What consequences?

That they'll be voted out and lose access to the gravy train? Cause that's truly all they care about and based off the political makeup of this state's voters I'm sure these politicians aren't going to be concerned with someone from our side of the aisle as a political minority fuming in their testimony.

There's nothing wrong with calmly expressing how this legislation negatively affects you but being "spicy" or "heated" or whatever slang there is out there for just "being mad" isn't productive.

You're not wrong in that these politicians need to be reminded who their real bosses are but the reality right now is they have a reliable voting block of sheep that will keep them employed no matter what.

If their power base was certain then they wouldn’t need mail in voting fraud or millions of illegal immigrants.

Lots of stuff gives politicians anxiety. Mostly that we will figure out that their power only comes from the consent of the governed. The mob is fickle and can turn on them in a second. If you’re nice and polite but they have radical Marxists screaming in their ear about dead kids then they will lean harder on the side that won’t make as much of a fuss.


What happens if there budget gets wiped out by a market crash and we start to furlough cops? What if a terrorist attack overwhelms them? What if they all come down with turbo cancer? What if a big storm or tsunami cuts off supplies and the gangsters start going house to house?

The old “please mr politician leave my rights alone” doesn’t work. That’s how they got this far already. Use your imagination and figure out something inspiring. Drop some truth bombs about stolen elections, lockdowns, poison vaccines, wars, sabotage, etc.

The other side never holds back. That’s why they keep kicking our ass.

Diversity in messaging is good, so being yourself and speaking your truth is good.
Being emotional in your arguments and testimony can be good, as long as you are at least a little sympathetic.
Coming across as crazy as bad, and coming across as threatening eventually becomes illegal and that I think everybody agrees is quite bad.
(The calculus changes if the law passes and then opposition becomes a matter of civil disobedience rather than civic participation.)



We have a very Democrat electorate. If gun rights get linked to Republican-party talking points, then it becomes a red vs blue issue, and the argument will be lost along the same percentages that Republicans usually lose elections. The math shows that arguments in favor of gun rights must be made to appeal to Democrat voters. 100% of Republican voters and at least 20% or so of Democrat voters must be convinced that firearms prohibitions are a bad idea.

Luckily there are people who believe in gun rights despite being registered Democrats who would never vote for Trump and who would roll eyes at any claims of stolen elections or vaccine conspiracies. (like me)

So how do we convince Democrat voters that gun rights are good? I think it's a really good idea to listen to what the Democrat senators said who opposed the bill or voted yes with reservations.

1) They don't believe in a justice system stacked against the "little guy" or mass incarceration. This bill could make tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens prosecutable as felons overnight. The bill is worded ambiguously enough that we might be felons without knowing it; enforcement and interpretation is up to fiat of police and the justice system. It'll bog down courts! It can lead to unfairly targeted policing against the poor! The rich won't be affected!
2) They are afraid of crime. Citing a concern regarding rising crime rates or potential organized crime is good rhetoric. If they say "but we haven't seen that kind of crime here", a rebuttal is "well we haven't seen those sorts of mass shootings here either".
3) They revere hunting rights more than self-defense rights, for whatever reason. Support for gun prohibitions diminishes if shown it'd negatively affect hunters. On the islands where deer or pigs are a recurring ecological disaster, this can be tied to an environmental argument.
4) They support cultural tradition to a fault, particularly Hawaiian cultural tradition if not so much white mainland US cultural tradition. I hate to say it and be so cynical, but if testimony consisted of a dozen of the most kanaka people in the state passionately detailing how this bill would threaten their way of life and sustainability, and that they've historically been shown that they can't trust the government to protect and provide for them, then how many transplant Democrat voters would still support the bill?
5) They vacillate like the wind and have deep logical incongruity on this, but half the time they don't trust the police. So why should police have weapons that nobody else has? Why should police have a monopoly on the tools required to defend our communities?
6) They have other priorities. Do we want to get bogged down in new legislation that has massive constitutional concerns and will generate immediate lawsuits that the state would need to fight against? We don't have the money nor the time; it's more important to fund education, rebuild Lahaina, retreat from sea level rise, make sure we have enough renewable energy, etc.


