Hawaii isn't interested in our Constitution

a reply to: grey580

But you are an elector of such individuals.

They don't exist without you.

a reply to: JinMI

I didn't vote for the republicans in florida that passed that law.

a reply to: network dude

Hawaii is an American Territory that is governed 100% by the US military, that just happens to have statehood which benefits the US Military Industrial Complex. Don't let anyone tell you different, especially the board of tourism!

Hawaii don't need no 2nd Amendment (small m) militia!
LOL

ETA Quote me on that JinMi!

a reply to: chr0naut

The whole of 2nd is clearly about militias and the use of arms, therein, to defend from the redcoats and other similar outside (and non-representational of the will of "we the people"), governments.

Incorrect.

The problem here with you're statement is that American English is a living evolving language. Back in the 1780s the meaning of the word militia was a bit different. Back then it meant all male citizens over the age of 13 to 65 eligible to serve in the military. When it comes to older documents you need to research the meanings of the key words before deciding on the meaning of the statement. You could come up with an incorrect conclusion.

a reply to: ntech620

It took two years to finally get them to accept the fact that "well regulated" in 18th century parlance meant "in well working, well resourced order."


Good luck trying to convey logic on the militia though.

a reply to: JinMI

You just have to remember they didn't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a gun. They wanted to restrict gun ownership to citizens eligible to serve in a military. The 2nd Amendment is actually a gun control law.

a reply to: ntech620

If by the 2a being a gun control law you mean controlling the government from infringing on people owning guns, I agree.


Gun control only become a thing because of those black folks who wanted freedom........

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

You are right and I don't think many are aware of what happened in the Islands.

en.wikipedia.org...

The overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a coup d'état against Queen Liliʻuokalani which took place on January 17, 1893, on the island of Oʻahu and led by the Committee of Safety, composed of seven foreign residents and six Hawaiian Kingdom subjects of American descent in Honolulu.[5][6] The Committee prevailed upon American minister John L. Stevens to call in the U.S. Marines to protect the national interest of the United States of America. The insurgents established the Republic of Hawaii, but their ultimate goal was the annexation of the islands to the United States, which occurred in 1898.

So if you want to be fair and balanced in your argument you need to see what really happened.

A coup d'etat against the Queen with the ultimate purpose of the annexation of the islands to the United States. It can't be more clear than this.

originally posted by: ntech620
a reply to: JinMI

You just have to remember they didn't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry having a gun. They wanted to restrict gun ownership to citizens eligible to serve in a military. The 2nd Amendment is actually a gun control law.

sigh

Every time ...

Every time the "people should have not rights" crowd want to justify depriving people of their Constitutional right to bear arms, they invariably trot out the same debunked talking points. I guess they hope people forget. Maybe they think if they repeat the same lie often enough, more people will believe it.

Well, I'm still alive. So I'll keep debunking the lie when I see it.

"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."

Anyone with a 5th grade reading level in the English language and an IQ above 70 will note: The Second Amendment does NOT require membership in a militia for someone to keep and bear arms. It is a right that the people have, and government has no legal authority to infringe on that right.

The typical response usually goes along the lines of, "Well, why does the 2nd mention militias if gun ownership isn't limited to militia members?" The answer to that does require a little understanding of the founding fathers. Many of them were opposed to the idea of a large standing army. Standing armies mean excessive taxes. Also, they present a temptation to government: we've got this nice army and nobody is attacking us, let's use that army to attack someone else. Looking at it today, it appears they were right on both counts.

Now, with modern warfare being what it is, a standing army makes more sense. Not as large as we have today, but sufficiently armed and prepared to defend the United States. But at the time, it was expected that if America was ever invaded, every American who was able to do so should help to repel the invaders. That is why the clause about a militia being necessary to a free state is in there.

If the founding fathers had chosen to limit which American citizens could and could not bear arms, they would have done so. They were intelligent, literate, and perfectly capable of expressing themselves in writing. But whether you understand the reasoning of the founding fathers or not, it is at the very least disingenuous to try to say that the 2nd only applies to militia members. I can't believe anyone's understanding of the English language is that poor. Well, then again, today's educational system ...

The only legal way for the federal government to infringe on our Second Amendment rights is to amend the Constitution. There are processes for that. Of course, our government today is too corrupt to worry about such legalities.

The only silver lining I see to this is the low recruitment numbers for today's military. Maybe young people are starting to realize that it makes no sense to risk your lives for a government that thinks you shouldn't have any rights. The next step is to identify the real enemies of the American people.

Jeez, don't pay attention to our open carry laws or anything.

You have them in Humboldt or Mendocino County, or any county under 200,000, but nowhere else. And then it's at the discretion of the Sherrif or Chief or Police who to grant the permits to.

But since I'm being an ATS masochist currently...

Second Ammendment:

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.

