I have a wait and see attitude about Tulsi.

Ditto….

Tweet

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
@TulsiPress
The stakes are too high to allow politics to get in the way of Congress taking action to pass common sense gun safety legislation. I’ve cosponsored bills to close the gun show loophole, ban assault weapons, require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun & more.”

Glad she “changed her mind” read “ lined her pockets”
From both sides of the till.
Least now it’s our side.

What will she do for Hawaii 2A ?
Any bets ?

This is why our local 2a community is fractured.
Once a person is anti 2a they can never be pro 2a. Mindsets are cast in stone. Don't welcome them or have a dialogue.
<signing out>

I have seen celebs use guns just like that to make movies, then state no one needs a weapon of war.

Shes been called out a lot by many after her leaving the dnc vid. Until she comes out and says she was wrong to support the AWB bills or that she was wrong about "assault rilfes", you shouldnt automatically trust her.

Funny how she has yet to mention this.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

This is why our local 2a community is fractured.
Once a person is anti 2a they can never be pro 2a. Mindsets are cast in stone. Don't welcome them or have a dialogue.
<signing out>

Wow. Generalize (and overstate) much?

Exactly why is "our local 2a community... fractured"? Let me guess: some people don't hold the same views about various issues as you?

My "mindset" (aka rational skepticism) is based upon 10 years of personal experience dealing with Gabbard (my representative)/her staff on numerous 2A pieces of legislation that she either co-sponsored or supported.

I'd love to see the "dialogue" with Gabbard wherein she explains, in detail, exactly how she was wrong about all those 2A issues in the past, and what evidence (that always existed... there's nothing new re "assault weapons" or "gun show loophole" or "the dangers of CCW", etc.) she has now interpreted as meaning the exact opposite of how she interpreted that evidence just a short time (January 2021) ago. Where is that dialogue? Please post a link to it. Thanks.

Even then... "deeds, not words".

I'd love to see the "dialogue" with Gabbard wherein she explains, in detail, exactly how she was wrong about all those 2A issues in the past, and what evidence (that always existed... there's nothing new re "assault weapons" or "gun show loophole" or "the dangers of CCW", etc.) she has now interpreted as meaning the exact opposite of how she interpreted that evidence just a short time (January 2021) ago. Where is that dialogue? Please post a link to it. Thanks.
Even then... "deeds, not words".

Close as I can find in less than 1 minute.
“Protecting our freedom to defend ourselves and those we love and protecting our rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution against a tyrannical power is exactly why we must insure that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” she stated.
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/10/gabbard-quits-democrats-in-blistering-critique-with-strong-2a-component/#axzz7iNMj9Jb5

Close as I can find in less than 1 minute.
“Protecting our freedom to defend ourselves and those we love and protecting our rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution against a tyrannical power is exactly why we must insure that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” she stated.
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/10/gabbard-quits-democrats-in-blistering-critique-with-strong-2a-component/#axzz7iNMj9Jb5

She is talking about military/organized militia.
Not personal protection from tyrannical government like ours here in Hawaii.
Not personal protection from criminals.
Not your right to arm yourself as you see fit.

Being a devout cynic, I see blatant political opportunism from Gabbard.

No more , no less.  Do not believe her epiphany.

Close as I can find in less than 1 minute.
“Protecting our freedom to defend ourselves and those we love and protecting our rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution against a tyrannical power is exactly why we must insure that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” she stated.
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/10/gabbard-quits-democrats-in-blistering-critique-with-strong-2a-component/#axzz7iNMj9Jb5

For anyone else, one can assume the person talking supports AWs.  But since this is coming from someone who tried to ban them in the past, refer to my post above about she needs to directly address AW's before she gets more 2a support.

Like that TX rep who is from China and her village was slaughtered by the CCP. She stated no one is taking her AR or others AR's away and for her personal life example is the reason why.

Close as I can find in less than 1 minute.
“Protecting our freedom to defend ourselves and those we love and protecting our rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution against a tyrannical power is exactly why we must insure that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” she stated.
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/10/gabbard-quits-democrats-in-blistering-critique-with-strong-2a-component/#axzz7iNMj9Jb5

She said essentially the same in fewer words when she was in office voting for the "assault weapons" ban, etc.

She doesn't explain, at all, why the same evidence for all these issues, that hasn't changed one bit since she was in office calling for bans, etc. in January 2021, now leads her to conclude the exact opposite. Or maybe it's not based on the evidence at all. If not, what is it?

And, as groveler pointed out, she is talking about having arms to resist "a tyrannical power"... not personal protection against criminals.

So I still wanna see the "dialogue" where someone knowledgeable on each issue explores her seeming "transformation" in detail.  Maybe she has "good" answers that make sense and are rational. Maybe not. We don't know at this point.

What we do know is that her name is in the headlines every day. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

She is talking about military/organized militia.
Not personal protection from tyrannical government like ours here in Hawaii.
Not personal protection from criminals.
Not your right to arm yourself as you see fit.

This sure sounds like she's advocating for the people, not the military/militia, to keep and bear arms:

“Our Founders intentionally passed the Second Amendment right after the First Amendment,”
Gabbard said. “The majority ruling from the recent Supreme Court striking down New York’s
law that barred people from concealed carry firearms really summarized clearly why Democrats
are so wrong to try to take away our Second Amendment rights.”

I think she’s referring to CCW since she got denied in Hawaii through back channels, never officially applied by any accounts, and realizing she won’t have armed security her whole life.

I wonder if she applied for a CCW permit in Honolulu, or Maui, or Kauai, or the BI  (Since you need a different CCW permit for each county) since the Supreme Court decision?
Maybe she’s training to pass the qualification test. 

