steam coming out of your ears at one point.  Hoping to make it to hilo hatties on Wednesday.  Gotta shut these idiots down!

Thank you....it was difficult not to interrupt (I did get scolding for doing so...) when they started spouting BS....

I have to agree with the bias on this segment.

I'm just wondering if I heard correctly, Gabbard is going to introduce Legislation FOR Concealed Carry?  Am I getting her mixed up with someone else?

State Senator Mike Gabbard, Tulsi's father.....

Rights?  What rights?  This pair only wanted to talk about "NEEDS". 

These rights are afforded in the Constitution.  Need should only be a question for the individual to answer, not some lowest-common-denominator, one-size-fits-all arbitrary law.

Just want to clarify because it's a rather important point, and one that I know you know, but the rights guaranteed and protected from government infringement in the Bill of Rights are not granted or afforded by that document, but are rather pre-existing or "natural" or "god given" rights that the founders at first didn't even think would be necessary to spell out because that was so obvious to them. It was only later that they realized they'd better "put it in writing" (thus the first ten amendments) for the future when some people might be tempted to think that government, like kings, is the source of rights and liberties (thus becoming "privileges"), rather than the (supposed) guardian of those rights.

.

I had also posted a Q on how many crimes our registration laws solved or prevented.  My guess, the number is close to ZERO.
 
Also pointed out the Nazis pushed for gun registration, and look where that led...... 
 
 
You may have also noticed how they were adamant on the value of gun registration when it was mentioned Cali started CONFISCATION of previously legal firearms.....  This is where we are headed folks...

Per reliable sources, no crimes have been solved using the firearms registrations....

Did you all also notice how they made like it was "no big deal" to get your rights restored, when you are wrongly or falsely denied?  

I did...and wanted to comment on it but didn't get the opportunity to counter....

MIKE Gabbard, state senator, who happens to be Tulsi's father. He and senator Slom both submitted CCW bills last session, and I actually liked a couple of minor differences in Gabbard's bill better.

Thank you for the clarification.

HOLY FUCK.

Peter Carlisle is a fucking idiot.

He is bringing up bullshit about methamphetamine

When did responsible gun owners become methamphetamine users?

I am a bit disappointed at the bias in this segment compared to the last one.  I guess I really shouldn't be surprised though.  After all, it's not really a structured debate, more like a vaguely moderated "discussion".

Thank you....it was difficult not to interrupt (I did get scolding for doing so...) when they started spouting BS....

Which would have been essentially from when they first opened their mouths until the show ended. Did Carlisle ever win a case in court? Or are judges and juries here stupid enough to get sidetracked by red herrings and straw men and... just plain nonsense?

Thanks for putting yourself in a difficult position and maintaining your cool, though I think a couple of times I may been reading your mind... and it wasn't pretty... or was that my mind? 

Yup theres a process involved to correct the problem.   Nevermind the time you have to spend to correct this "problem" that shouldn't even be a problem.  Guilty until proven innocent!!!!

Man I seen chris biting his tongue a lot to not make remarks, im surprised he never bit it off!!!
Great job guys, thanks for the representation.

It did seem like the moderator was selecting which questions to ask and avoid.  Next time we should submit twice as many questions so they run out of questions to ask and have a pile of "uh should we even ask these" questions.

There were definitely a lot of pro-2A questions they avoided like the plague. When I was on the show in 2011 the producer said they saw heavier question traffic than on any other show. One of the techs giving the pieces of paper to the moderator said essentially the same thing tonight.

I applaud you and your patience.

 If it were me, I would have grabbed the mod by the neck and choked him out, then proceed to punch Peter and Louie in their vaginas.

I almost snorted my good whiskey out of my nose...."punch them in their vaginas..." good one!

Thank you for the clarification.
When did responsible gun owners become methamphetamine users?

I am a bit disappointed at the bias in this segment compared to the last one.  I guess I really shouldn't be surprised though.  After all, it's not really a structured debate, more like a vaguely moderated "discussion".

That is one of the problems with the structure of this show...folks can spew out incorrect "facts" and they appear to be legitimate because you can rarely counter with real facts.