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”.

sounds familiar.

Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023

I hardly ever lie ...

LOL!  Now we need a decoder to know when it's "hardly ever".

Maybe you can add a numeric value at the end of your sentences, something like 1 to 10, just to give us a degree of confidence in the honesty of your post?

That would be great!

1 = a complete lie
10 = absolutely true

Or, just leave it up to us to know when you're lying. 

"Hardly ever" only applies because you don't count false statements you believed to be true.

sounds familiar.

Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023

Yup. Also the lady in New Jersey who applied for a firearm permit and was murdered in her driveway because the state took too long to process her permit. But hey some people think that your rights stop where their feelings begin.

sounds familiar.

Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023

Many years ago, there was a lawsuit about this delay.  But the woman was killed and the lawsuit was declared over since she was dead.

"I hardly ever lie "

Like
I hardly ever steal
I hardly ever cheat on my wife
I hardly ever kill
I hardly ever blaspheme
I hardly ever dishonor my mother and father
etc . . ?

"I always tell the truth, even when I lie"

sounds familiar.

Another Shooting today (Friday)- Parking lot of Bank of Hawaii Pearlridge Dec 22 2023

Yup. Also the lady in New Jersey who applied for a firearm permit and was murdered in her driveway because the state took too long to process her permit. But hey some people think that your rights stop where their feelings begin.

Many years ago, there was a lawsuit about this delay.  But the woman was killed and the lawsuit was declared over since she was dead.

All of this in the interest of public safety.  They lie. 

Public disarmament.  Firearm bans.  Firearms only for US military and Federal and State, local Law Enforcement.

Now this is the truth.^^  Public safety was all smoke and mirrors.  Until LE can guarantee protection of every US citizen all of these laws and restrictions are lies.

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”.

Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:

Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.

Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?

And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...

Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:

Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.

Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?

And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...

remember 1992 and the Los Angeles riots?
and remember the rooftop Koreans?
the Koreans probably did not have a permit for their AK47's and SKS rifles and whatever else they had.  but they were not the lawless part of this story.  it was the rioters that were the lawless ones. if the Koreans were not armed, they probably would have got killed or at least their businesses burnt to the ground
it took the National guards at least a few days to come in and stop the riots
you would not allow these people to defend themselves and their property, by what you said above. and the rioters would have won

With the proper laws in place, and a justice system and a LE taskforce willing to enforce and incarcerate those who violate the laws, there cannot be a Wild, Wild West or Lawless society.

We will have a society where actions have consequences.  Good and bad.  Depends on the individual and which side he wants to side: with or against the law.

The citizens are the ones who will define a society.  It was never the presence or absence, of guns.

It really is very simple.  And the forefathers didn't see any complications in it. (Constitution and 2nd amendment).

What complicated things is when those in power wanted more than just power.  The f*ckers wanted control. 

This is where the smoke and mirrors and all the bullsh*t comes from.

remember 1992 and the Los Angeles riots?
and remember the rooftop Koreans?
the Koreans probably did not have a permit for their AK47's and SKS rifles and whatever else they had.  but they were not the lawless part of this story.  it was the rioters that were the lawless ones. if the Koreans were not armed, they probably would have got killed or at least their businesses burnt to the ground
it took the National guards at least a few days to come in and stop the riots
you would not allow these people to defend themselves and their property, by what you said above. and the rioters would have won

Right on, Brother Stang!   God Bless the fact we are still free to defend ourselves.  The rooftop Koreans proved that LE will never be able to protect everyone everywhere.

Those who still think government is the answer to all their prayers, wants and needs will not last long if something like the LA riots happen again.

Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:

Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.

Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?

And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...

No I don’t need to “assume” anything. It already happened. Google NJ woman murdered in driveway waiting for handgun permit.

Im not responding to your middle paragraph because I don’t even understand what point you’re trying to make. “What if a person just doesn’t want to carry a gun?” What? Why would you ask that question?

Israel doesn’t have a 2A. No country does, which should tell you that our laws should look nothing like anyone else’s.

remember 1992 and the Los Angeles riots?
and remember the rooftop Koreans?
the Koreans probably did not have a permit for their AK47's and SKS rifles and whatever else they had.  but they were not the lawless part of this story.  it was the rioters that were the lawless ones. if the Koreans were not armed, they probably would have got killed or at least their businesses burnt to the ground
it took the National guards at least a few days to come in and stop the riots
you would not allow these people to defend themselves and their property, by what you said above. and the rioters would have won

When there is a complete breakdown in lawlessness and emergence of disorder (as in the RK Riots), feel free to interpret the 2A in the literal sense. I'm pretty sure society as a whole would endorse this, and in that sense, that's probably why none of them were indicted.

What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".

As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.

What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".

