Hawaii proposes repeal of the Second Amendment .....

Most law enforcement officers are poorly trained when it comes to the safe handling of firearms.

 

How is the 2nd amendment not absolute? Where does it say it's not absolute?

 

Numerous scotus decisions

 

Let’s stay away from the rabbit hole of pretending ignorance.

 

So we'll strike your comment that the 2nd amendment is not absolute. Good.

 

Obviously people have a right to carry, however, I wish some people would be more honest with themselves. Meaning, there are some people who shouldn't be carrying. Case in point, a friend of mine couldn't hit the side of a barn if he was standing 2 feet in front of it. It's embarrassing how bad a shot he is. He'd likely kill innocent bystanders instead of the perp. You'd think anyone taking on the responsibility of carrying a weapon that they would take the time to train themselves to be proficient enough to not be a danger to innocent people. Just my two cents.

 

Yup.....we’re talking politics with a group that thinks the act of purchasing a firearm is all that’s needed to be in law enforcement.

 

That's a generalization. There are those who do take the responsibility very seriously and do take the time to be proficient with their weapon.

 

More bloviating.

 

Not a generalization. Huge difference between being proficient with a weapon and training for law enforcement. .

 

I don't give two sh!ts if a civilian loses their house. All I care about is said civilian is a good enough shot that they don't kill innocent bystanders.

 

Clearly, not the context of the question asked. And while SCOTUS have offered up some allowance for regulatory intent, they, so far, haven't allowed that the right itself can be rescinded.. Of course the state of Hawaii is actually intending to exercise that option, and clearly, that isn't constitutional, doesn't respect federal supremacy, and cannot then be enforceable.

 

We should all care about the liability of civilians losing their house. Being held accountable for poor decisions is what keeps neighborhoods safe, not being an accurate shooter

 

Still only care about innocent bystanders not getting hurt. That opinion won't change no matter how many times you reply to me.

 

More woo woo. The 2@ IS NOT ABSOLUTE and firearms have been, are, and will always be regulated. The discussion should always be around, people, types of firearms and locations of regulations, not whether they can or not. THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED.

 

Sheriffs and volunteers should be able to easily restore the peace. Federal Marshalls can also deputize the public.
This should have been done as soon as slaughter began.

 

We’re different . I’m not ONLY thinking about the innocent one that got hurt, but a deterrent for the next one.

 

It's not? Can you cite the particular language in the amendment that says it's not absolute?

 

Yes, but for gun control most of the citizens in our urban killing zones would have armed themselves and stopped the slaughter in the streets instantly.

 

You still on this kick ? You’re dillusional. Federal Marshall’s Deputize the public ? Wow....sounds like a movie plot.

 

Trump should not cut SS or Medicaid. But both SS and Medicaid are a scam. They both can and will be cut or eliminated whenever the USG chooses to divert the funding.

Did you believe DP pols when they told you that SS funds were in a "lock box"? That was a Big Lie. Again, RP pols and DP pols are partners in crime - they are not adversaries. With few exceptions Trump is the only adversary to the corrupt bipartisan ruling political class. Hence his remarkable popularity with ordinary Americans.

“[T]he running existential contradictions of D.C., a place where “authenticity and fantasy are close companions”, as the Washington Post’s Henry Allen once wrote. It misses that the city, far from being hopelessly divided, is in fact hopelessly interconnected. It misses the degree to which New Media has democratized the political conversation while accentuating Washington's insular, myopic, and self loving tendencies. It misses, most of all, a full examination of how Washington may not serve the country well but has, in fact, worked splendidly for Washington itself– A city of beautifully busy people constantly writing the story of their own lives.” Mark Leibovich, THIS TOWN, Penguin Books, 2013, p. 10.

 

I just don't understand how you can think that lying about the intent of the legislation in Hawaii is going to help you here. Hawaii are attempting to entirely remove the second amendment. Or did you forget that part? And yes, the bill of rights actually are intended to be immutable. That doesn't mean they are absolute, and I had pointed that out earlier. But that isn't the same as a state simply deciding they no longer wish to support a founding tenant of our constitution. That is different. And it is authoritarian, and it never works. Government is then the only authority.

So to put a super fine point on it, no one argued what you created as your strawman here. Your post both didn't respond to or otherwise provide value. You simply tried to whitewash over the conversation. Not your best tactic.

 

I don’t have to. I can read and google. You can’t ? You actually can’t find out these things in your own ?

 

I'm happy to hear you admit that you can't support your claim.

My work is done here.

 

Why should the National Rifle Association be involved in a phony fight over corrupt entitlement programs that ration healthcare and underserve retirees?