The right to bear arms is your PRIVLEDGE not your damn rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Oh i wanted the Super Ferry it was all the Haole's on Kauai that hated it.  Funny those same Haole's that said the Ferry was destructive to the Islands are the same ones pushing for CCW

1st, it is not a priviledge. It is not the priviledge to bear arms written in our constitution, which clearly states what rights we have as citizens. No, it is indeed a right afforded to all. It is in there for a reason. 2nd, this is not a haole vs locals issue as you perceive it to be. 3rd, I have no idea where you got that information. Please source.

The right to bear arms is your PRIVLEDGE not your damn rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Oh i wanted the Super Ferry it was all the Haole's on Kauai that hated it.  Funny those same Haole's that said the Ferry was destructive to the Islands are the same ones pushing for CCW

I am in agreement with others here.  It is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms, as provided by the Constitution of the United States of America.  Last time I looked Hawaii was a State in this Union. 

Our overly Liberal government has failed the citizens of this state, by allowing these laws to breech our freedom, in contradiction to the laws of the Nation we are a part of.  It is my opinion that these laws were put in place a long time ago in the plantation days, and YOU, my friend, have that dreaded 'plantation mentality'. 

I am born and raised here, and my folks didn't have a nice opinion about firearms.   I too was like you and it took me a while to feel comfortable with the 'evil' gun. As I am older now I have realized what the establishment has been doing for all these years, and it is sickening.  Before you make your statements about these issue, try giving a look at the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and History(world, U.S. and Hawaiian), and give it a little thought.  If you have any sense of reality and logic, then only one conclusion will remain in your mind. 

Oh by the way, there is no way a bunch of haole's stopped the superferry and it had nothing to do with keeping the environment safe.  It was your liberal state government and the big shipping companies (that they are in bed with) that killed the superferry.  You didn't see Matson/Young Bros having to stop shipping did you???   

Stop voting these liberal dingbats into office and watch and see how this State moves out of the dark ages (of plantation mentality) and joins the real world!

nevermind

Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right.

The states can regulate and legislate anything not denied to it by the state constitution or the federal constitution. The federal constitution guarantees the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. In the context of 1789, we are talking about long rifles and large pistols, knives and axes, etc. The state constitutions pretty much protect the same right. But unless the state constitution guarantees the right to carry concealed weapons, then the state can outlaw it or regulate it with requirements for permits

If you really truly wanna feel safe learn a martial art

You've been watching too much hollywood movies.

KEEP HAWAII HAWAII!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, what do you exactly mean by that, we'll just settle for being subjects?  Don't you want liberty?  Do you even know what liberty means?  Didn't you look at the latest census results that majority of population gains are those places who respect people's liberty such as the 2A, lower taxes or no income taxes at all.  You keep saying that, Hawaii we'll never prosper only the few will.

The right to bear arms is your PRIVLEDGE not your damn rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!  It is a God given right and the constitution is only there to affirm it.  Self-defense is a God-given right, if God gives animals the right to defend their offspring and their territory how much for you being a creation above all this creatures, wouldn't be afforded such right.  Read, research and learn brah there's this thing we called internet.  Turn off your TV and stop watching MSM, learn how to think and not what to think. Ok brah?

Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right.

The states can regulate and legislate anything not denied to it by the state constitution or the federal constitution. The federal constitution guarantees the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. In the context of 1789, we are talking about long rifles and large pistols, knives and axes, etc. The state constitutions pretty much protect the same right. But unless the state constitution guarantees the right to carry concealed weapons, then the state can outlaw it or regulate it with requirements for permits

I'm not going to sit and spell this out for you all day.  Like the post above me, it's a right endowed by your creator, the constitution just affirms it - not gives it. Our fore fathers state you were already given it by your deity.

2008: Heller v. District of Columbia says, the Second Amendment  is a fundamental right (applied to DC, as a federal enclave).

