if they were to concede to national reciprocity, how would they NOT be giving something up?

that's clearly pro gun rights law in exchange for the background checks.

Because they do not HAVE "national reciprocity" to give up!  If I come to your house and tell you I want 50% of everything you own, and you negotiate down to 30%, I guess that means I conceded 20% of your stuff?  The Dems loose NOTHING!  The gun owners loose FREEDOMS by being subjected to background checks that will not have a positive effect on gun violence.

Why is it the Democrats are always such good negotiators?  They promised presidents time after time, if you raise taxes now, we will create real cuts in spending later.  Well, later never comes!  They always cry that the cuts are going to starve and kill people needing those funds.  Then they have the audacity to beat up the president for being willing to compromise ("Read my lips!  No new taxes").  Bush compromised in the belief that was the only way to bring some of the spending down to reasonable limits.  Instead, the Democrats hung him with his own words.  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't!

It's the exact same thing with sequestration.  Obama promised during the debates in October that sequestration WILL NOT HAPPEN.  Then, when the Republicans called his bluff, he blamed them for sequestration when it was Obama's idea from the very start!  Amazing!!  And people BELIEVE him!

You can trust the Democrats in DC to allow national reciprocity if you want.  I don't trust that they will do anything they promise to.  I foresee the first state to challenge the reciprocity mandate will get it tossed out!  New York?  California?  The net effect will be a new national background check/gun registration system in exchange for nada!

Because they do not HAVE "national reciprocity" to give up!  If I come to your house and tell you I want 50% of everything you own, and you negotiate down to 30%, I guess that means I conceded 20% of your stuff?  The Dems loose NOTHING!  The gun owners loose FREEDOMS by being subjected to background checks that will not have a positive effect on gun violence.

Why is it the Democrats are always such good negotiators?  They promised presidents time after time, if you raise taxes now, we will create real cuts in spending later.  Well, later never comes!  They always cry that the cuts are going to starve and kill people needing those funds.  Then they have the audacity to beat up the president for being willing to compromise ("Read my lips!  No new taxes").  Bush compromised in the belief that was the only way to bring some of the spending down to reasonable limits.  Instead, the Democrats hung him with his own words.  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't!

It's the exact same thing with sequestration.  Obama promised during the debates in October that sequestration WILL NOT HAPPEN.  Then, when the Republicans called his bluff, he blamed them for sequestration when it was Obama's idea from the very start!  Amazing!!  And people BELIEVE him!

You can trust the Democrats in DC to allow national reciprocity if you want.  I don't trust that they will do anything they promise to.  I foresee the first state to challenge the reciprocity mandate will get it tossed out!  New York?  California?  The net effect will be a new national background check/gun registration system in exchange for nada!

so anti gunners ARENT giving anything up if they were to be forced to enact national carry reciprocity?   that's essentially a federal bill legalizing CCW; that directly affects any may issue state, as well as no issue states.  places like New Jersey, New York and Hawaii would just have to deal with it.  how the hell is that NOT giving something up?  clearly, anti gun areas would be giving up their pwoer to restrict your right to carry.

clearly, anti gun areas would be giving up their pwoer to restrict your right to carry.

If the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, then the power to deny CC exists illegally in the anti gun areas.  Once the unconstitutionality of denying CC is adjudicated (which is already happening state by state), national reciprocity will exist all on its own.  The Dems understand this, and to offer reciprocity up as a trade, once again, loses them nothing.  That power is being stripped from them regardless!

If the Constitution grants the right to bear arms, then the power to deny CC exists illegally in the anti gun areas.  Once the unconstitutionality of denying CC is adjudicated (which is already happening state by state), national reciprocity will exist all on its own.  The Dems understand this, and to offer reciprocity up as a trade, once again, loses them nothing.  That power is being stripped from them regardless!

you're arguing based on principle.

the fact of the matter is, whether or not it is my right, i cant walk out of my door with a gun, without facing 10 years in prison or something.  illegal or not, there isnt anything i can do about it.

at least my scenario is believable.  you really think they're going to declare denying CCW unconstitutional?  i wouldnt hold my breath.

i cant walk out of my door with a gun, without facing 10 years in prison or something

People do this every day.  It's called "not getting caught".  As with any act in defiance of the law, there are POTENTIAL consequences, but you have to be caught, charged, and convicted first.  I guess that's much easier to get away with in areas where people wear more clothing than here! 

