On face value, the “anybody but Ige and Dems” sound enticing from a 2a standpoint. However, from my dealings with Hawaiian community leaders based on my work on State DOT projects, A) that would prob be retry low on their radar and B) if you could get enough support from a group working toward the same goal/vision.

This issue certainly seems to have galvanized things in that regard. But I still believe we’re hearing from the vocal minority.

the US is going just say, "my bad" and all US Govt and State owned lands are returned as "reparations"

The terminology you are using is incorrect.  There are no reparations; just deoccupation.  The US is giving nothing material to the reinstated Hawaiian government, but the expedient withdrawal of their institutions of control.

so they can destroy the military bases and airport and harbors so that they can return the land in its' original condition...

China wouldn't have to invade, once 70% percent of the state's nation's income vanishes China will gladly step in to "help". Unfortunately for the new nation of Hawaii, China has a "no f#@ks given" attitude in regards to the current politically correct and entitlement mindset that has allowed this situation to get to its current point. Im at the point where i say f$@k it. Dont haul the tanks to port drive'em on the fed interstate as a nice gift to the newborn nation.Destroy all fed infastructure on the way out. 

so they can destroy the military bases and airport and harbors so that they can return the land in its' original condition...

What if this new monarchy wants the US infrastructure in place?
There are so many what-ifs and so many opinions, Kings & Queens that we don't know what or WHO to believe.

The illegal occupiers never "owned" any of that stuff as it was the legal property of the "kingdom" or the "republic" or "something", so they wouldn't be allowed to destroy it. Remember, the person you are "discussing" this with has already told us that "There is no dispute that the USA has no legal authority over Hawaii and that Hawaii is illegally being occupied by the USA". Case closed. Right?

so they can destroy the military bases and airport and harbors so that they can return the land in its' original condition...

What if this new monarchy wants the US infrastructure in place?
There are so many what-ifs and so many opinions, Kings & Queens that we don't know what or WHO to believe.

He seems to believe that he will be able to utilize what was built by the “occupiers” and get rid of what he doesn’t want nor need.

And who would stop us? The U.N. Or “global community”? Sure there would be “enemies” of the U.S. willing to step in and “help” but at what cost to the new republic? Just a pipe dream...... the U.S. isn’t going anywhere.

The reinstated Hawaiian government can do nothing should the US decide to take this course of action, but I am confident other friendly nations will help Hawaii to rebuild.

What if this new monarchy wants a telescope?

So be it.


Would the protestors still proclaim Mauna Kea a sacred place?

The spiritual protectors of TMT would probably still protest, but most other Hawaiians would accept the decision of their government.


AND what if this new monarchy confiscated all firearms from commoners.

That would be illegal and new legislation would need to be enacted for this to happen, as the possession of firearms was permitted during the Hawaiian Kingdom era.

You can't "reinstate" a "Hawaiian Government" as a monarchy.  Monarchies have a single individual with supreme authority.  You really think, after decades as a US state, the people of Hawaii would prefer an autocratic government over a representative one?  The people would decide -- all the people, not just descendents of so-called Ali'i.  To "reinstate" a monarchy requires a belief in elites, based on nothing other than bloodline, deserving more power over your lives than yourself.

Once a society has tasted freedom, it rarely goes back to authoritarian rule willingly.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22770/Hawaii-Gun-Carry-Ban-Legit-Because-Its-Century-Old.aspx

“Hawaii’s petition for rehearing triumphantly declares that ‘Hawaii has regulated the public carry of firearms for over 150 years,’ pointing to various enactments in 1852, 1927, and 1934,” the brief explains.

The state argues such restrictions have been widespread and longstanding.

“This is quite an assertion. … For most of Hawaii’s history, the island nation had no republican form of government – rather, it was a monarchy, ruled by kings and queens. Even after later transitioning to a constitutional monarchy, the Kingdom of Hawaii Constitution of 1840 did not recognize a right of the people to bear arms.”