June, 2010  McDonald v. City of Chicgao = The right is incorporated to the states through the due process of the 14th amendment, meaning, that regardless of what a state says, the federal statute applies to the everyone. Which is why the handgun ban was struck down in Chicago.

The text "To Bear", as cited by the supreme court, means to carry upon one's person, or in ones pocket, a firearm (pistol, knife, stick etc) for the purpose of offensive and defensive action. See Muscarello vs. United States.

Arms are defined as those items in common use, which is slightly up for debate. However in general, anything you can buy at the store or is sold for wholesale is probably legit. Now, in no way, will I begin an internet argument over the term arms, however, pistols are most certainly protected under the Second Amendment so it's not up for debate. 

The fundamental right of self-defense, which is what was found to be at the core of the Second Amendment, does not end at the threshold of ones doorstep. Just like you have the right to hand out flyers, speak in public, or attend and worship as you please, so should you be able to bear arms.  Now, states have commonly regulated the use of arms, and not so much the carry of them (i.e., you may not shoot past 9pm, discharge only in self-defense), and they have been able to narrowly regulate, permits, registration, readily available classes and education requirements. The important part of that is to key in on narrowly, meaning by no lesser means.  Total bans on the carrying of firearms is not a narrow regulation (see Heller v. DC) and it fails the reasonable regulation test.

I encourage you to brush up on the current jurisprudence in regards to the Second Amendment; also take a look at history around 1870s (Freedmens Act).  You can't look towards Hawaii's history, as they have little to none of it on the books in regards to regulations and laws.

At any rate, please show me a definition of bear, in the context of the Second Amendment, where it doesn't equate to carrying on one's person!

The states can regulate and legislate anything not denied to it by the state constitution or the federal constitution

Should we start regulating all the other rights under the bill of rights?  The bill of rights belongs to the individual not the state.  That's why it's called the bill of rights. 

FUNTIMES if you believe it is your right then carry!!  Protect yourself and others.  If you get arrested by Police explain it is your 2nd Ammendment Rights.  If you are willing to get arrested for your cause then do so.  Maybe we will see Hawaii vs Funtimes.  Until then we gonna go around and around about this.

FUNTIMES if you believe it is your right then carry!!  Protect yourself and others.  If you get arrested by Police explain it is your 2nd Ammendment Rights.  If you are willing to get arrested for your cause then do so.  Maybe we will see Hawaii vs Funtimes.  Until then we gonna go around and around about this.

Suggesting that people go out and violate the law is not the appropriate response. We are here to educate and inform, with facts (not the rediculous emotional responses that you present).  While running out to get arrested might be ok for you, it's not a viable option for myself. I am a responsible adult, who takes of his family, his debts, and his businesses, who donates time to charities and works very hard to restore and promote Americans rights.  I defend my country, and I sacrifice for the greater good of the United States.

So please, take your shenangians elsewhere.  The jury is verdict is in; the result is out: I find you ignorant.]

Any time you feel like being educated, I encourage you to meet up. I will even bring the supreme court documentation with me to explain how you are 100% incorrect in your thought process. You seem to have a fairly tainted mind, and a narrowed opinion. I'm not arguing with emotions or non-sense. I can back up everything I have stated with peer reviewed documentation, court opinions, and documented legal history.

You have argued with and provided, well, nothing.

but its your rights per the 2nd Ammendment right??   

Your arguments are very juvenile and 5 steps behind. You still haven't responded to being prejudice and just knee-jerk responding to everything based on emotion. I am ready for an adult debate where two parties attempt to convince the other to agree, but you only present animal instinct rhetoric based on feelings. I am willing to debate, just bring logic.

FYI guys, this guy is a troll and sounds a lot like someone over on the Star Advertiser's comments....he is trying to bait you, do n't fall for it.

If indeed he is the same small-minded, plantation-mentality troll, he'll never respond to logic or facts and will make subsequent attacks personal. 

