The plantation mentality. Generations have been raised on it. It's why the dimocrats have been in power for 50 years. Keep your head down, don't make waves or you'll piss off the boss. Take what they give and don't complain, remember to say thank you so they don't feel like you're ungrateful.
If Ige were to declare all guns illegal tomorrow these people would be down at the firearms division 15 minutes early to turn in their firearms, just to make sure they wouldn't be late to give up their rights.

What's sad is there are more than a few on here who would do the same, even though they talk about supporting 2A rights. 

We know who they are!

If you're guided by compromise, feelings and trust of government, you'll be in that line, too!

I don't quite understand the strategy of the government on these bans ("assault weapons" and "high capacity magazine", etc.). They must now know, from the consistent experience of other states that the compliance rate is at maximum 20%. And all those 20% are obviously law-abiding citizens. Not one criminal with a firearm, almost all of which are illegally possessed in the first place, will be turned in. So they have gotten rid of zero guns are that highly likely to be used in committing crimes. Is the hypothesis that eventually, in 50 or 100 or 200 years that the remaining guns and magazine, etc. will be turned in as the firearms are transferred to new owners upon the old-age incapacitation or death of those who illegally kept them? Or that with "only" 80% remaining in civilain hands that the rate of theft will thus be diminished by 20% and there will be 20% fewer criminals with guns?

The other side of it is that many people who believe they have a ("natural" if not "legal") right of self-defense using the best tool possible will not only not obey the "turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America" (Feinstein), but will actively create "work arounds" and obtain more of the forbidden items that will in no way be tracked in the first place (no NICS checks, 4473s, etc.). If that IS the case, there would end up being MORE not fewer (untraceable) firearms and magazines, etc. in the public sector.

And of course there will never be any causal connection to anything remotely resembling "lower crime rates" or "enhanced public safety".

I don't get it. It makes no sense. I'm tempted to put on my tinfoil hat and say "They must be up to something".

I don't quite understand the strategy of the government on these bans ("assault weapons" and "high capacity magazine", etc.). They must now know, from the consistent experience of other states that the compliance rate is at maximum 20%. And all those 20% are obviously law-abiding citizens. Not one criminal with a firearm, almost all of which are illegally possessed in the first place, will be turned in. So they have gotten rid of zero guns are that highly likely to be used in committing crimes. Is the hypothesis that eventually, in 50 or 100 or 200 years that the remaining guns and magazine, etc. will be turned in as the firearms are transferred to new owners upon the old-age incapacitation or death of those who illegally kept them? Or that with "only" 80% remaining in civilain hands that the rate of theft will thus be diminished by 20% and there will be 20% fewer criminals with guns?

The other side of it is that many people who believe they have a ("natural" if not "legal") right of self-defense using the best tool possible will not only not obey the "turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America" (Feinstein), but will actively create "work arounds" and obtain more of the forbidden items that will in no way be tracked in the first place (no NICS checks, 4473s, etc.). If that IS the case, there would end up being MORE not fewer (untraceable) firearms and magazines, etc. in the public sector.

And of course there will never be any causal connection to anything remotely resembling "lower crime rates" or "enhanced public safety".

I don't get it. It makes no sense. I'm tempted to put on my tinfoil hat and say "They must be up to something".

They are up to the same thing they were in the 70s.  There was a push to ban semi-auto handguns.  Reasoning said since they were used in most gun crimes, that would reduce crime.  It's the same faulty logic that lead to banning the Saturday Night Specials.  Ban a type of gun associated with the most shootings, you'll have the biggest reduction in shootings.

The logic is flawed, but it's irrelevant.  They use stats to confuse and lie to the public.  In reality the Sat Night Special ban caused more deaths.  People in bad areas couldn't afford new guns after the ban, so they were defenseless, and the crooks started using better guns with larger calibers.  More people died from shootings whereas before the .22 and .25 caliber Sat Night Special injuries were often survived.

So, the criminals started using Semi-auto pistols as the rounds rivaled the .38 and .357 rounds formerly favored by crooks.  So the anti-gunners went after all semis, saying "only criminals have any use for these killing machines."  Sound familiar?

But that effort failed, mainly because cops and the public started arming themselves with semis.  Once it became a commonly owned gun for self defense purposes, there was no way to have a ban pass.

Enter the "assault weapons!"  Even though the platform was around for decades, not many people were fans.  Eventually the numbers owned started to rise, and the gun grabbers targeted them.  After a few high profile shootings involving AKs and ARs/M16s, the fear mongering started again..

The goal is never to save lives, even though the blind followers believe that's the objective.  The goal is to ban as many guns at once as possible, then move on to the next type, until all guns are banned or unobtainable.

Here's the irony.  By banning the AR for 10 years, then letting the law sunset, the popularity of the gun exploded!  Now the AR is the most common rifle owned in the US, making it nearly impossible to totally ban based on the "in common use" criteria.  The antis basically created a situation that might prevent them from ever succeeding as long as we the people keep taking them to court.

I don't quite understand the strategy of the government on these bans ("assault weapons" and "high capacity magazine", etc.). They must now know, from the consistent experience of other states that the compliance rate is at maximum 20%. And all those 20% are obviously law-abiding citizens. Not one criminal with a firearm, almost all of which are illegally possessed in the first place, will be turned in. So they have gotten rid of zero guns are that highly likely to be used in committing crimes. Is the hypothesis that eventually, in 50 or 100 or 200 years that the remaining guns and magazine, etc. will be turned in as the firearms are transferred to new owners upon the old-age incapacitation or death of those who illegally kept them? Or that with "only" 80% remaining in civilain hands that the rate of theft will thus be diminished by 20% and there will be 20% fewer criminals with guns?