She voted against the reciprocity bill, presumably to “keep Hawaii safe”

She’s full of shibai.
But at least now she’s spittin’ out pro-2A crap.
Odd though that no mention of Modern Sporting Rifles aka assault rifles even though she apparently enjoys shooting them for sport.

Hope we can get her to testify before the Legislature next session.

I think she’s referring to CCW since she got denied in Hawaii through back channels, never officially applied by any accounts, and realizing she won’t have armed security her whole life.

I wonder if she applied for a CCW permit in Honolulu, or Maui, or Kauai, or the BI  (Since you need a different CCW permit for each county) since the Supreme Court decision?
Maybe she’s training to pass the qualification test. 

She voted against the reciprocity bill, presumably to “keep Hawaii safe”

She’s full of shibai.
But at least now she’s spittin’ out pro-2A crap.
Odd though that no mention of Modern Sporting Rifles aka assault rifles even though she apparently enjoys shooting them for sport.

Hope we can get her to testify before t

he Legislature next session.

I  wonder if she was ever told not to apply by the chief or their handlers because it would look bad. If she's approved, we will find out.  And it sets precedent for lawsuits as the "exceptional circumstance". If she's denied, we would find out and it would make national headlines.  She uses "trusted source" told her she would be denied. This could have even been the guys behind the window.

Haha. A lot of us were “denied” at the window when we had the CCW application drive 5 or 6 years ago to show numbers denied.
Then, sure enough, officially we all got denied.
HPD window: I don’t know why you’re applying. It’s just gonna get denied.
Us: Just submit it Jerky. 

Tulsi didn’t support squat for 2A as a lawmaker and now she’s touting the Supreme Court decision and saying the laws are unconstitutional.
 Laws she supported as a lawmaker 

This sure sounds like she's advocating for the people, not the military/militia, to keep and bear arms:

That could be true, but as an engineer such as yourself
I like specific details.
I'm sure you have been in meetings where people were screaming at each other.
or getting very DIRECT orders.
That is how things really get done.
2+2=4 is not a fact it is an agreement.
 

....
Hope we can get her to testify before the Legislature next session.

Or even just a detailed written statement to the legislature on how many of the Hawaii laws are unconstitutional and ought to be remedied ASAP by the legislature (e.g. mag capacity limits, carry license "requirements", etc., etc., etc.).

This is gonna be good.

Her father Mike jumped fences couple of times.  That's why I will wait and see.  Seems to run in the blood.

Her father Mike jumped fences couple of times.  That's why I will wait and see.  Seems to run in the blood.

I haven't checked in many months... what's his party affiliation at the moment?

That could be true, but as an engineer such as yourself
I like specific details.
I'm sure you have been in meetings where people were screaming at each other.
or getting very DIRECT orders.
That is how things really get done.
2+2=4 is not a fact it is an agreement.
 

It's always nicer when specs are spelled out for you in unambiguous terms, but often you have to take a stab at what the manuals meant -- or should have meant -- and not just what they say literally.  I refer you you to Microsoft documentation for decades of prime examples.  Never wrong, but simultaneously 100% useless.

Town Halls are held specifically so the average voter can get a straight answer to a specific question (in theory).  I think given the abundance of questions and doubts surrounding her party departure, she would be smart to hold a televised/streamed meeting so these questions can be asked and hopefully answered satisfactorily.

We shall see.

****

A helicopter was flying in downtown LA with a news crew when their electronics malfunctioned.  They were trying to locate the airport to land, but the nav system was wonky.

The cameraman pointed to a big building and said, "Let's see if we can get someone's attention over there and ask where we are to get our bearings."

So, the pilot turned toward the building, not seeing any sign of what the building might be.

They were able to  get the attention of several employees as they hovered near the top floor.  One of the crew held up a sign asking, :"Where are we?"

Several employees found some paper and held up the reply, "You're in a helicopter."

The pilot said, "That's great! I know exactly where we are now," and made a course change directly to the airport.

After landing, the cameraman asked the pilot, "How did you know where we were from that answer they gave?"

The pilot smiled and said, "The answer was short, accurate, but completely useless. It had to be the Microsoft building!"

It's always nicer when specs are spelled out for you in unambiguous terms, but often you have to take a stab at what the manuals meant -- or should have meant -- and not just what they say literally.  I refer you you to Microsoft documentation for decades of prime examples.  Never wrong, but simultaneously 100% useless.

Town Halls are held specifically so the average voter can get a straight answer to a specific question (in theory).  I think given the abundance of questions and doubts surrounding her party departure, she would be smart to hold a televised/streamed meeting so these questions can be asked and hopefully answered satisfactorily.

We shall see.

...

I never attended a Big Island "town hall" with Gabbard because I specifically asked the staff if my question would be addressed and they told me "You have to submit your question in writing and the staff will decide which questions are presented publicly." I wouldn't be surprised if the staff WROTE half the questions... smh. She's not gonna do anything that could possibly cast any light on her other than what she wants. I guess we'll see... or not.

I never attended a Big Island "town hall" with Gabbard because I specifically asked the staff if my question would be addressed and they told me "You have to submit your question in writing and the staff will decide which questions are presented publicly." I wouldn't be surprised if the staff WROTE half the questions... smh. She's not gonna do anything that could possibly cast any light on her other than what she wants. I guess we'll see... or not.

So you didn't participate because you assumed your question would not be asked?

Now you have no way of knowing if it would not have been picked.

But that's not stopping you from jumping to the accusation that her staff may have written half her questions -- without any evidence.

She and her staff get to set the rules of her meetings.  Just because you don't like the rules is no evidence anyone did anything deceitful, unlike Clinton getting the Town Hall questions in advance from then acting DNC chair Donna Brazile.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion.  It would be nice, though, if the opinion was based less on emotion and unfounded smears.