How come they don't just clear the roads, but allow who ever wants to protest along the side of the road allowed?

Why would I have to "go to Mauna Kea and talk" to them to know what those people believe? Have you gone to Mauna Kea and talked to those people? Have you talked to all the people you claim oppose the TMT and are not racist? I didn't think so. But you still make statement about what they believe. I have the same capacity.

The criminals there breaking the law have made many public statements, on the record, unless you want to claim that those are all fake news and doctored videos. From many of their comments it's clear they assert a belief in supernatural entities and/or events for which there is absolutely no objective evidence at all. That's what I call superstition. That's their whole basis for their claim that that geological structure is "sacred" and therefore must not be defiled. They have no such claims about the "'aina" they lease for millions of dollars per year to Target, WalMart, Home Depot, Safeway, etc., so they apparently claim to have some ability to distinguish the sacred land from the profane land used for capitalistic profit. I asked the other day for someone to provide a detailed map of the whole island depicting exactly where the boundaries are between the sacred land and the land one inch on the other side of that boundary that is profane and may be used to profit from by leasing to non-hawaiian corporations. So far no one has provided such a map. If you have one, I'd like to see it. I'd also like to know who drew the boundaries, how they determined those were the correct boundaries, and if everyone else who claims to have supernatural experiences, including the ability to detect the sacred, all agree that those are the correct boundaries.

Anyone (likely at least some of the people up there don't fit this definition, but those that speak publicly on the subject certainly do) who claims they have a right or privilege based upon some particular genetic profile (aka "blood quantum") that exceeds the rights or privileges of people not having the same genetic profile, is, by definition racist. They're claiming their "race" entitles them to something more than people who are not of that "race". And that's exactly what those people are claiming. All the legal hoops have been successfully navigated by TMT. All the legal maneuvers by the superstitious racists have failed. Now they claim the superlegal right to break the law because of their genetic profile, making them above the law that would apply to anyone else. Anyone here really think that if a group of 2A open carry advocates blocked any public street because our right to carry is obviously violated by the state/counties of Hawaii that we'd still be sitting in the street 9 days later? We'd be removed, arrested, and possibly jailed within 10 minutes. I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that what is happening, allowing them to continue to violate the law, could be anything but preferential treatment based upon their claimed "race" and their claimed victimhood as such.

A poll (https://www.scribd.com/document/374711098/The-Hawaii-Poll-March-2018-TMT#download&from_embed) showed that, among voters, the total public favors the TMT by 77%, to 15% oppose, to 7% undecided. Among people who identified as Hawaiian it was 72% support, 23% oppose, 5% undecided. If you have a more recent poll, or one with a better methodology, please share it with us.

How about ...

Officials said those arrested for firearms violations would be processed in one of two ways.
They would either be taken to the Mauna Loa Access Road, Kamehameha Hwy and   written a ticket and released.
But if they choose  , they could also be physically arrested and taken to Hilo  Beretania St  for processing."

Why would I have to "go to Mauna Kea and talk" to them to know what those people believe? Have you gone to Mauna Kea and talked to those people? Have you talked to all the people you claim oppose the TMT and are not racist? I didn't think so. But you still make statement about what they believe. I have the same capacity.

I live and work with a number of people who are protesting TMT.  Most are not superstitious racists.


The criminals there breaking the law have made many public statements, on the record, unless you want to claim that those are all fake news and doctored videos. From many of their comments it's clear they assert a belief in supernatural entities and/or events for which there is absolutely no objective evidence at all. That's what I call superstition. That's their whole basis for their claim that that geological structure is "sacred" and therefore must not be defiled. They have no such claims about the "'aina" they lease for millions of dollars per year to Target, WalMart, Home Depot, Safeway, etc., so they apparently claim to have some ability to distinguish the sacred land from the profane land used for capitalistic profit. I asked the other day for someone to provide a detailed map of the whole island depicting exactly where the boundaries are between the sacred land and the land one inch on the other side of that boundary that is profane and may be used to profit from by leasing to non-hawaiian corporations. So far no one has provided such a map. If you have one, I'd like to see it. I'd also like to know who drew the boundaries, how they determined those were the correct boundaries, and if everyone else who claims to have supernatural experiences, including the ability to detect the sacred, all agree that those are the correct boundaries.