A Landmark (twice partly overruled) 1876 Supreme Court ruling stated:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

So the argument is, It's not a right that grants the right to carry, it's a right that prevents the Federal from infringing on your right to carry. Just the Federal. I swear a similar logic was recently used in another rights ruling.

Anyway...

Of course that was all cleared up in McDonald v. The City of Chicago which overruled the rights of states and local jurisdictions to infringe on the constitutional right to own reasonable firearms and defend oneself.

But what about open carry?

the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day"

And applied more recently in 2022 in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE

Which ruled 6-3 and upheld open-carry privileges. This ruling did not directly reference Hawaii and California, but it was implied their laws can be challenged on similar constitutional grounds. And are being challenged.

Open carry is not to be infringed on for qualified individuals.

I don't think California or Hawaii heard that, but for those here that care they'll make them (legally speaking) eventually.

I don't see what the problem with holsteted weapons is, and no problem with where things stand. The unqualified never holster their weapons anyway. I prefer my 2 million volt flashlight, but others might feel different. On principle alone. Maybe sometimes it's like Taxi Driver?

That opinion is from living in Arizona where you dont even need a CCW if you can legally own it. And while there was more gun violence

a reply to: TheSingleBillie

If you dont liek being a american leave and go to japan where ya ancestors came from.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

The problem in this case isn't just permits. The problem is a Hawaiian judge has decided...
Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

From another article that isn't paywalled...

In a groundbreaking decision that reverberates far beyond the Pacific islands, the Hawaii Supreme Court has upheld a man's gun-carry conviction, dismissing landmark US Supreme Court rulings and asserting there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. This bold move directly challenges the SCOTUS's gun rights precedents, potentially inviting a rebuke from the higher court.

Source

Seems liek Hawaii needs a refresher course liek the leaders of the whiskey rebellion got.

originally posted by: ntech620
a reply to: chr0naut

The whole of 2nd is clearly about militias and the use of arms, therein, to defend from the redcoats and other similar outside (and non-representational of the will of "we the people"), governments.

Incorrect.

The problem here with you're statement is that American English is a living evolving language. Back in the 1780s the meaning of the word militia was a bit different. Back then it meant all male citizens over the age of 13 to 65 eligible to serve in the military. When it comes to older documents you need to research the meanings of the key words before deciding on the meaning of the statement. You could come up with an incorrect conclusion.

The etymology of the word "militia" is that it is ancient Latin and meant 'military service' or 'warfare' and was related to the word for a soldier; "miles".

European precedent of the definition of the word dates well back before colonization of the Americas and has always been that a militia referred to a military force.

There were some historical revisionists who have suggested that, in the US, in the 1770's, it meant 'everyone who might possibly join a paramilitary force', but since this term was also often used then interchangeably with the term "militamen" (which always referred to those in such a paramilitary force), it seems unlikely that anyone of the time would seriously use the term for something that it clearly was not, historically or contextually.

There is a definition of "militia" in the Century Dictionary published in 1850, that suggests that the word means "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not". However, that definition is at odds with previous common understandings of the word, and additionally as it was 80 years after the revolution, there was some discussion as to why the 2nd amendment even needed to be there, as the Redcoats were long gone. The Century Dictionary is seen, then, as after-the-fact revisionism to try and make sense of an out-of-date legal statute.

Federalist Paper 29 "Concerning the Milita" was clearly using the term as meaning 'a military force', as it addresses the issue of those allocating themselves to an "excessively large militia" do so at the detriment of the workforce. Here Hamilton is clearly delineating between those active in a militia, and those in the workforce who were eligible to join a militia. The Federalist Papers were all written to explain what the Constitution meant, and to encourage the general public to support it.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TheSingleBillie

If you dont liek being a american leave and go to japan where ya ancestors came from.

There are very few Americans whose ancestors do NOT come from somewhere else. It would be entirely impractical for them all to return to the countries of their ancestry, not to mention the disruption such would cause.

The invaders from elsewhere massacred the first nations peoples almost into oblivion.

It was probably the largest genocide in human history, and it happened in North America.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

Let's see how they enjoy being part of China.

Cheers

Nearly every US city has a Chinatown. Everything in every Walmart and other big supermarket chains is made in China. Apple products are all made in China, you've got your Chinese made cars, your Chinese made computers, your Chinese made phones, your Chinese made TV's, your Chinese made clothing, they have most of the market on most things.

I would have though that Hawaii would be seceding from all that?

Congratulations. You completely evaded replying to my post.

You know exactly what I mean. If China ran Hawaii, the "nationalist" islanders would now all be dead or in special reeducation camps.

I don't think that is happening with them being a U.S. state. /sarc

Cheers

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

This is one thing I've never understood. Requiring a permit, in my mind, is not infringing on our right to bear arms. You just require some paperwork so why are folks so against this? You are still allowed to have your guns......

Can someone explain?