Your arguments are very juvenile and 5 steps behind. You still haven't responded to being prejudice and just knee-jerk responding to everything based on emotion. I am ready for an adult debate where two parties attempt to convince the other to agree, but you only present animal instinct rhetoric based on feelings. I am willing to debate, just bring logic.

Prejudice LMFAO   U all got this CCW so far up your cracks u becoming delusional.  U are all grown as men acting like lil babies!!!  The  minute an outsider challenges you and your precious CCW rights you get huffy and start calling me out on the computer LMAO... Thank God we do not have CCW...  You idiots would mess it up....


Debate shoots bring it on!!!

Quote from: Dregs on December 22, 2010, 09:41:39 PM

Your arguments are very juvenile and 5 steps behind. You still haven't responded to being prejudice and just knee-jerk responding to everything based on emotion. I am ready for an adult debate where two parties attempt to convince the other to agree, but you only present animal instinct rhetoric based on feelings. I am willing to debate, just bring logic.

Prejudice LMFAO   U all got this CCW so far up your cracks u becoming delusional.  U are all grown as men acting like lil babies!!!  The  minute an outsider challenges you and your precious CCW rights you get huffy and start calling me out on the computer LMAO... Thank God we do not have CCW...  You idiots would mess it up....


Debate shoots bring it on!!!

Still waiting for you to counter any of my arguments. I don't think that you possess the mental capacity to hold a debate. (I would limit that to gun control, but by your responses that might trickle down to all subjects.)   Where prejudice is concerned, your the one enjoying western ideas, values, and products, yet complaining about the "Haoles" being on "your" island.

Prejudice, as in, brah, go back mainland!, when rights have nothing to do with being from the mainland or haole.

So far I haven't seen an actual challenge from you yet. Just uncontrolled emotional rhetoric.

Actually, most of the responses from the regular users have been very adult. Far from acting like babies.

I haven't seen anyone here call you out. That would be the archaic thing to do. The only thing we encourage you to do is to stick to the issue at hand and think before you speak. Present facts instead of feelings.

I'm sorry but I've handled worse trolls who really know how to pull people's strings. Right now you're blindly grasping at anything in reach and hoping for a reaction without having any real plans. You would be hardpressed to find anyone who will give you your high here. You've a lot to learn in the arts of trolling yet.

Problem here is, those that are having this "discussion" are Males.

I would like Mr Troll to tell a 5' tall, 98 pound woman she has to fight Mr Sole one on one or fight the entire Gang by herself bare handed.

Don't know about him, but, I have met women who have been raped and or otherwise abused. 

No way did they have a chance against their attacker. 

These are the kind of Women I like to teach and advise the proper use of a firearm.

Of course, Mr Troll feels otherwise about women.  No doubt, he feels they have no such rights and are "Subservient" to men.

FWIW, some of the wome that were victims of a Sexual assault have told me, "NEVER AGAIN".  From the kind of purses that they
carry, looking at it, you'd never know that there is a Smith & Wesson 38 or 357 magnum in it.

About Mau Gefredo, My Wife and I could have very well been the couple that were shot and killed.

We have been known to go to Tantalus on a cold dark rainy night just to photograph the Night Blooming Cereus flowers.   
For those of you not familiar with it, it is a flower that Blossoms Only on cold dark rainy nights.

Since the shooting, my Wife does Not want to go back to take photos, not Unless she has a Smith 357 or Beretta 40 with Her and
I have a companion Smith or Beretta to match.
But, that will never happen because we are good Law Abiding citizens and we do Not have CCW permits.  So, if we were to go back taking photos,
we would be great Victims of Violent Crime.  So we don't go.

IF Mr Troll ever gets to be a COP, I really hope he gets called out to the violent sex assault cases and then tell the victim that she has no rights to self
defense with a firearm.  She should just rely on her Vast martial arts training.

