The speaker discusses Young in the context of the loss of rights in California, before a group that supports the secession of part of northern California to form a new state (Jefferson). Most of his generic remarks about the loss of rights in California apply similarly to Hawaii. He makes a few minor errors in his discussion re Young, but mostly still on point. He's calling on people to get involved and take action. One has to wonder if such pleas are more effective there than here. He mentions that there are likely at least 7 million gun owners in California (out of approximately 25 million voting age people) and yet the state is almost totally Democrat ruled, with supermajorities in both chambers and every state executive and most judicial positions held by Democrats. Almost as bad as here. Had those 7 million voted, totally different outcome in the recent election, assuming the gun owners would vote for people who supported them exercising their rights (except of course that in California only the two top vote getters in the primaries get on the final ballot, and since those gun owners don't vote in significant enough numbers, many of the choices were between one Democrat and another Democrat, both of whom hate guns and the people who want to keep and bear them). I suspect the speaker is "preaching to the choir", and that the "apathetic" will not be inspired to get involved, but I still applaud him for trying.