bruh
a keyboard constitutional scholar in the kettle calling others black...

Careful, you are going to awake the keyboard constitutional scholars.

In all seriousness though, your points aren't wrong but the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction so legislating your suggestions meets quick challenge.

lul
could the keyboard constitutional scholar please show me where anywhere in the constitution, bill of rights, or in the amendments where it says you need to get into a "level of distinction"

Careful, you are going to awake the keyboard constitutional scholars.

In all seriousness though, your points aren't wrong but the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction so legislating your suggestions meets quick challenge.

it was literally the first line of his statement
he said his first name, spelled his last name, and said he owned a gun shop
you are either not very observant, or a really bad liar
both are not good traits in someone who works in law enforcement...

I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?

Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.

bruh
a keyboard constitutional scholar in the kettle calling others black...

Allow me to translate for you.

"In all seriousness though..." means I was making a joke.

please show me where i said i never forget any details of anything i watch...

I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?

Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.

you really need to focus if you want to advance up the ladder at HPD...

I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?

Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.

it's not about the accent or not
it's whether the speaker that had the accent was kit
#nuance

I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?

Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.

lul
could the keyboard constitutional scholar please show me where anywhere in the constitution, bill of rights, or in the amendments where it says you need to get into a "level of distinction"

The constitution wasn't written in a way that clearly answered every single question that would come up. Case law is full of laws and actions by the government which turn into levels of distinction. The constitution doesn't mention distinctions but they are inherently necessary.  Absolutism as an ideal does not work in practice, lines have to be drawn somewhere on so many issues for a system to succeed. That doesn't mean you can torture the bill of rights to draw out anything you want but it also doesn't mean distinctions can never be made.

please show me where i said i never forget any details of anything i watch...

For you to criticize me for not remembering the part where he introduced himself suggests you must have much greater memory. Maybe you don't though, maybe you are just being hypocritical?

that's not what you said
i thought you said you don't lie often
you said that the 2nd amendment needs to have "levels of distinction" or else it will face challenge...

The constitution wasn't written in a way that clearly answered every single question that would come up. Case law is full of laws and actions by the government which turn into levels of distinction. The constitution doesn't mention distinctions but they are inherently necessary.  Absolutism as an ideal does not work in practice, lines have to be drawn somewhere on so many issues for a system to succeed. That doesn't mean you can torture the bill of rights to draw out anything you want but it also doesn't mean distinctions can never be made.

it only suggests that you made a statement (that was wrong) without carefully studying the material you are speaking about
it has nothing to do with me being hypocritical nor that i have a photographic memory...

For you to criticize me for not remembering the part where he introduced himself suggests you must have much greater memory. Maybe you don't though, maybe you are just being hypocritical?

that's not what you said
i thought you said you don't lie often
you said that the 2nd amendment needs to have "levels of distinction" or else it will face challenge...

I said " the text of the 2nd amendment really doesn't get into that level of distinction"

If you are going to call my a liar you shouldn't lie about what I said to support your allegation Just saying.

What are you even trying to argue here?

I think the issue is not the fate of the CCW who doesn't know what he is doing but the fate of those around him who get hurt by said person's actions.

I fully agree that any individual wanting to carry a firearm should seek training. The con to not requiring training is that we then have to rely on social pressure/culture to convince CCW holders to get training on their own.

Personally I am on the fence on this issue. I have given quite a bit of thought to how you could strongly incentivize training without having to pull the trigger on letting the government start putting in more requirements.

In Japan during covid everyone wore masks all over the place, but it was never actually a law, The Japanese just did it out of respect and responsibility.

I think I qualify as a "master scientist". In my studies, the biggest, lingering question is: "What causes crime?" The science was invented around 100 years ago, since then, no one has been able to answer the question definitively.

However, there seems to be two common factors for crime: 1) Population density; 2) Socio-cultural factors impacting behavior. The more people there are in a geographical area and the weaker the social bonds of society at large, the more crime there will be. We have more than 330,000,000 people in America, most of which are packed into a few zip codes per state. To make matters worse, a lack of social bonds, accountability, and unity towards 'healthy' common goals in the general populous of America are really the driving forces behind our crime rates. We are literally battling for the polar extremes in this country rather than a sensible middle ground and that is a good indicator we're falling apart from the inside.

Despite the Japanese having some "curious" sub/microcultures, I think the Japanese macroculture as a whole would probably lead to less crime than rates seen in America assuming they owned the same amount of guns as we do.

I just love his IG post in response he blame the public vs saying sorry.

Another phrase you use frequently but don't seem to understand the meaning...

It doesn't need to go on and on, you make it go on and on. I was perfectly content with your explanation that you knew he understood english well despite the accent.

And yet here you are trying to justify yourself.  InB4 Goalpost moving.

And before we throw up our arms in the air and cry "But innocents could get hurt or killed" let me say this.

Yes.  It could.  We are all looking for solutions but we all know deep inside there is no magic scenario that will protect everyone.  The best we can do is find the solution that doesn't trample on rights or the constitution.

HI CCW holders got the training APPROVED by HPD. Yet the Retail Merchants of Hawaii state that this isn't good enough, because you cannot mimic real life stress.  So no training will be "guud enuff" and like someone here, goal post will be moved as each requirement is met.

Same org said they rather see an active shooter not be stopped by a CCW holder, but rather by HPD. Which means wait till help arrives and teh shooter will keep killing until that happens.

I watched the video, I just don't recall the part where they introduced themselves, therefore I don't recall which one of them was kit. That's not goal post moving, I am just answering your question about how I could have watched the video and not know which one Kit is.

He spelled his name.

Instead of goal post moving, now denying something happened.

I hardly ever lie so feel free to scold me for not paying close enough attention to his introduction. Is this really worth this many replies over such a simple question of whether he had the accent or not?

Credit to your ability to never forget any details of anything you watch though.

Yes, because this shows you're wrong again.

HI CCW holders got the training APPROVED by HPD. Yet the Retail Merchants of Hawaii state that this isn't good enough, because you cannot mimic real life stress.  So no training will be "guud enuff" and like someone here, goal post will be moved as each requirement is met.

Same org said they rather see an active shooter not be stopped by a CCW holder, but rather by HPD. Which means wait till help arrives and teh shooter will keep killing until that happens.

Retail Merchants of Hawaii:

The perfect epitome of "Silence of the LAMBS."

No wonder lamb chops are so tender and delicious.  Well, tender anyway.

It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...

I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.

My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.

Just my 2 cents

I see. So if a woman who wants to carry a firearm because her ex husband has made credible threats to her life, she should be prevented from carrying unless she can meet certain arbitrary requirements?

When she is murdered in cold blood because she didn’t have the means to protect herself will that be something you still support? That’s a wild interpretation of “shall not be infringed”.