A couple of weeks ago, myself and another instructor for LIFE hosted several Republican legislators at the range.....so I can say I have a pretty good idea about those individuals. Now, what do we do about the others who don't fill out a questionaire or don't have a voting track record that we can evaluate??

Of course it was midweek during the day, which meant I had to take time off work, and run home to get the firearms and ammo. So, if anyone here wants to help with similar efforts, just let me know. I hear a lot of what "we" should do but I don't often see an lot of action by those telling "us" what "we" should do. So come on, all you "real deals" out there that seem to have an answer for everything, especially those that have been involved in the shooting sports for "years" as some have claimed....Let's see you out walking the talk.

LIFE has a standing offer to Legislators and their office staff to attend the class for free, and we have had several attend. It is one of the many ways we actively participate in the efforts to "normalize" guns and gun-owners here in Hawaii. LIFE, HRA, and HDF spends a lot of time and effort trying their respective best to better our current situation on multiple fronts and it is frustrating to hear all the complaints about what we don't do. I guess that's why I get a lttle short with all the whinners out there (especially those that profess to be the "real deal" and to have been involved in firearms in Hawaii for "years." I guess those folks just don't realize that if they had truely been involved for years then they have just as much culpability for the current condition of Hawaii's gun laws as the legislators. After all, if they had been doing something, certainly they, in their infinite wisdom should have been able to change things for the better by now, right?)
[rant off]

So here's a deal for you...you arrange a Legislative Range day, that would include a reasonable number of Legislators promising to come out to shoot, and I will use one of the LIFE funshoot dates to facilitate the event. Ball's in your court.......

Find me the politician, ill provide the ammo and instruction wed-friday... during working hours. I raise your challenge with a challenge .

On a side note, there is definitely a lack of support for guns here -- even from 'pro-gun' people.  My list of people I can call on is small, maybe about 20 people.   I've got projects and ideas out the ass, but I really need good quality people to show up and help.  I can't even get people I work and train with to leave a positive review on yelp, which would take all of five to ten minutes.  I would like to point out that there are people that are helping physically, computer based, monetary support etc, and for this we are very appreciative.   There are however those sitting on the sidelines just observing; it is those people who we really encourage to help out the movement.  I mean there are lots of small tasks, things like clicking on a google+ button, liking a page on facebook, sharing out or retweeting our twitter messages; printing, signing, and mailing a letter which we prepare for you (really easy stuff) most people have NO idea how much this stuff helps.

I don't want to discourage anyone, or sound ungrateful at all.  Doing this whole thing has been an experience, and very taxing.  From research and practical application I understand and realize that only about 3-5% of a donor base (or membership) will be active or participate in the functions.  I think this is something people overlook.  We have come leaps and bounds over the last year - it's pretty amazing!

I want to leave this little bit of information from a training slide I was reviewing the other night ( sadly, I actually spend countless hours studying how to study things =P and make things better).

•76% of givers are motivated by friends and
family, says Cone

• 65% of internet users trust friends and user
forums more than any other media*

• These people are experts at speaking about
your cause to their friends and family

We (the users) are the path to make this work. We can really do so by just talking about it to everyone.

I think the original question came off a little obnoxiously and we really need to stop doing that to each other. We could have easily pointed out the incident and brought the issue to discussion here civily, rather than planting the seeds to alienate each other down the line (See: replies in Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club tournament).

I think the original question came off a little obnoxiously and we really need to stop doing that to each other. We could have easily pointed out the incident and brought the issue to discussion here civily, rather than planting the seeds to alienate each other down the line (See: replies in Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club tournament).

This.  For what it's worth, I try to stay out of these pro-gun pissing matches.  Sometimes people piss me off on here or the HDF facebook page, and I've found it's much more satisfying and probably productive to go vent my frustration and desire to argue on somebody else's page.  I'm a fan of trolling Planned Parenthood, the Brady Bedwetters, or the comments section of just about any news article about guns by a news outlet in California or New York.  Give it a try, it's lots of fun, and doesn't cause hate and discontent in the Hawaii 2-A movement.

Cool HiCarry -- thanks for sharing your experience.  I don't know much about the legislature outreach scene by the HRA, HDF, etc as I've never been to one but I would be willing to help.  I don't know what would get a majority of legislators to the range but I could personally probably get one or two to go.  I am not one of those who claim to be the "real deal" and for sure has not had "many years" in the scene, but I am one who has recently come to truly love this activity and would be happy to share the joys of shooting with legislators (and non-legislators) that I know.

No one can do this on their own.  Reaching out only to Republican legislators is reaching out to a very small minority.  I am thinking that folks reaching out to the Democratic and Independent legislators might be a good way to reach out to a more mainstream audience. Can you imagine the Republican legislators calling out the Democratic legislators and having a friendly (or not so friendly) target competition at the range?   Now that would require some changing of minds.

Thanks. We can always use someone who is willing to do the ground work necessary to push our goals. And, the idea of a "friendly" target competition is a great one.

I think the original question came off a little obnoxiously and we really need to stop doing that to each other. We could have easily pointed out the incident and brought the issue to discussion here civily, rather than planting the seeds to alienate each other down the line (See: replies in Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club tournament).