The problem in this case isn't just permits. The problem is a Hawaiian judge has decided...
Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

From another article that isn't paywalled...

In a groundbreaking decision that reverberates far beyond the Pacific islands, the Hawaii Supreme Court has upheld a man's gun-carry conviction, dismissing landmark US Supreme Court rulings and asserting there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. This bold move directly challenges the SCOTUS's gun rights precedents, potentially inviting a rebuke from the higher court.

Source

Seems liek Hawaii needs a refresher course liek the leaders of the whiskey rebellion got.

Indeed.

Ask any kids, kindergarten to fourth grade, if they want a gun. Sure, kids and guns don't mix, (unless under responsible adult supervision) so we should teach them to not go near them and report it immediately to mom, dad, or an adult.

But....

These new lesson plans are teaching them to not want guns AT ALL, and it's working. Look at the last generation....only the criminals wanted guns for the most part.

A couple more generations going forward and the remaining armed hold outs will be reported on by their own children. Can't happen you say? You're best bet is to be long gone before any of it does.

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude


I just don't see it. You need to fill out paperwork to get a driver's license, why not for a gun? I'm not dumb but I sincerely don't see how that infringes on 2A at all.

As stated before, a permit makes it a privilege, not a right. Your example of a driver's license does well to prove the point.

Driving is a privilege. It isn't a right. You have to demonstrate competency to get one. You pay for it. It is in no way guaranteed you can obtain one.

The Second Amendment establishes gun ownership as a right that shall not be infringed. The reason it is there is so citizens can resist a tyrannical government, like the one we escaped back in the 1700's.

Flash forward to the present day US government. What would it love to do? Disarm the populace. Dang those framers of the Constitution and their Second Amendment, making it hard for us to create a pushover society. So they fight to erode our rights.

Then to your point of permits... "Well, man we can't easily grab our guns, but if we make them have a peeeeermit, we'll know who has them and how many!" "Oh, and we can charge for it." "Oh, and create more jobs for ourselves to manage the program. You thought the DMV was bad? Hold my beer!" Permits clearly infringe upon our Second Amendment rights and would provide the government the very information on gun owners our Founding Fathers intended them NOT to have.

Not sure if that clears up why permits are kind of a big deal and a bad one at that.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
One aspect is that Hawaii is "way out there" and obviously couldn't defend itself if another country decided they like the basing opportunity provided by Pearl Harbor.

If they want to be protected as a U.S. state, they don't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them.

Cheers

They never chose to be part of the US. They were invaded and taken by the US.

The Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government

Let's see how they enjoy being part of China.

Cheers

Nearly every US city has a Chinatown. Everything in every Walmart and other big supermarket chains is made in China. Apple products are all made in China, you've got your Chinese made cars, your Chinese made computers, your Chinese made phones, your Chinese made TV's, your Chinese made clothing, they have most of the market on most things.

I would have though that Hawaii would be seceding from all that?

Congratulations. You completely evaded replying to my post.

You know exactly what I mean. If China ran Hawaii, the "nationalist" islanders would now all be dead or in special reeducation camps.

I don't think that is happening with them being a U.S. state. /sarc

Cheers

Firstly, I doubt that China would ever run Hawaii. For one thing, it is a long way away and China isn't as 'colonialist' as most European and Western countries.

On the whole, China have tended to integrate gradually into other countries through trade, and economic influence utilizing infrastructure loans (road-and-belt) etc, rather than directly invade and rule.

Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong are some examples of places that China either had/has its eyes on, or has taken actually control of, and has not been too disruptive to the local cultures and people, nor has it aggressively consumed all their resources, strip-mining them to deserts, as many colonialist countries have.

In the past 40 years, China has not fought in a 'declared' war against any country. So, they are hardly aggressors in comparison to many other nations. It doesn't mean that they have been totally benign, just that they aren't as bad as one particular country would portray them.

But a particular country has invaded (as in, sent in a military force and took control) a lot since 1776. This is a list of the countries they invaded:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Austria
Bolivia
Bosnia
Burma
Cambodia
Chile
China
Colombia
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador
France
Germany
Greece
Grenada
Guam
Guatemala
Haiti Hawaii
Honduras
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Japan
Korea
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Macedonia
Mali
Mexico
Micronesia
Morocco
Nicaragua
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Puerto Rico
Russia
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Vietnam
Virgin Islands
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire (now Congo)

Can you guess which country?

It would seem that a rabidly militaristic country would paint other unassailable nations as 'very threatening evil enemies'. A clear example of this type of propaganda is the Nazi claim that Zionist Jews were trying to 'invade' and/or take control of Germany. Ridiculous, I know, but that's 'how they roll'.

As we look back over the last six decades, ask yourself, how much McCarthyist furore (that actually damaged the quality of life of many of the American citizens that it was supposed to protect), was actually true?

a reply to: network dude
They quoted the wire FFS