Anyone (likely at least some of the people up there don't fit this definition, but those that speak publicly on the subject certainly do) who claims they have a right or privilege based upon some particular genetic profile (aka "blood quantum") that exceeds the rights or privileges of people not having the same genetic profile, is, by definition racist. They're claiming their "race" entitles them to something more than people who are not of that "race". And that's exactly what those people are claiming. All the legal hoops have been successfully navigated by TMT. All the legal maneuvers by the superstitious racists have failed. Now they claim the superlegal right to break the law because of their genetic profile, making them above the law that would apply to anyone else. Anyone here really think that if a group of 2A open carry advocates blocked any public street because our right to carry is obviously violated by the state/counties of Hawaii that we'd still be sitting in the street 9 days later? We'd be removed, arrested, and possibly jailed within 10 minutes. I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that what is happening, allowing them to continue to violate the law, could be anything but preferential treatment based upon their claimed "race" and their claimed victimhood as such.

The people doing the talking on Mauna Kea are not 100% representative as to all of the reasons of why the protests to TMT are occurring.  Also, the statements being shared with the population via the media are only what those who are doing the reporting want the population to hear.

Also, the statements being shared with the population via the media are only what those who are doing the reporting want the population to hear.

I live and work with a number of people who are protesting TMT.  Most are not superstitious racists.

So that (not superstitious) means they do not believe or think that Mauna Kea, or some specific portion of it is "sacred", correct?.So they aren't arguing that TMT can't happen there because it violates some superstitious "sacred" claim. And that (not racist) means that they do not believe people of a certain genetic profile have any more right or privilege to determine what happens in a disputed "land use" issue, correct? There could be no argument at all that had anything to do with "hawaiian" or "japanese" or "eskimo" or "african", etc., as only a racist would claim race had any bearing whatsoever. Since the legal and regulatory issues have been adjudicated to the level of the Hawaii State Supreme Court, TWICE, and the TMT won the land use issue (which is clearly what this is) cases, what, do tell, is their objection based upon? What other land use issues do they also object to, since there are dozens of them being decided every day throughout the state? And what are their arguments in  those cases?


The people doing the talking on Mauna Kea are not 100% representative as to all of the reasons of why the protests to TMT are occurring. 

I never said they were. In fact I made the very allowance that not all the people there likely held the same views as the public speakers. As per my above comment, why don't you tell us what the non-superstitious non-racist objections are to the land use issues not covered in all prior litigation?

Also, the statements being shared with the population via the media are only what those who are doing the reporting want the population to hear.

That might be true. However, even if it is true it doesn't invalidate the content in any of those public statements that we DO hear, which are largely superstitious and/or racist in nature, to one degree or another. Unless you want to claim that either the public statements are either fabricated by the media or that those people are double agents planted to make the lawbreaking crowd appear as superstitious and racists when in fact they are not. So are you also claiming that the social media presence of the groups, wherein they make various superstitious and racists claims, are also "only what those who are [running social media sites] want the population to hear"?

Perhaps it would help us all if you could print a simple list of all the reasons people oppose the TMT that have nothing to do with any superstitious or racist doctrines or beliefs, but that solely address the previously lititgated land use issues.

I find it interesting that the far right is in agreement with the far left on this whole TMT thing.

I find it interesting that people here (2A advocates) are looking at polls on what the "voting public" agrees with.  (wonder what said poll would say about legal gun owners in Hawaii?)

I find it interesting that people that agree that the Constitution of the United States that says that we all have a right to arms that "shall not be infringed",  yet assert that peoples aught not protest because someone's belief is in a supernatural or sacred place, and has no right to refuse desecration of that place, just because they seem to be "superstitious" to them.   Then boom that race card.....    Is that not a little hypocritical??

Let me say I am not opposed to research and discovery, and not opposed to the TMT in itself, but in the big picture, there is no significant reason to fight the indigenous people of Hawaii over a stupid ass telescope.  I say respect that.  Who is anyone else to say otherwise?

This should be a perfect opportunity to effect change in this state's political climate, and push pro 2A candidates.  The left has clusterfucked this state to the point real change is possible.  But many are preoccupied with a telescope that will have very minimal economic or practical value for anyone on these islands.

You try to grandstand on the Constitution, then say "indigenous people" as if that is a recognized group with special power and rights.

The indigenous people of Hawaii are NO DIFFERENT than any other resident. We are all CITIZENS of the state, and CITIZENS of the US.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Unless, and until, there is a legal recognition of Hawaiian self-rule, then the answer to your question: "Who is anyone else to say otherwise?"
would be: "The people".  That means ALL the people.

Protestors can protest, but blocking roads is not protesting.  It's interfering with lawful use of public roads.  PERIOD.

its not about polls, it not about the legal process, its not about any one race or culture
its about that $50 million a year paycheck.
If they created a Telescope Authority that would dole out funds to certain organizations and have an appointed director with a salary commensurate with the project's costs, the protests would go away.