The other side of it is that many people who believe they have a ("natural" if not "legal") right of self-defense using the best tool possible will not only not obey the "turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America" (Feinstein), but will actively create "work arounds" and obtain more of the forbidden items that will in no way be tracked in the first place (no NICS checks, 4473s, etc.). If that IS the case, there would end up being MORE not fewer (untraceable) firearms and magazines, etc. in the public sector.

And of course there will never be any causal connection to anything remotely resembling "lower crime rates" or "enhanced public safety".

I don't get it. It makes no sense. I'm tempted to put on my tinfoil hat and say "They must be up to something".

You believe you are dealing with rational people.
Democrats are not rational, they are emotional.
Everybody on this site will obey the law.
Everybody on this site will disarm.
Even if every gun owner in Hawaii got up and used the ballot
box, they will still be defeated, like Jews in Nazi Germany.
So move or do something interesting and fight.
Passive aggression. Use legal means to kill this state.
I don't like tourists, let's chase them all off.
I don't like cops, let's pay them all $15 per hour.
make them dis-arm when off duty, and arm them with Tasers only,
on duty.  After all we don't have guns here anymore, it is the law.
You get the idea?
I could live forever, never see another cop, and live happily.

You believe you are dealing with rational people.
Democrats are not rational, they are emotional.
Everybody on this site will obey the law.
Everybody on this site will disarm.
Even if every gun owner in Hawaii got up and used the ballot
box, they will still be defeated, like Jews in Nazi Germany.
So move or do something interesting and fight.
Passive aggression. Use legal means to kill this state.
I don't like tourists, let's chase them all off.
I don't like cops, let's pay them all $15 per hour.
make them dis-arm when off duty, and arm them with Tasers only,
on duty.  After all we don't have guns here anymore, it is the law.
You get the idea?
I could live forever, never see another cop, and live happily.

I agree with some points but the bold underline is dumb.

I agree with some points but the bold underline is dumb.

A skinny little man using passive aggression took on the
British empire and beat it  by doing stupid.
That country is called India. 

A skinny little man using passive aggression took on the
British empire and beat it by doing stupid.
That country is called India.

Gandhi took leadership of the Congress in 1920 and began escalating demands until on 26 January 1930 the Indian National Congress declared the independence of India. The British did not recognise the declaration but negotiations ensued, with the Congress taking a role in provincial government in the late 1930s. Gandhi and the Congress withdrew their support of the Raj when the Viceroy declared war on Germany in September 1939 without consultation. Tensions escalated until Gandhi demanded immediate independence in 1942 and the British responded by imprisoning him and tens of thousands of Congress leaders. Meanwhile, the Muslim League did co-operate with Britain and moved, against Gandhi's strong opposition, to demands for a totally separate Muslim state of Pakistan. In August 1947 the British partitioned the land with India and Pakistan each achieving independence on terms that Gandhi disapproved.

Sounds like the British got tired of all the escalating demands, and to teach the Indian leaders a lesson, split the land, giving away some of it to Pakistan for the Muslims. 

While India finally did gain independence, it was while Ghandi had been in prison for 5 years.  Doesn't sound to me like he "beat" the British.  More like they got tired of fighting the Indian Congress (not just one skinny passive-aggressive PITA) & the Muslims, too.

I guess this:

SB 880, Hall. Firearms: assault weapons.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers. Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.
This bill would revise this definition of “assault weapon” to mean a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes. The bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

...might make a rifle with this new bullet button legal since you have to separate the receivers.




I was pondering if simply separating the lower from the upper constitutes "disassembly of the firearm action."  Then I realized, the action includes the DI or piston parts, the BCG, the upper itself (feed ramps, bolt chamber and what not), and the buffer tube assembly.  Separating the receiver  separates the buffer parts from the BCG -- disassembled!   

Sounds like the British got tired of all the escalating demands, and to teach the Indian leaders a lesson, split the land, giving away some of it to Pakistan for the Muslims. 

While India finally did gain independence, it was while Ghandi had been in prison for 5 years.  Doesn't sound to me like he "beat" the British.  More like they got tired of fighting the Indian Congress (not just one skinny passive-aggressive PITA) & the Muslims, too.

I commend on your grasp of history.
I took some shortcuts in my response,
I'm used to a less anal audience.
I'm trying to say without advocating
something illegal, a way to counter the
people of this state that are out to deprive
you of your rights, your freedom , and your life.
 
Democrats will starve without tourist money.
I don't need or want tourist money.
Cops will kill you in order to keep their
well paying jobs, Since all they do is kill,
clean up messes, and write revenue generating
citations, I don't need them either.

If Oahu gets tired of the Big island and sets us free,
that would be a blessing.

Happy 4th!  I'm shooting black powder, doing it
safe and legal.

You had to figure someone would get one of these up re the California "Gunpocalypse" bills. Here it is:

You had to figure someone would get one of these up re the California "Gunpocalypse" bills. Here it is:

Hey Puna guy, PM me. We have work to do.
Nice video but spelling and grammar won't  do.
Lets kill the Democrats. "kill"  is a metaphor for you
anal Oahu guys.
I will not comply.