I am pretty firm of the belief that a white man from the mainland (like me) lecturing on the historical theory of the 2nd Amendment is going to sway zero Democrat voters, no matter how correct and eloquent he may be. I'll always make the argument but I don't expect it to win over who needs to be won over, at least not in the short term.

If their power base was certain then they wouldn’t need mail in voting fraud or millions of illegal immigrants.

Lots of stuff gives politicians anxiety. Mostly that we will figure out that their power only comes from the consent of the governed. The mob is fickle and can turn on them in a second. If you’re nice and polite but they have radical Marxists screaming in their ear about dead kids then they will lean harder on the side that won’t make as much of a fuss.


What happens if there budget gets wiped out by a market crash and we start to furlough cops? What if a terrorist attack overwhelms them? What if they all come down with turbo cancer? What if a big storm or tsunami cuts off supplies and the gangsters start going house to house?

The old “please mr politician leave my rights alone” doesn’t work. That’s how they got this far already. Use your imagination and figure out something inspiring. Drop some truth bombs about stolen elections, lockdowns, poison vaccines, wars, sabotage, etc.

The other side never holds back. That’s why they keep kicking our ass.

So your plan is to get as crazy and stupid as their Marxists? You know those same loud idiots theyve tied themselves to are starting to cause their party problems in national opinions regarding the border and the Israel-Palestine conflict, right?

Your average Hawaii congressman that may be on the fence about this, that may hypothetically find their way onto one of these committees, is going to take a dim view of someone ranting and raving about lockdowns, poison vaccines, mob rule, etc in testimony regarding this bill.

You're right, in a way. Scared politicians are useful to the anti 2A crowd, and your plan to get "spicy" in testimony to people we are trying to sway their opinions is sure as hell more likely to make a potential on the fence vote lean more to the anti-2A types that love it when the caricature of a "threatening crazy gun nut" pops up to add credence to their lies.

You act like we're not currently behind enemy lines right now. There's an uphill fight ahead of us because most of these people voting on this bill are Democrats and getting "spicy" is counterproductive.

Rational, reasonable and well planned testimony is going to win it for us. Maybe if the local GOP gets its act together and starts putting more Rs in seats will we be able to have the luxury of getting "spicy" with testimony.

I disagree. The founders would be disgusted with what we put up with already.

Politicians are like “well you’re not going to do shit about it so it’s okay”

MLK would never have made it as far as he did without Malcolm X

I disagree. The founders would be disgusted with what we put up with already.

Politicians are like “well you’re not going to do shit about it so it’s okay”

MLK would never have made it as far as he did without Malcolm X

They know no one will do shit about it.

They know no one will do shit about it.

People have been acting up for years. We call them criminals and there’s more and more of them  every day. Are they stupid for taking risks or are we stupid for trying for surrendering our rights to tyrants?

People have been acting up for years. We call them criminals and there’s more and more of them  every day. Are they stupid for taking risks or are we stupid for trying for surrendering our rights to tyrants?

Where am I saying we need to surrender our rights with regards to submitting testimony?

I'm saying it will do way more harm than good by acting "spicy" or whatever in our testimonies, based on the fact we are in a highly Democrat state where there is a high probability that your average politician/aide will read this testimony and not think "Wow, what a paragon of liberty this person is!," but will instead default to "Wow this testimony is talking about lockdowns, vaccines, etc it must be a typical paranoid, racist, tinfoil hat gun owner the media is always depicting!" No, there's no guarantee calm testimony will work but it's got a higher probability than ranting and raving.

Yes it is beyond bullshit that we need to make nice nice with our tone in testimonies, but it's kind of the hand we have been dealt with being a minority voting block in one of the deepest blue states in the nation. It's critical to be as respectful and measured in our testimony despite many of these people not being worthy of it.

Where am I saying we need to surrender our rights with regards to submitting testimony?

I'm saying it will do way more harm than good by acting "spicy" or whatever in our testimonies, based on the fact we are in a highly Democrat state where there is a high probability that your average politician/aide will read this testimony and not think "Wow, what a paragon of liberty this person is!," but will instead default to "Wow this testimony is talking about lockdowns, vaccines, etc it must be a typical paranoid, racist, tinfoil hat gun owner the media is always depicting!" No, there's no guarantee calm testimony will work but it's got a higher probability than ranting and raving.