You are right, they are citizens of this state and American, if they say they are or not.  That means they have the right to peacefully protest.  If they are not blocking the road, and not being violent, they are fully within their rights.    People that were blocking or causing problems were arrested.  Anyone else has a right to protest. 
I am not "grandstanding" anything. 

You all are being hypocrites, and not for a real purpose, other than to whine like the left does.

Actually, making a point that "there is no significant reason to fight the indigenous people of Hawaii", then saying the issue isn't "racist" is hypocritical, if not dishonest.

You can't fight for the Hawaiian people and discount racial discrimination in the same argument.

You are the one interjecting any racial connotations in this discussion.  Who said that everyone protesting is Hawaiian or of Hawaiian decent?
 

I find it interesting that the far right is in agreement with the far left on this whole TMT thing.

**** Do you have any specifics to support that claim? I've seen tweets from Bernie Sanders and Ellizabeth Warren supporting "hawaiians" breaking the law. What "far right" people or groups support the lawbreakers?

I find it interesting that people here (2A advocates) are looking at polls on what the "voting public" agrees with.  (wonder what said poll would say about legal gun owners in Hawaii?)

**** Uh... there is no Constitutionally-protected right to build or prevent the building of a telescope. Way beyond apples and oranges. Or do you agree that if people need a license to drive a car they should be required to have a similar license to possess firearms? Anyone is free to protest against the unconstitutional infringing Hawaii "gun laws" in any way they want, at any time... however, if they break any currently existing laws, like blocking a public roadway, they will likely be removed and arrested. Why wouldn't those blocking a road for some other reason be treated likewise?

I find it interesting that people that agree that the Constitution of the United States that says that we all have a right to arms that "shall not be infringed",  yet assert that peoples aught not protest because someone's belief is in a supernatural or sacred place, and has no right to refuse desecration of that place, just because they seem to be "superstitious" to them.   Then boom that race card.....    Is that not a little hypocritical??

**** Man, you are really twisting things. On purpose? Where did I ever say that "peoples aught [sic] not protest"? Never said it. Never implied it. Never thought it. Don't believe it. Anyone can protest anything at any time... however, if their actions in protesting violate existing laws, those people should be held accountable for their lawbreaking, and not given a pass because of their superstitions or racist beliefs (nor for any other reason: e.g. old, frail, diminished capacity, difficult childhood, etc.) that they, and apparently other think "justify" their lawbreaking to the point of not enforcing the law. "...aught not protest because someone's belief is in a supernatural or sacred place..." Same thing. Never said it, etc. They can protest for whatever "reasons" they have, or no reason at all. Go ahead. But if you break the law don't expect someone to not enforce the law because you believe that what you believe puts you above the law. How is it "hypocritical" to point out that people expect to be treated differently and according to different standards because they make a racial claim as part of the basis for their lawbreaking. Yeah, yeah, I know, "the people saying that don't represent everyone blah blah blah..." But many of the public speakers express that... they're "owed" a certain kind of elevated special treatment. They said it, not me. They're basing it on race. Basing differences in treatment upon race, well, that's racism.

Let me say I am not opposed to research and discovery, and not opposed to the TMT in itself, but in the big picture, there is no significant reason to fight the indigenous people of Hawaii over a stupid ass telescope.  I say respect that.  Who is anyone else to say otherwise?

**** "Who is anyone else to say otherwise?" Uh, every single person is entitled to both their opinion, just like you, and entitled to state their opinion publicly, just like you. You think that only certain people can have opinions on this issue, or valid opinions? Let me modify what you wrote just a little: "...there is no significant reason to fight the telescope over the stupid ass indigenous people of Hawaii. I say respect that." Just another opinion, using your words to frame it. See what I mean? It's really only a land use dispute, and should only be adjudicated on those grounds. It's certain people who claim that there are other reasons, ahem, that their views should prevail and all those arguments have failed, so they break the law with impunity due to the chickenshit nature of the Democrat socialists incompetently administering this place.

This should be a perfect opportunity to effect change in this state's political climate, and push pro 2A candidates.  The left has clusterfucked this state to the point real change is possible.  But many are preoccupied with a telescope that will have very minimal economic or practical value for anyone on these islands.

Yes.  Go look it up if you don't believe it has been dragging on that long.  The government will not be able to out wait the protesters.
If you cannot out wait them and the road needs to be opened, what do you suggest if you cannot use force?  You cannot reason with or convince them to let it get built.

In any case, this shows that the government is powerless to try and confiscate guns in America.  So all the Democrats who want to repeal the 2A or outright take guns, lots of luck.

If they want to protest, fine. I support their right, however when they start blocking roads and harassing people etc, then I draw the line. Do we need TMT with Hubble and Keck at our disposal? Not qualified to speculate but seems to me maybe we don’t need the TMT.