https://youtube.com/watch?v=liIkYRvAKsU

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

So when will GOA. FPC, NRA.......jump in and file suit against Hawaii's gun laws. especially regarding firearms registration?   

Open-Carry

That's pretty funny.

Especially since it's right outside the supreme court.

That's pretty funny.

Especially since it's right outside the supreme court.

==========
Ironic, huh?
I think I made my POINT.
 

Maybe a sharp stick is all we're gonna get here in the banana republik.

Maybe a sharp stick is all we're gonna get here in the banana republik.

Depends on what you say when HPD arrest you for having one.  If it's sole purpose is to cause bodily injury then it's a deadly weapon under current law.  If you say its for fishing, and it's used to harm someone, then it's diverted from it's intended purpose of fishing and now a deadly weapon under HI law.

Open-Carry

Walk lightly and carry a big stick!

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

Interesting opinion...

It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.

I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.

please show me where a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights"...

Interesting opinion...

It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.

I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.

please show me where a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights"...

Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.

If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.

This is perfectly in line with what I keep posting about Hawaii's historical experience with firearms. 

Hawaiians never went through
the Revolutionary war,
didn't create the US Constitution and all it's Amendments over time,
didn't participate in the Civil War,
never lived through the push for Manifest Destiny,
didn't deal with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement,
didn't have to endure the KKK (the REAL racists who would kill non-whites, not the current "every White person is racist" BS),
The Great Depression and the aftermath,
the destruction of the nuclear family by government policies and social deviants,
and on and on ....

Hawaii's history is not the same as the mainland's.  They never gained the appreciation for self defense and our "gun culture", because they have always been under a monarch until they became a state. 

I wonder how the state courts interpret the battles fought to unite the islands under one ruler?  Is that the "Aloha" they refer to?   

I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

That's not how rights work.  In fact, that's the reason we have rights in the first place.  To protect things that other people object to.  Just because someone doesn't like it, that's on them, not on you.

Interesting opinion...

It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.

I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.

When it comes to the 2a, there is no balance. The left is trying to take it all. But since they cannot do it all at once, they are doing little by little.  This is why the 2a must be thought of as an "absolute". Law makers even say they made compromises for the anti 2a bills. We got nothing in return, so it's more of a shit sandwich and instead of having to eat the entire thing, we only have to eat half.  That isn't a compromise.

Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.

If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.

How does "shall not be infringed" change the meaning of the 2A?  Would there be any difference if those words were left out of the 2A?

A person carrying a firearm out in public in a time of peace?  That's plain open carry.  It's not the gun, it's what a person does with it.  If its a handgun in a holster or person with a rifle slung, that should be normal.  If they're aiming at people, or threatening to kill people, then that's entirely different.

Interesting opinion...

It's true that the Native Hawaiian's used principles of "Restorative Justice" for most disputes (specifically: Community Circles) and I guess that's what we can use to define the "Spirit of Aloha". However, lets not forget that 'white people' did in fact bring about a "society where armed people moved about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others" because that's exactly how the illegal annexation of Hawaii occurred, LOL.

I agree that a "free-wheeling right to carry guns in public degrades others constitutional rights", but at the same time, the mere presence of guns in public does not take away the general "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Why must everyone think in such absolutes? We'll (society as a whole) never make any progress (in any direction, for or against 2A) this way. Life is not a "tug of war" but rather a "balance of sensibility". The only thing you get at the end of a tug of war is a broken rope when neither side gives.

Do you have a CCW? What kind of firearms you own?

please show me where "anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest"

Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.

If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.

please show me where i said i wouldn't call the police...

Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.

If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.

Because anyone, carrying any gun, anytime, encompasses the tenets of civil unrest. There must be some measure of where, when, and how a person can carry a gun, because that's what laws do and without laws, there is unrest. It is a question of magnitude in re these laws, not a question of the legitimacy of the 2A.

If there was a massive hurricane, would you care that your felon neighbor is standing on the roof of their house with an AR? Probably not, if they are keeping to themselves. If that same neighbor was doing that during a time of peace, I would hope you call the police.

Wow, you went full Karen on your neighbor.  Who determines "a time of peace"? What if their home had a deadly intruder?  What if someone said they're coming to harm them right now?  But then again, since you believe in classes, I guess you believe that 1 doesn't have the 2a right on their property.

So now, law makers will ban someone from carrying a gun while standing on their roof. What comes next? How about carrying a gun in their yard.  Or carrying a gun in their open garage.  Then carrying a gun in the home if it can be seen thru a window.  This is why "absolute" is needed.

I say open window because a guy in WA was red flagged because he looked at his neighbors funny thru his window while having a firearm holstered.  There was no bad blood between the 2, the neighbors stated they rarely if ever even talked to him. But he looked at them funny.  No gestures made or unholstering the gun.  Would you support this too?

Here's something to think about, if Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety and you both agree on the same thing, then you might not be as pro 2A that you think you are.

During SB1230, we saw that the Retail Merchants Org stated that training isn't good enough. Why? Because nothing can duplicate the stress of a real self defense situation. So today we're required to take a class/train, but how far from now until they move the goal post and say training isn't enough?  Or require a 40 hours of training/class like how NYC did?

I must have missed it.

Where in the US Constitution does anyone have a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

The Declaration of Independence carries no weight -- legally speaking -- on individual rights.