Yes it is beyond bullshit that we need to make nice nice with our tone in testimonies, but it's kind of the hand we have been dealt with being a minority voting block in one of the deepest blue states in the nation. It's critical to be as respectful and measured in our testimony despite many of these people not being worthy of it.

You’re not treating this like an existential threat. That means you don’t really understand what’s at stake here.

You’re not treating this like an existential threat. That means you don’t really understand what’s at stake here.

Except I do believe this is a deep existential threat. I just think that being combative in testimony is counterproductive and that what you're suggesting will actually harm our efforts. In a way, you're not exactly part of the problem but you aren't helping, either.

And please enlighten me as to what specifically is at stake here? I think I have an idea what you're hinting at with your boomer Facebook meme but I'd like for you to articulate it. 

Be smart and civil. Our local politicians aren't smart - they are just copying and  pasting from their mainland handlers. We need to be ahead of them in legislation and lobbying.

Except I do believe this is a deep existential threat. I just think that being combative in testimony is counterproductive and that what you're suggesting will actually harm our efforts. In a way, you're not exactly part of the problem but you aren't helping, either.

And please enlighten me as to what specifically is at stake here? I think I have an idea what you're hinting at with your boomer Facebook meme but I'd like for you to articulate it.

They murdered millions with vaccines and ventilators, imported 10 million illegals, stole multiple elections, spent us into a stagflationary death spiral, drove the children insane, locked up their political opponents, let out all the criminals, and now they want to take our guns away on the eve of signing a pandemic treaty with the World Health Organization that will strip us of our last bit of sovereignty.

This is your last chance to speak up while you still have 1A. If you want to waste this opportunity on your knees politely servicing their progressive porkswords then be my guest, but don't presume to tell me what to do.

They murdered millions with vaccines and ventilators, imported 10 million illegals, stole multiple elections, spent us into a stagflationary death spiral, drove the children insane, locked up their political opponents, let out all the criminals, and now they want to take our guns away on the eve of signing a pandemic treaty with the World Health Organization that will strip us of our last bit of sovereignty.

This is your last chance to speak up while you still have 1A. If you want to waste this opportunity on your knees politely servicing their progressive porkswords then be my guest, but don't presume to tell me what to do.

Lmao, where in any of my language am I advocating getting on ones knees? I'm encouraging opposition to this senate bill in a rational fashion.

And let me preface this by saying you're not totally wrong above, but
If you really believe all that you wouldn't be wasting time on a publicly searchable internet forum or trying to use politically correct terminology like "spicy" with regards to how one chooses their language in testimony. Inaction and total disregard for anything close to opsec.

Shit, if you really believed all that then you'd know there are great forces at work right now and that submitting testimony right now is a waste of time and effort.

So it's either all is lost / nearly lost and drastic action is needed, or its as the above poster said perhaps rational and civil outlining of the I'll effects of this bill on us as individual members of these lawmakers community is needed.

I'm not against your passion nor am I in total disagreement of many of your viewpoints but that all needs to be tempered into actually useful testimony.

If you really believe all that you wouldn't be wasting time on a publicly searchable internet forum or trying to use politically correct terminology like "spicy" with regards to how one chooses their language in testimony. Inaction and total disregard for anything close to opsec.

Shit, if you really believed all that then you'd know there are great forces at work right now and that submitting testimony right now is a waste of time and effort.

So it's either all is lost / nearly lost and drastic action is needed, or its as the above poster said perhaps rational and civil outlining of the I'll effects of this bill on us as individual members of these lawmakers community is needed.

I'm not against your passion nor am I in total disagreement of many of your viewpoints but that all needs to be tempered into actually useful testimony.

The most dangerous thing anyone can do is speak their truth, which is why you see so many western countries adopting "hate speech" laws that define hate speech as anything that the government doesn't like.

They want us to self censor and hide behind politeness, deferring to their authority. That way they can screw us over and not feel so bad about it because obviously we didn't care enough to bring our A game.

These aren't gods. These are cutthroat attorneys who rose to the top of a stinking pile of filth and corruption and are rapidly losing control of the state.

Your truth may be different than mine, but it's important that you say it out loud because even if it sounds crazy it gives others courage to do the same and when enough people find their voice the empire of lies will fall.

