As much as I believe in States Rights, Depriving the people of the rights afforded to us in the constitution is not justified....... Unless they withdraw from the United States......

Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

Democratic Hawaii AG hails court ruling as 'thoughtful and scholarly'

Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled that Second Amendment rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend to Hawaii citizens, citing the "spirit of Aloha."

In the ruling, which was penned by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense," further pointing to the "spirit of Aloha" and even quoting HBO's TV drama "The Wire."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawaii-...-amendment

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

This is not an attempt to thwart the 2nd amendment. They’re restricting the right to carry, which many states and municipalities do already. Gun owners can still possess them in their homes.

---

This is not an attempt to thwart the 2nd amendment. They’re restricting the right to carry, which many states and municipalities do already. Gun owners can still possess them in their homes.

Your rights are not restricted to your home.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This is not an attempt to thwart the 2nd amendment. They’re restricting the right to carry, which many states and municipalities do already. Gun owners can still possess them in their homes.

Your rights are not restricted to your home.

The Constitution does not delineate whether the right to bear arms includes the right to carry. I’m not arguing against it, but simply framing the legal challenges.

---

As much as I believe in States Rights, Depriving the people of the rights afforded to us in the constitution is not justified....... Unless they withdraw from the United States......

Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amendment

Democratic Hawaii AG hails court ruling as 'thoughtful and scholarly'

Hawaii's highest court on Wednesday ruled that Second Amendment rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend to Hawaii citizens, citing the "spirit of Aloha."

In the ruling, which was penned by Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins, the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public. The decision also concluded that the Hawaii Constitution broadly "does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense," further pointing to the "spirit of Aloha" and even quoting HBO's TV drama "The Wire."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawaii-...-amendment

This is an interesting one.  Hawai'i, like Native Americans has a history well before Europeans settled.  It's as much Polynesian as it is American.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

Your rights are not restricted to your home.

The Constitution does not delineate whether the right to bear arms includes the right to carry. I’m not arguing against it, but simply framing the legal challenges.

Bearing is carrying by definition. That we've let them redefine simple words is what's wrong with the Country.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The Constitution does not delineate whether the right to bear arms includes the right to carry. I’m not arguing against it, but simply framing the legal challenges.

Bearing is carrying by definition. That we've let them redefine simple words is what's wrong with the Country.

Now define "well regulated militia" and explain why we just completely ignore that part. 

LOL

Trying to semantics-to-death the 2nd amendment is never going to end well

---

Bearing is carrying by definition. That we've let them redefine simple words is what's wrong with the Country.

Now define "well regulated militia" and explain why we just completely ignore that part. 

LOL

Trying to semantics-to-death the 2nd amendment is never going to end well

At the time "well regulated" was basically a gun registry.  The governor or the justice of the peace was supposed to have a pretty good idea of who had what so they knew who to call in an emergency.  
Now I don't think this would do much good today, because such a significant chunk would ignore and resist efforts to get their weapons registered, and because we have well funded regular police forces, but I do think it would be within the original meaning, for what that's worth.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Now define "well regulated militia" and explain why we just completely ignore that part. 

LOL

Trying to semantics-to-death the 2nd amendment is never going to end well

At the time "well regulated" was basically a gun registry.  The governor or the justice of the peace was supposed to have a pretty good idea of who had what so they knew who to call in an emergency.  
Now I don't think this would do much good today, because such a significant chunk would ignore and resist efforts to get their weapons registered, and because we have well funded regular police forces, but I do think it would be within the original meaning, for what that's worth.

How did you arrive at that interpretation? 

The point that has long been beaten to death was that civilians freely purchasing firearms do not constitute a militia and are also not well regulated.

---

Bearing is carrying by definition. That we've let them redefine simple words is what's wrong with the Country.

Now define "well regulated militia" and explain why we just completely ignore that part. 