“Firing rounds into masses of people, citing “constitutional carry”” who has said this?

What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".

when did this happen?

“Firing rounds into masses of people, citing “constitutional carry”” who has said this?

exactly.  who said that?

Hardly a "wild interpretation" when in the very scenario you proposed you must make the following assumptions:

Someone has made credible threats to a person life; They wanted to carry a gun; They were prevented from carrying a gun due to "arbitrary requirements"; They had no other means of protecting themselves; No one else was capable of protecting them; They were murdered; They could have effectively prevented their murder if they had a gun; There was no other possible outcome to this very specific chain of events.

Does a person need credible threats to carry a gun? What if a person just doesn't want to carry a gun? Why did the woman fail to pass the test of "arbitrary requirements"? What if she was a level 100 Krav Maga practitioner and could've used a knife? What about all the CCW'ers who could've stopped mass shooters, or maybe, one of her family members there with her had a CCW? What if she wasn't murdered? How do you know she didn't just accidentally shoot herself while trying to draw a gun from her purse that she had never fired before? What if she tried to defend herself, and accidentally shot 3 innocent bystanders in the bank?

And the most important question is: Why must the 2A be defined as only a literal interpretation that prescribes anyone may carry any gun, anywhere, anytime they want? Even in a place like Israel, where the society as a whole "open carries" "machine guns" in "sensitive places" and are under "constant and articulable fear of imminent bodily harm or death"... requires medical clearance, police clearance, and testing before carrying a private firearm. It seems like the only societies that will satisfy your definition of the 2A is a completely lawless one, probably in places in "Canibal Warlord Africa" or "Cartel South America". I really don't think you want that...

Israel doesn't have a 2A like how the US does.  The 2A isn't lawless, people just shouldn't need a test in order to exercise that right. No one here argues that a felon shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. This is a law.

Why must the 2a be defined as a lieteral interpretation? BEcause if not, anti 2a people will find reasons to deny people of it. Just like how you support the classes. Which means no class, no 2A at all in HI as a class is required to purchase a gun and another to carry it outside your home.

Seems like your mind is made up, so you do you and we will continue to do us. 

When there is a complete breakdown in lawlessness and emergence of disorder (as in the RK Riots), feel free to interpret the 2A in the literal sense. I'm pretty sure society as a whole would endorse this, and in that sense, that's probably why none of them were indicted.

What we did not see... were people of unknown origin, marching down a public street, with illegal weapons, firing rounds into masses of people, citing "constitutional carry", when law and order is being maintained, "because one day it[i/] could happen".

As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.

now you look more and more like kit n gun
you said something that wasn't completely right.  and now you are trying to walk it back. but only digging yourself a bigger hole

As I said before: In Israel, a country surrounded by hostile entities, under constant attack, that regularly has citizens open carrying machine guns, still requires medical clearance, police clearance, and examinations before private citizens may carry firearms in public.

With all the video of Hummus attacking, how many do you see any Israeli shooting back?  I have yet to see even 1. So where are all these regularly carrying machine gun IDF open carriers?  I say IDF because only certain units are allowed to carry their rifles 24/7. "Citizens" are not allowed to and need a special permit to CCW that only allows like 15 bullets or something too.

now you look more and more like kit n gun
you said something that wasn't completely right.  and now you are trying to walk it back. but only digging yourself a bigger hole

Maybe he's the other guy Darren?

No I don’t need to “assume” anything. It already happened. Google NJ woman murdered in driveway waiting for handgun permit.

Im not responding to your middle paragraph because I don’t even understand what point you’re trying to make. “What if a person just doesn’t want to carry a gun?” What? Why would you ask that question?

Israel doesn’t have a 2A. No country does, which should tell you that our laws should look nothing like anyone else’s.

Better watch out then. YOU MIGHT BE NEXT! *ominous music plays*

Let us assume that not everyone in society are the women in the two examples...

A guy has an M4 "pistol" tucked into his underwear because "constitutional carry"; not even a holster is needed because it's "infringing" on his right to carry. He sits down in Ala Moana food court. A 3 round burst goes off in his He Man underwear because a key from his keyring managed to get inside the trigger guard, killing 6 people, including himself.

For every woman in your specific scenario, I have created one of these men (1.2% of firearms related deaths). Tell me why there can't possibly be anything in between?


Edit: I think I'm good for a while. Now people are assuming I have to be Kit N Gun or "Darren", who I assume is related to Kit N Gun, because I'm disagreeing with their posts. For the record, I don't think I've met either of those people, and if I did, it was complete happenstance. My posts here are nothing but my own thoughts and they are not in "support" of any other entity. I shouldn't be surprised by this behavior really, especially since some of the earlier posts appears to be making fun of Kit's accent. Hilarious, disappointing, and juvenile to say the least.