I agree. And will add that we also need to get these negative and devisive folks to either step up to the plate or to STFU....I just find it increadibly frustrating to spend 10-20 hours, or more, a week trying to facilitate change and rally the pro-gun community only to have folks that claim to have been involved for "years" (and have absolutely no history of activism or advocacy in this arena) find fault with whatever we do. Or, to have some new guy who thinks it's OK to be a dick to someone who has been around for years actually doing things for our gun community. We all tend to be strong-willed individualists but we need to try to be more respectful of each other and all the time and effort others have put into this effort. No one, especially not me, is saying we don't need new blood or a different approach to how we do things, because we do. But, we also need to be aware of what has happened before so we don't make the same mistakes.

So, if my "challenge" was seen as a "pissing match" or part of the undesirable obnoxiousness, I apologize. But, the intent of the message is unchange. Don't just bitch or find fault with what others are doing. If you're not satisfied, join the effort to make improvements. Don't purposefully try to discredit or fractionate the groups we have. We all need to stay focused on the goal, and be supportive of everyone trying to help. Anything else is destructive to the cause and should be seen as detrimental as any campaign by the anti crowd.

So I think the point here is: Yes, HRA endorsing Karl Rhodes was a mistake (who's to blame at this point is irrelevant since we already know what the problem is) - now, how to mitigate or eliminate the chances of repeating this mistake in the future?

I'll admit, I don't have an answer. I'm sure it's not the first time it's occured either, given HRA's extensive history in politics. Maybe there really is no definitive answer? I mean, how can you coax a person in a political position to return your self-evaluation sheet? Let's discuss!

So I think the point here is: Yes, HRA endorsing Karl Rhodes was a mistake (who's to blame at this point is irrelevant since we already know what the problem is) - now, how to mitigate or eliminate the chances of repeating this mistake in the future?

I'll admit, I don't have an answer. I'm sure it's not the first time it's occured either, given HRA's extensive history in politics. Maybe there really is no definitive answer? I mean, how can you coax a person in a political position to return your self-evaluation sheet? Let's discuss!

It was suggested that a better approach would be not to make endorsements until a candidate actually has a track record.  I think that's short-sighted.  HRA has a responsibility not only to support proven 2A allies, but to assist new 2A allies in gaining positions of political power.

Most candidates, at least those with an actual chance at winning an election, understand that misrepresenting their position to a special interest group can be political suicide.  They should also understand that special interest groups whose issues they agree with should be courted.  So, from the "logical and common sense" perspective, the questionnaire is a pretty reasonable and overall reliable tool.

That being said, the questionnaire system has failed us before, and will certainly fail us again.  Percentage-wise, it works well, but no one comes crowing about the successes.  Those pro-2A politicians that are in office?  Betcha HRA endorsed every one of them.

I can think of several ways to vet candidates' claims.  They all involved time, energy, and some involve expense.  The easiest would be to put a private detective firm on retainer, and sic them on every new candidate.  Pay them to find out if the candidate owns guns, is part of any gun clubs, is an active shooter, is a member of any pro (or anti) gun organizations, has a family history with guns, etc.  Shouldn't cost more than a few hundred $$$ per candidate, and there aren't but a couple of hundred new candidates to check every election cycle.  Surely it's worth $100,000 to prevent one bad recommendation?

Or maybe that money has better uses: helping finance lawsuits, providing scholarships to young shooters, donating to proven political allies. 

Well, then, we don't pay for the detective work, we do it ourselves.  Couldn't take more than 20 hours per candidate, right?  Say 4,000 hours per election cycle?  A full-time job is 2,080 hours a year.  We're talking about 2 years of person-hours.  HRA has a large membership, but where the rubber hits the road, there aren't very many folks to call on.  Funtimes says he can call on 20 people.  Shall we assign them each 200 hours of investigation?  And how do we know we can rely on the findings of these volunteers?  Who vets them?

Is the system as it stands flawed?  Certainly.  Is it broken?  No.  Is it so bad that the solution is worth the cost?  I don't think so.  But I would SO love to be proved wrong.  I really am looking forward to a solution that is practical.

Bill -- obviously I don't think your challenge was a pissing match. I'm just challenging you to find me politicians to teach .   You already have those connections, no need for me to build a bridge when there is one 50 yards down the stream =).

Thanks. We can always use someone who is willing to do the ground work necessary to push our goals. And, the idea of a "friendly" target competition is a great one.

I think a top shot legislator award would be great to award every year.

What Dana White did for MMA by taking it from an "underground" type event into the mainstream consciousness is something we could model. Could this be made more as an enjoyable regular Joe/Jane type activity instead of it being viewed like an activity of folks on one end of a political spectrum?

Bill -- obviously I don't think your challenge was a pissing match. I'm just challenging you to find me politicians to teach .   You already have those connections, no need for me to build a bridge when there is one 50 yards down the stream =).

No problem...I wasn't talking about your statement and was simply replying to other statements that sometimes these discussions tend to become pissing matches when they should be more collaborative and seek to find solutions instead of finding fault. We're good....and you can use my bridge anytime....Thanks!

Tom - Well said.

Maybe maybe not only send out questionaires for candinancy. How about have the canidates come down to the range and have them run the manual of arms of different firearms that might tell us he really into 2A