it’s official: according to Hawaii, guns have no chill
They’re tools designed specifically for killing, that’s kind of the point
Wrong. They were originally designed to open beer bottles.
Don’t kill the chill.
Is all I ever asked.
Hand guns are made for killin’
They ain’t no good for nothin’ else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
But what about my GOD GUNS GUTS bumper sticker?
They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.
Wow, he even managed to roll some sexism into that one
How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?
I mean, we’ve already got our pitchforks out, fuck it
OP is racist!!
It’s not, @SpaceNoodle did a dumb take in an effort to pile on the guy
Noticing that a bit in this thread
The decision to gender only the victim is questionable.
The argument doesn’t sound as convincing this way:
A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of assailants on an equal field with the burliest of women.
that is not a resonable test in this situation.
Dont use ‘woman’ as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
So the more guns there are the less gun crime
That is not the claim
Removed by mod
A gun allows physically weaker people to defend themselves from physically stronger people
Removed by mod
That must be why the homicide rates in the rest of the world are so much higher than the US.
💀
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.
Ho ho, buddy! I don’t agree, but I won’t keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they’re right. But don’t take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!
Hmm here is an idea. What if we made a religion that was against open carry and was technically Christianity? Could we use the veto power religion now has over the Bill of Rights?
No. Religious arguments against abortion are actually relying on the definition of what constitutes a life, not the pure fact that their religion says it’s wrong.
You can get out of military service this way though.
it’s not a medical definition of life so…
When they wrote the laws against murder in the late 18th century they didn’t really draw that distinction, unfortunately. That’s how laws work, the intent of the lawmakers who voted to pass it are what matters when attempting to enforce it. A similar case would be making Donald Trump ineligible for office over sedition, he put up a legal defence claiming that the lawmakers never intended for it to apply to presidents or other high level office holders, but it turns out the congressional records detail the conversations when they considered making exemptions and decided it should apply to everyone.
if only we applied such strict adherence to original intent to the 2nd amendment
Hawaii’s Supreme court actually has very recently, and the Assault Rifle Ban that expired a few years ago was also a great example of it, but yes I agree more consistency and less corruption in government would be great.
It has nothing to do with the possibility of ending a life, otherwise republicans would actually care about what happens in schools (be it shootings or diddling, republicans are OK with them happening in schools).
Republicans are hardly a monolithic entity. Some may care about ending lives, but only ones that have nor been convicted of a crime. Others may care about ending lives, but not as much as they care about their right to firearms. Others view it as a religious issue. Others want women to be broodmares.
For the record, all of them are fundamentally disrespecting another person’s autonomy, but they can have different reasons for doing so or priorities when doing so.
How is that any different? It’s still their religion that says when life begins. Other abrahamic religions do not believe that life starts at conception.
While the argument for life beginning at conception can be rooted in religious texts, it can also be based on the desire for simplicity of argument.
I.e. not wanting to pick a random day during the term of the pregnancy to serve as a cutoff point, because the development of a fetus doesn’t have a convenient place where you can say "5 minutes ago, this thing wasn’t alive. Now it is. "
at least theyre tryin
It was always that way, the problem was that they wouldn’t give out permits to anyone.
That’s didn’t feel like a problem. No permits, no guns.
That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we’re talking about so I imagine it’s much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.
Considering the easiest way to get a gun “illegally” is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.
I hate this argument because it shows just how little people know about gun laws.
It’s federally illegal to buy a pistol outside of your home state. You can’t just go to a gun shop the next state over and buy a Glock 17.
For long guns, the seller must follow the laws of the state in which it is sold AND in which the buyer lives.
When I sold guns and someone from New Jersey wanted to buy a rifle, they had to produce their New Jersey permit and I to do the New Jersey background check and waiting period on top of the NICS background check required federally. I had to reference New Jersey laws and could only sell guns that were legal in that state.
We had a spreadsheet we kept up to date with every firearm we had in stock, new or used, listing whether it was legal in each state.
So it sounds like you’re a law abiding citizen…
The argument I’m replying to is that criminals are buying guns in neighboring states because the laws are looser and they can get away with it.
But the laws regarding buying a gun outside one’s home state are federal, and don’t change from state to state. A California resident buying a Glock 43 in Texas is no more legal than them buying it in California. In fact - it’s moreso. Buying it in California is just buying a gun illegally by California law. Buying it in Texas is violating California, Texas, and Federal law, and then illegally smuggling the gun afterwards.
Well, actually, they cited the state and federal constitution and chose to interpret “well regulated militia” does not accurately describe untrained civilians even though the SCOTUS disagreed. Which is a little more substantial than just Aloha Spirit, imo.
I love the aloha spirit! I hope it spreads like COVID. I mean, in a good way.
is this the only ōlelo hawaiʻi word that anyone remembers
Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.
They could like, get a permit
True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol
Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).
The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.
Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.
should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
If you’re talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an “Army” or a “Navy”.
Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.
They don’t define the constitutional meaning of “Militia” when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from “citizen” to “person subject to US law” or “able bodied” to “sound minded”, or “male” to “person”, or “17-45” to “16-60”.
The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of “We The People”, and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.
When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in “armies” or the “Navy”.
The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don’t think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.
You don’t get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.
Open carry does not pass the “vibe check”
“Don’t kill the chill”
“Aloha Motherfucker”
Can’t wait for this to be appealed and struck down.
I like gun
Well thats going to get shut down
States can ignore SCOTUS rulings now.
I’m surprised to see so many people supporting the actions of Gov. Abbott.
I don’t think it’s necessarily support. But if actions have no consequences then there’s no reason not to? Not that it’s a good argument but it’s apparently reality
Maybe “accepting” would have been a better choice? I don’t know.
What are they supposed to do about it? The average person can’t afford to take a day off to protest.
Clearly. I guess this is the country now. Supreme Court rulings are optional unless the President decides to send in troops to enforce it.
I’m not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it’s not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are “reasonable” and not designed to infringe on your rights.
The problem is Hawaii is not shall-issue as the vast majority of states are. One can be denied such merely because the official feels like it, despite fully qualifying and jumping every hoop.
Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn’t even try to register or get a carry license?
Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.
There’s Shall Issue and there’s “Shall Issue”. Where I live (Bay area) it’s 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there’s a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.
I’m not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff’s or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?
Okay?
So you’re not sure what Hawaii’s rules on carry permits are, but you’re sure they’re bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.
For the record, a cursory search says it’s pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.
And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don’t want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can’t bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.
Its shall issue. Just because you do all that, you can still be denied.
gonna have to aloha sprint the next time an open carry w/o permit thinks otherwise
Are you having a stroke?
Is your country such a shithole that you need a gun in order to feel safe walking around?
It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.
Because gun laws have worked in other places. Canada, Australia, The UK, etc don’t have this problem.
One of the best things the govt here in aus did in my lifetime, was tighten gun laws and buy back as many guns as they could. While we’re by no means free of gun violence and homicides, we very rarely have incidents like mass/school shootings.
Because guns are not the same as drugs. Hence the rules should be different.
Do you need target practice to shoot heroin? Do you seek self medication by going out and waving a gun around? for some reason one seems much less threatening to the general populous than the other
We’re all here wondering if this is to convince yourself, or just bad sarcasm.
deleted by creator
