The way Democrats and Liberals are talked about on this forum we've alienated 80% of the State's population.
Probably a lot of people who support 2A.

It dosent matter if 100% of them support the 2A, If they vote for representatives that dont. it means nothing.

Are you saying Democrat candidates can't support 2A ?

Think about what State you're in.
Turning the State Conservative Republican is a pipe dream.

Aiea had 2 pro2A Democratic candidates running for House this last election.
NRA left me a message urging me to vote for a Democrat candidate. (Sam Kong)

To the left leaning people on this forum -- Thank you for being here and for caring enough about our individual rights as people.

To the right leaning people, thank you for being here and for being at the forefront of protecting our individual rights from those who want to take them away.

And also, thank you to the centrist / independents who bridge the gap and see both sides.

That said, there is a point here that should not be missed.

The R (right) is a MINORITY in Hawaii. The R is an important part but has little ability to make a change in the votes, considering how Hawaii votes.

I hate to say it but the left / progressive leaning Ds are the MAJORITY voters in Hawaii. Yes, the Ds are part of the problem.  MORE IMPORTANTLY, they have to be part of the solution if there is to be any change in Hawaii regarding our gun rights.

If all we do is preach to the choir (R), then there will be nothing new, same old same old.

We need to help educate the D and the undecideds, and that begins by not alienating them for other non-2a beliefs.

We need pro-2a allies on all sides, and that involves having a dialogue and showing them why 2a rights are important and why it's worth fighting for.

I support people using whatever bathroom they want to use.
#genderneutralbathroomsmatter

.

... plus we all know what's going to happen to the internet on 10/01/16, right?   

Am I missing something? What happens to the Internet on 10/1/16? I think it's a joke. (Right?) But, with all the craziness going on, something could be brewing... please enlighten me.

Am I missing something? What happens to the Internet on 10/1/16? I think it's a joke. (Right?) But, with all the craziness going on, something could be brewing... please enlighten me.

We (Meaning the U.S. Government) relinquishes control of Internet naming to ICANN. It won't really affect us directly but it could allow foreign nations such as China and Russia some influence over the Internet. Especially the DNS services. If ICANN remains independent then I can't imagine anything bad could come of this. But if they allow a country to influence their control I would guess they could possibly assert some controls over the Internet. Especially since ICANN will be headquartered in California. Be prepared for a price increase though.

Thanks Big All. I heard a little about this but I need to research some more.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

One word:  emotions.

The anti-gun, anti-2A supporters are responding to emotional pleas and calls to "do something to stop this epidemic of gun violence."  "No other developed country in the world has these kinds of mass shootings."

It's difficult to combat a "feeling" with logic, facts, and historical proof.  It's always difficult to change someone's opinion once they are convinced the anti-gun stance is correct.  If they could be swayed to accept guns as useful tools and part of an enjoyable activity/sport BEFORE they develop negative opinions, the anti-gun groups would see much less support.  Of course, that will never happen as long as the media pushes anti-gun rhetoric to keep the controversy fresh and in our faces.

I don't think it is all feelings. I think some are just tricked by anti-gun propaganda and don't bother to investigate further.

I don't think it is all feelings. I think some are just tricked by anti-gun propaganda and don't bother to investigate further.

Do you have studies, statistics or other proof of your conclusion?

Name one "trick" that isn't tied to an emotional response.  Fear is their greatest weapon, and talking about high capacity mags, weapons of war, assault weapons and wild west outcomes is pure emotional appeal.

I find it's a good experience to see what people on the far side think.  I suggest you checkout www.democraticunderground.com which is a website for the extreme <1% of the Democratic party.  See their views in the general forum on a variety of topics, and they have gun control forums too.  Comments are censored where posts are deleted, and you get suspended or banned for taking opposing views even if you are factually correct.  They are 100% for constitutional rights as long as they agree with them.

This post isn't to knock Democrats, it would be like saying all Muslims are terrorists.  We here are the 1% of gun owners, and it's a good experience to see how the opposite 1% think.  They have a lot of myths about gun owners.

Do you have studies, statistics or other proof of your conclusion?

Name one "trick" that isn't tied to an emotional response.  Fear is their greatest weapon, and talking about high capacity mags, weapons of war, assault weapons and wild west outcomes is pure emotional appeal.

No, I don't have statistical data, that is why I said THINK.

One trick is citing data that is inaccurate or out of context.

Don't underestimate your opponents by thinking their only arguments for gun control are purely emotional. And don't continue to insult them or you only push them further into their corner. Don't let your emotion get the best of you. If you want to engage your opponent in a working dialogue then you have to avoid insulting them or alienating them despite your frustration or irritation.

No, I don't have statistical data, that is why I said THINK.

One trick is citing data that is inaccurate or out of context.

Don't underestimate your opponents by thinking their only arguments for gun control are purely emotional. And don't continue to insult them or you only push them further into their corner. Don't let your emotion get the best of you. If you want to engage your opponent in a working dialogue then you have to avoid insulting them or alienating them despite your frustration or irritation.

Once again deflecting and dodging.  That's a made-up, unsupported general belief.  I asked for a specific example:  NAME ONE TRICK.  I gave you 4 specific gimmicks they use, and each is tied to an emotional description/use.

Once again deflecting and dodging.  That's a made-up, unsupported general belief.  I asked for a specific example:  NAME ONE TRICK.

That is a trick. You take statistics out of context and present them in a way that makes it seem like it means or supports something different.

You trick someone into a certain position by presenting them with an inaccurate picture.

That is a trick. You take statistics out of context and present them in a way that makes it seem like it means or supports something different.

You trick someone into a certain position by presenting them with an inaccurate picture.

Either you ARE that stupid, or you are trolling again.

Which statistic are you referring to in your answer?  Name the statistic -- you know, labels and numbers?

Either you ARE that stupid, or you are trolling again.

Which statistic are you referring to in your answer?  Name the statistic -- you know, labels and numbers?

Are you talking to a mirror? I already told you I am not referring to a specific data set. Read my post before you reply.

I am talking about a general tactic. I am not referring to a specific instance where anti-gun advocates tricked someone to their side. I am saying that this is one way in which people can be anti-gun without being emotional about it.

For someone who decries the emotion behind anti-gun advocates, you sure display a lot of emotion in your reasoning and response.

Are you talking to a mirror? I already told you I am not referring to a specific data set. Read my post before you reply.

I am talking about a general tactic. I am not referring to a specific instance where anti-gun advocates tricked someone to their side. I am saying that this is one way in which people can be anti-gun without being emotional about it.

For someone who decries the emotion behind anti-gun advocates, you sure display a lot of emotion in your reasoning and response.

I asked for a specific example, and you can't answer the question.  So, you divert and deflect by arguing the meaning of what you did post.

Typical.

I asked for a specific example, and you can't answer the question.  So, you divert and deflect by arguing the meaning of what you did post.

Typical.

I thought that you, as someone well seasoned in gun rights debate, wouldn't need a specific example. Since it happens so often and is mentioned here regularly I figured it would be preaching to the quire.

But in case you have really never noticed a gun control group misusing statistics, here is an example.
They frequently cite that 30,000 people a year are killed by firearms while neglecting to mention that 2/3rds are suicides.

Do you truly believe that they never misinform people or do you just enjoy causing a ruckus?