People do this every day.  It's called "not getting caught".  As with any act in defiance of the law, there are POTENTIAL consequences, but you have to be caught, charged, and convicted first.  I guess that's much easier to get away with in areas where people wear more clothing than here!

you're basically saying that gaining national reciprocity wouldnt be a loss for anti gunners, based on the fact that i CAN walk outside with a gun with no CCW, just as long as i dont get caught?

what's even the point of that?  if i have to use it in self defense, Im slapped with a felony automatically, and possibly murder. 

you're basically saying that gaining national reciprocity wouldnt be a loss for anti gunners, based on the fact that i CAN walk outside with a gun with no CCW, just as long as i dont get caught?

what's even the point of that?  if i have to use it in self defense, Im slapped with a felony automatically, and possibly murder.

In that hypothetical, I'd take the murder rap over being DEAD!  Call me crazy ...     

In that hypothetical, I'd take the murder rap over being DEAD!  Call me crazy ...     

People do this every day.  It's called "not getting caught".  As with any act in defiance of the law, there are POTENTIAL consequences, but you have to be caught, charged, and convicted first.  I guess that's much easier to get away with in areas where people wear more clothing than here! 

And that's the reason why fanatics like you will screw up the 2a movement. I can see the headlines now. "Man murders another man with gun. Murderer claiming self-defense after shooting, yet he was carrying a concealed weapon illegally."

And that's the reason why fanatics like you will screw up the 2a movement. I can see the headlines now. "Man murders another man with gun. Murderer claiming self-defense after shooting, yet he was carrying a concealed weapon illegally."

Did I say I carry an illegal concealed gun?  You need to take a step back and calm down.  I'm a law-abiding citizen.  I stop at all red lights, I always use a turn signal, I pay my taxes on time, and I never carry a loaded gun in Hawaii.  Now, if the attacker is unlucky enough to catch me on my way back from the range, and I happen to have some ammo left, then bad timing on his part!

The last thing I'll be thinking if I'm defending my life is what the media is going to print about it.  The one thing I DO NOT want printed is my obituary in the same edition.

If you're thinking about headlines, then I hope there's a cop ten feet away when you need one! 

Call me as many different kinds of fanatic as you want.  You're not even close to being correct!  You seem to be trolling for an argument.  Just like when you posted this:

dumbest thing I've read in awhile. Its not what your intention is, it's the publics perception that will get you in trouble or shot. You should just continue wearing your holster in your house and looking in mirror. That way you won't put yourself or the public in danger. Leave the super hero stuff to the guys with the badge and training.

Go ahead and have the last word here.  I'm done with you!

 

hey, Dbinaknak has a point. 

you straight up said I could do it if i didnt get caught. 


that makes us look bad.

hey, Dbinaknak has a point. 

you straight up said I could do it if i didnt get caught. 


that makes us look bad.

People do this every day.  It's called "not getting caught".  As with any act in defiance of the law, there are POTENTIAL consequences, but you have to be caught, charged, and convicted first.  I guess that's much easier to get away with in areas where people wear more clothing than here! 

Try reading what I wrote -- straight up. 

You are free to choose to follow a law or not.  It's YOUR choice.  You will have to live with the consequences.  You are responsible for your own decisions.

I never said I condone it, nor did/do I recommend anyone break any laws.  I stated a fact:  people carry illegally every day.  That is their decision: to risk getting caught with a concealed firearm rather than be without protection.  It's not a difficult concept. 

Don't give me that "you said I could do it" bull crap!

Relax, folks. Moosed's points are entirely valid.

He's articulating the point that criminals don't obey laws and adding to it that they don't always get caught when doing so. In fact they rarely get caught.

This isn't complex or controversial.

clshade, thanks for chiming in!   

I think they understand EXACTLY what I said.  They are just trolling.

Take a look at their other posts on different threads.  They start arguments time and again just for fun, normally taking the conversation onto some accusatory tangent.  Wouldn't surprise me if xer 21 and Dblnaknak are the same person!

As I said, I'm done with these two.   

I've read here for a while and haven't noticed that, yet.

Could just be normal forum behavior. But then I'm kind of an intellectual conversation geek, too. I'm as guilty of tangents as anyone... 

The point that talking about illegal carry is risky also valid. It does make us look bad if we talk about it the wrong way. :shrug: This conversation didn't hit my threshold of discomfort there, but it may have hit others'.