LOL

Trying to semantics-to-death the 2nd amendment is never going to end well

Sure! The term "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and refers to the need to keep the militia properly armed and prepared to fight a government that might overreach and suppress our natural rights. It has nothing to do with the stupid attempt to redefine the words to place the control of the militia under the government it's intended to fight. You're welcome!

---

Now define "well regulated militia" and explain why we just completely ignore that part. 

LOL

Trying to semantics-to-death the 2nd amendment is never going to end well

At the time "well regulated" was basically a gun registry.  The governor or the justice of the peace was supposed to have a pretty good idea of who had what so they knew who to call in an emergency.  
Now I don't think this would do much good today, because such a significant chunk would ignore and resist efforts to get their weapons registered, and because we have well funded regular police forces, but I do think it would be within the original meaning, for what that's worth.

Bull [BLEEP].

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Bearing is carrying by definition. That we've let them redefine simple words is what's wrong with the Country.

Now define "well regulated militia" and explain why we just completely ignore that part. 

LOL

Trying to semantics-to-death the 2nd amendment is never going to end well

Sure! The term "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and refers to the need to keep the militia properly armed and prepared to fight a government that might overreach and suppress our natural rights. It has nothing to do with the stupid attempt to redefine the words to place the control of the militia under the government it's intended to fight. You're welcome!

---

At the time "well regulated" was basically a gun registry.  The governor or the justice of the peace was supposed to have a pretty good idea of who had what so they knew who to call in an emergency.  
Now I don't think this would do much good today, because such a significant chunk would ignore and resist efforts to get their weapons registered, and because we have well funded regular police forces, but I do think it would be within the original meaning, for what that's worth.

Bull [BLEEP].

Have you read the state constitutions that were in effect in 1789? I have.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sure! The term "well regulated" means "in proper working order" and refers to the need to keep the militia properly armed and prepared to fight a government that might overreach and suppress our natural rights. It has nothing to do with the stupid attempt to redefine the words to place the control of the militia under the government it's intended to fight. You're welcome!

---

Bull [BLEEP].

Have you read the state constitutions that were in effect in 1789? I have.

No one cares what you've read when you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't comprehend, or worse, torture words to say what you want rather than what they mean.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Have you read the state constitutions that were in effect in 1789? I have.

No one cares what you've read when you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't comprehend, or worse, torture words to say what you want rather than what they mean.

Well I guess I could use some help then.  Help me interpret this one:

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The founders literally debated making firearm ownership mandatory, but considered it a violation of religious freedom. They also didn't see themselves having a standing army, and believed an armed populace was the best way to defend the nation. They also largely thought state rights superseded federal rights (obviously this became a quick point of contention in the new US). Regardless, any attempt to reshape the 2nd amendment debate into one about whether people could only carry as part of a militia is laughable and historically nonsence.

---

The founders literally debated making firearm ownership mandatory, but considered it a violation of religious freedom. They also didn't see themselves having a standing army, and believed an armed populace was the best way to defend the nation. They also largely thought state rights superseded federal rights (obviously this became a quick point of contention in the new US). Regardless, any attempt to reshape the 2nd amendment debate into one about whether people could only carry as part of a militia is laughable and historically nonsence.

And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

---

The founders literally debated making firearm ownership mandatory, but considered it a violation of religious freedom. They also didn't see themselves having a standing army, and believed an armed populace was the best way to defend the nation. They also largely thought state rights superseded federal rights (obviously this became a quick point of contention in the new US). Regardless, any attempt to reshape the 2nd amendment debate into one about whether people could only carry as part of a militia is laughable and historically nonsence.

And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

Maybe we should deal with those and their cause rather than thinking that everyone should lose their rights because of an infinitesimally small percentage abuse them. Otherwise we should take away the vote since you guys screwed up so badly with the turnip in the White House.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The founders literally debated making firearm ownership mandatory, but considered it a violation of religious freedom. They also didn't see themselves having a standing army, and believed an armed populace was the best way to defend the nation. They also largely thought state rights superseded federal rights (obviously this became a quick point of contention in the new US). Regardless, any attempt to reshape the 2nd amendment debate into one about whether people could only carry as part of a militia is laughable and historically nonsence.