This has been referred to JHA. Its not scheduled yet, but do we get a head start by emailing JHA reps now, and putting this on their radar?

As far as I can tell Illinois is the only state that currently bans "assault weapon attachments".

Here's a video of an activist explaining how prop lightsabers are illegal under their law:



Our version of the law, as currently written, would ban assault weapon attachments without banning assault rifles themselves... Which means it'd be legal to have the foregrip or flash suppressor on your rifle, but illegal as soon as you took it off. That absurdity seems like a fantastic starting point in opposing the bill... But if the House is just going to rewrite the whole thing anyways, does it even matter to point out particular absurdity to the committee members at this time? Or is it better to express broader dissatisfaction at the whole concept?

I figure I'll go with personal testimony at this time, until their wording gets finalized.

As far as I can tell Illinois is the only state that currently bans "assault weapon attachments".

Here's a video of an activist explaining how prop lightsabers are illegal under their law:



Our version of the law, as currently written, would ban assault weapon attachments without banning assault rifles themselves... Which means it'd be legal to have the foregrip or flash suppressor on your rifle, but illegal as soon as you took it off. That absurdity seems like a fantastic starting point in opposing the bill... But if the House is just going to rewrite the whole thing anyways, does it even matter to point out particular absurdity to the committee members at this time? Or is it better to express broader dissatisfaction at the whole concept?

I figure I'll go with personal testimony at this time, until their wording gets finalized.

the movie industry here works on a different set of laws.

Our version of the law, as currently written, would ban assault weapon attachments without banning assault rifles themselves... Which means it'd be legal to have the foregrip or flash suppressor on your rifle, but illegal as soon as you took it off. That absurdity seems like a fantastic starting point in opposing the bill... But if the House is just going to rewrite the whole thing anyways, does it even matter to point out particular absurdity to the committee members at this time? Or is it better to express broader dissatisfaction at the whole concept?

I figure I'll go with personal testimony at this time, until their wording gets finalized.

Given the strong kickback on the senate floor, I was thinking it might be beneficial to let the reps know how bad this bill is before they lock in their votes (for political reasons or whatever it is they do). but I dunno, maybe it doesnt matter.

no, per the bill it's illegal to possess the attachments
doesn't matter if they are on the firearm or not...

As far as I can tell Illinois is the only state that currently bans "assault weapon attachments".

Here's a video of an activist explaining how prop lightsabers are illegal under their law:



Our version of the law, as currently written, would ban assault weapon attachments without banning assault rifles themselves... Which means it'd be legal to have the foregrip or flash suppressor on your rifle, but illegal as soon as you took it off. That absurdity seems like a fantastic starting point in opposing the bill... But if the House is just going to rewrite the whole thing anyways, does it even matter to point out particular absurdity to the committee members at this time? Or is it better to express broader dissatisfaction at the whole concept?

I figure I'll go with personal testimony at this time, until their wording gets finalized.

the movie industry here works on a different set of laws.

Yup, they get to be exempt from this one.

no, per the bill it's illegal to possess the attachments
doesn't matter if they are on the firearm or not...

From what I read, the consensus in Illinois is that the attachments are fine as long as they're installed on a non-semiauto gun. Logic being you can't install them on a semiauto if they're already installed on another gun. But if you take them off, now it's a loose component that could be installed on a semiauto gun.

But that's hand-wavey conjuration. I don't believe courts have actually decided what it means, and when I search for law enforcement opinions on the matter, all I see are a bunch of counties where sheriffs are refusing to enforce it. Like our law, it's too ambiguous to mean anything until enforcement gets ahold of it, and enforcement can interpret at their discretion.

In practice, at a minimum it'd mean that even less people will be willing to ship guns or gun parts to Hawaii.

Here's a FAQ from Illinois:
https://isp.illinois.gov/Home/AssaultWeapons

At least they only banned 50 BMG and not all the other 50's.

Yup, they get to be exempt from this one.

The point is that an individual couldn't own a movie prop that happened to include random gun pieces. Like if somebody was a Star Wars collector who owned original or replica-of-original movie props, that'd be illegal.

Not as large a population as people with airsoft or paintball guns, or archers, or anybody at all with a firearm... But it shows how wide-reaching and ridiculous this language is.