Not complex or controversial, really. Its just like the YouTube meme of always having to visually safety check the gun on camera, in my mind. Its over the top, visibly "safe" even though there is no way you're going to accidentally shoot someone who is watching the video. Similarly, we do have to be careful how we talk about some things but for the most part we're all proficient as self policing and keeping clean. 2aHawaii is pretty good at letting us know if we wander too close to dangerous territory.

clshade, thanks for chiming in!   

I think they understand EXACTLY what I said.  They are just trolling.

Take a look at their other posts on different threads.  They start arguments time and again just for fun, normally taking the conversation onto some accusatory tangent.  Wouldn't surprise me if xer 21 and Dblnaknak are the same person!

As I said, I'm done with these two.   

im not trolling, you were just making vague statements that could easily be misinterpreted.  like they were just now. 

the way it read to me was that you were suggesting that since denying CCW is unconstitutional, that for us to gain a right we technically should have is not a loss to anti gunners, and also it seemed to slightly imply that you condoned breaking the law as a protest.

this is the internet, not a conversation, you cant assume the tone and the general gist of something is always clear in type form.

and honestly, if i wanted to troll you , i could definitely accomplish that in better, more subtle ways.

I've read here for a while and haven't noticed that, yet.

Could just be normal forum behavior. But then I'm kind of an intellectual conversation geek, too. I'm as guilty of tangents as anyone... 

The point that talking about illegal carry is risky also valid. It does make us look bad if we talk about it the wrong way. :shrug: This conversation didn't hit my threshold of discomfort there, but it may have hit others'.

Not complex or controversial, really. Its just like the YouTube meme of always having to visually safety check the gun on camera, in my mind. Its over the top, visibly "safe" even though there is no way you're going to accidentally shoot someone who is watching the video. Similarly, we do have to be careful how we talk about some things but for the most part we're all proficient as self policing and keeping clean. 2aHawaii is pretty good at letting us know if we wander too close to dangerous territory.

part of why that comment hit home with me is because i've been reading a bit of the AR15.com boards a bit, and some of those guys are telling New Yorkers not to comply with the new laws because they're unconstitutional.

this felt similar to me, and its not something that i think we'd want to be associated with.

its clear that that wasnt the intent now, but it is what it is.

clshade, thanks for chiming in!   

I think they understand EXACTLY what I said.  They are just trolling.

Take a look at their other posts on different threads.  They start arguments time and again just for fun, normally taking the conversation onto some accusatory tangent.  Wouldn't surprise me if xer 21 and Dblnaknak are the same person!

As I said, I'm done with these two.   

Ahahahaha. Because I have my own point of view, which is different from yours, I am now trolling. You crack me up dude. You were just advocating carrying illegally and not getting busted. Now your back peddling. Ah come on.... Xer 21 and I have not always seen eye to eye on different topics but apparently now you think we are the same person? Hahaha. I guess anyone that has an idea other than your own is either a troll or the same person.

The point that talking about illegal carry is risky also valid. It does make us look bad if we talk about it the wrong way. :shrug:

This, exactly. We don't want to sound like we are even hinting at doing something clearly illegal.

I love these conversations. 2@ is right though. We need to be as white as snow on our 2@ rights. The "other side" does not. They are clearly bottom feeders that want to drag us down to their level. Then they will say " see I told you so " and boom another anti gun law. I am so proud to be a part of this group of citizens that are so readily able and committed to upholding our freedoms even though some people disagree with us. I am hoping the supreme court takes on NY's  clause of " need to carry " statute and the ruling gives Hawaii the push we need to make CCW a reality here. CCW here would see an explosion in the firearms industry. If our gun laws were more friendly maybe a Gun Maker would move here so shipping foreign supplies would be more available??? Again.....wishful thinking. I appreciate the conversation. It educates all of us.

I'd be interested to see what HiCarry says about this. Got to get the digs in while we have a 2A friendly person in office.  To me this is the test.

I agree that it will be difficult, very difficult, to get CCW here, either legislatively or thru some court action. The Ninth Circuit is not entirely unfriendly and there are some supportive judges, as evidenced by one of the earlier verdicts in Nordyke. But, it will be an uphill battle. There is a CCW bill introduced every year that never makes it to a hearing. We need to get it heard? How? Not sure, but I think one thing to do is carry on with what Chris Baker started and have folks keep applying for permits. The latest AG report noted only 5 people applied in 2012, so that alone makes arguing that "lots" of folks want it difficult.
But, we need to start lobbying our legislators hard, and early. I plan on sending some info from the Police One survey (noting the police favor more citizen concealed carry) to both the Mayor and some of our legislators within the next week or so. Whether it will help or not, I don't know. But it can't hurt.