Or when he is up Waianae Valley Road where his radio doesn't work and he's confronting a Large group of soles drunk and intent on shoving his MagLight
where the sun doesn't shine.......and an armed civilian asks if wants help....
Course, that'll never happen 'cause he's a COP and thinks, One Riot, One COP........(Palolo Valley Housing over 30 years ago.....I heard he was found in the dumpster)

Or Maybe he doesn't have a Significant Other to care about..........

Where's the Mods on this...this should have been locked 6 pages ago.

Good job guys, now this site looks like the gun crazy tinfoil group antis want it to be.

Please lock and bury this thread its an embarrassment to the 2A community.

Nah, I don't think this is too bad.  However, it is a one sided debate. 

Too bad the troller does not have any pertinent  facts to back up their argument.

All I see is some good info being communicated, and an anti getting thrashed.   

Good job all.

The Second Amendment's brief but tangled declaration that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” remains among the Constitution's most controversial provisions.

The modern debate centers on whether the amendment safeguards individual rights or whether it merely preserves a state's right to maintain militia forces (the “collectivist theory”). English antecedents not only allowed the possession of arms by the male citizenry, but also frequently compelled it, and many American colonies followed suit.

The amendment itself, however, arose out of Antifederalists' fears about the oppressive potential of a central government protected by a standing army. Cognizant that standing armies often aided European tyrants, and recalling the repression British regulars enforced prior to the revolution, the framers were leery of professional militaries. They were also concerned about the enormous expense of sustaining a full time force.

Nevertheless, influential leaders like George Washington insisted that some professional forces were required. The compromise reflected in the Constitution provides for both a full time national military and part time state based militias. The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court said in U.S. v. Miller (1939), was intended to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of these militia, which were meant to counterbalance the dangers of a standing army, as well as to provide a cost effective supplement to the nation's defense.

According to the Supreme Court in Miller, the amendment extends only to “ordinary” militia arms. The Militia Act of 1792, for example, required the maintenance of little more than a musket and bayonet, small arms that the ordinary male citizen would have at home in the 1780s and could physically “bear.”

Eighteenth century warfare was organized around the massed effect of such relatively simple personal weapons. Over the next two centuries, however, the nature of warfare shifted and the strategic value of small arms declined. Today, civilians equipped with small arms hardly counterbalance the heavy weaponry of military professionals.

Twentieth century American laws limiting the right to bear arms are largely a response to the rise in firearm related crime and are usually upheld by the courts. Many follow the collectivist theory and hold that the amendment only shields state organized militias.  Others, like the Miller decision, find that an individual's possession of a particular weapon is unrelated to a militia's “preservation or efficiency” and can therefore be controlled. Following the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois (1886), most courts sanction state firearms restrictions by declaring that the amendment bars only federal interference.

Despite these rulings, polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees them the right to own a gun. Indeed, 80 million Americans own firearms, primarily for sporting or safety purposes. The absence of any recent Supreme Court cases addressing the Second Amendment, as well as new arguments in the 1990s that a right to bear arms might exist in the penumbra of the Ninth or Tenth Amendments, seems to assure that the nature and scope of the right to bear arms will remain contentious in the United States.


2nd Ammendment is your right!!!

CCW is a privilege.

So, Mr Troll feels that since the 2A is  privilege, Only Certain Annoited people can carry guns?

   Like Him?

I suppose that Women and old people are Not in this category and thus are regulated to being easy victims?

He is also NOT a Liberetarian in thinking.  If he were, a nuclear weapon would be allowed as long as it is used in a responsible manner and the
   the user accepts full Responsibility for damages caused by it.  (Book, "The Probability Broach", by L. Neil Smith)

Since he feels that government is "supreme",  he should READ this book:    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
   written by a UH professor.

The military may seem to have power but individuals still can win, look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  Ever since the days of Alexander, No One has effectively been able to
   tame that piece of the world.  Not Breat Britian, not Russia and certainly not the US.

And just what kind of weapons are the Afghan "insurgents" using?  Pretty much the same stuff we have here except for RPGs(more or less).