And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

You are correct that they wrote what they meant.

The constitution does not provide for a permanent, long-standing army. It gave congress the power ""To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Since the founders did not advocate for a peacetime standing army, the need for a well-regulated militia was obviously vital for defense of the nation. Citizens needed to be armed and ready to fight if the need ever arose. Why didn't they advocate for a peacetime standing army? Because of its tendency to be abused by tyrants against the people. You know... the same reason you think we couldn't win a civil war against the government.

"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."

So, let me rephrase it for you, filling in the gaps of that which is left unspoken in written text, but well-document in the constitutional conventions, "since we don't think it's wise to have a long standing, peacetime army, due to the various historical examples of abuse by tyrants, we will need and rely on our citizens for defense, so we need to make sure our populace is armed and ready to fight against any threat to the constitution, which could be foreign invaders, but also tyrants who try to usurp power from the citizenry."

They didn't [BLEEP] anything up. There were disagreements between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists, but the part above were the parts to which they agreed. They would have been more disgusted how we use our military as an offensive weapon around the world than they would at the incredibly rare but public abuses of the 2nd amendment. They had murderers back in the 1700s.

Data isn't on your side for this argument. Emotional appeal is your strongest argument, so let's go ahead and get to it.

---

And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless. 

Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that. 

And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.

The constitution does not provide for a permanent, long-standing army. It gave congress the power ""To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Since the founders did not advocate for a peacetime standing army, the need for a well-regulated militia was obviously vital for defense of the nation. Citizens needed to be armed and ready to fight if the need ever arose. You are correct that they wrote what they meant.

"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."

Let me rephrase it for you, filling in the gaps of that which is left unspoken, "since we don't think it's wise to have a long standing, peacetime army, due to the various historical examples of abuse by tyrants, we will need and rely on our citizens for defense, so we need to make sure our populace is armed and ready to fight against any threat to the constitution." Those threats could be foreign invaders, but it's also tyrants who try to usurp power from the citizenry.

They didn't [BLEEP] anything up. There were disagreements between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists, but the part above were the parts to which they agreed. They would have been more disgusted how we use our military as an offensive weapon around the world than they would at the incredibly rare but public abuses of the 2nd amendment. They had murderers back in the 1700s.

Data isn't on your side for this argument. Emotional appeal is your strongest argument, so let's go ahead and get to it.

I don't need an argument to state clearly and definitively that you are offering up interpretations of the amendment.

Which was why I initially said this 2nd Amend. semantics road was pointless. 

You're gonna tell me what you think it means - I'm gonna tell you that even if that's what they meant, it doesn't make sense anymore. 

Blah, blah, blah.... No thanks. Been down that road 100 times. 


You aren't advancing "data" - you're forwarding interpretations. 
Unless you're about to produce a comprehensive assemblage of documentation of the "founders" debates on the topic which outline their interpretation of the word "militia."  Otherwise - you're just attempting to frame ancillary context as a "definition"


I'll just leave this here so we can skip most of the part I don't care about:
I believe in the premise behind the amendment - and I don't want to disarm citizens. But the way we are utilizing the amendment legally doesn't make sense in the modern context. Americans would be safer with smarter regulation of the sale and accessibility of weapons capable of mass shootings. And Hawaii should be able to make their own policy about open carry of guns.

---

Nah, the proper way to address it is more guns in more hands. John Lott's work on that topic dispels every fraudulent plank of the gun grabbers platform and the founding father were just as right then as they still are today.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Every one who is able might have a gun."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's really not profitable to have a conversation about the 2nd amendment with people who think it means they get to have personal supplies of nuclear weapons.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.