Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: More evidence that HI is mostly Sheeple-populated -- Gun Poll results...

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    More evidence that HI is mostly Sheeple-populated -- Gun Poll results...

    As we know, HI ingores half of the 2nd Amendment in that it only allows citizens to OWN guns ("keep") but only at home (and ONLY if registered) -- no CARRY of guns ("bear") is allowed since there is no OC in HI, and although CC is "may-issue," permits are never issued.

    A Gun Poll as seen in today's Honolulu Star Advertiser [see current results in attached image below] shows a clear MINORITY of HI citizens owning guns at home (or at least admitting it). And even with the added "no, but plan to soon" even smaller minority, the "no guns at home" people are still a clear majority.

    ...doesn't bode well for trying to make HI a "shall-issue" state but that should still be the goal.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Honolulu Star Advertiser Gun Poll results (as of 11-27-12).png 
Views:	228 
Size:	23.6 KB 
ID:	9607  
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-27-2012 at 01:47 PM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    ...shows a clear MINORITY of HI citizens owning guns at home...
    Any reason we should believe those polled were mostly American citizens and not just residents? Doesn't Hawaii have a very significant population of non-citizens?

    Legal non-citizen residents can have guns (at least in most states), yes, but it would not be as common for them, and any readers poll is likely skewed and completely untrustworthy.
    Last edited by MAC702; 11-27-2012 at 01:57 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    I wasn't assigning a specific meaning (definition) to my use of the word "citizen," so yes, "resident" could have been used just as well -- or Kama'aina even.

    And no, I realize most polls aren't accurate, especially casual ones such as this...I'm just posting it at face-value for what it's showing now. With statisics showing America as a whole with HUGE numbers of guns in the hands of its citizens (residents), I for one would expect this poll to show the opposite result -- a majority of homes WITH guns (like a poll in most states would likely show). Even some locals (HI) believe it true that the majority of people DO have guns at home -- but just looking at this particular poll today, they don't.

    What is the REALITY? I don't know...

    So the point is a majority of respondents to this poll -- WHOEVER they are -- are saying they do NOT have guns at home nor plan to get one. And since it's a Hawaiian newspaper poll -- of no interest to most people living elsewhere -- it's a reasonable assumption that likely most (even if not all) respondents are HI residents...but I won't argue the point.

    Just posting the poll here in the Hawaii area for the record. Readers can make out of it what they wish.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-27-2012 at 03:07 PM.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I didn't mean to imply inference beyond face value. I was mostly thinking out loud.

    It's an interesting poll to be sure. There are so many variables in our distant state.

    Does Hawaii have both liberal and conservative newspapers? Is there a specific slant to the readership of this one?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    There are lots of guns out there in Mainland USA, but gun owners are not by any means the majority. So your assertion would be just as valid for the USA as a whole as well as for any individual state.

    On a positive note, Hawaii is being sued over the restrictive gun laws. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii...earms-laws/123

    Don't understand why it is not posted.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    skidmark:

    I completely disagree. HI clearly seems more "gun-less" and in more ways than the obvious. And I wouldn't be comparing Liberal Democrat HI with other Liberal Democrat states anyway (which would clearly impact the "poll numbers" of the nation as a whole re: how many people have guns at home or don't) but was thinking more of (contrasting) HI vs. states like TX, AZ and such, or AT LEAST states that give their citizens ONE way to carry (CC or OC). HI gives neither so it's almost in a class of its own: Few states give their citizens (residents) NO way to carry. But again, I won't debate the point.

    As for lawsuits, maybe the one you reference was the LAST one (not too long ago) that was attempted? If so, it got dismissed, IIRC, for some technicality...and afterwards, I never heard anymore about it so I thought they dropped it. But if you link to a NEW (and hopefully "corrected") lawsuit then I'll check it out forthwith.



    MAC702:

    I have been unable to find ANYthing "conservative" about HI, let alone a newspaper. I believe even the Monk seals and honu are Democrats. I'm not sure about the humuhumunukunukuapua'a however, so I'd have to check with one on that. My guess is it's also a Democrat. ;-)

    They USED to have 2 newspapers -- the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin -- but economic realities changed that, so about a year ago they "merged" and only have one now: The Star Advertiser. Sorry, I don't know if one was less liberal than the other. HI seems to have been Liberal since statehood. Even the recent Republican Governor (Lingle) didn't do anything (TMK) really "conservative" while in office and in her recent bid for Senate, she was landslided (!) by the Democrat candidate. I don't know how a Republican could get elected for Chief Dog Catcher there so I don't know how she made Governor in the first place. I don't know if Republicans EVER were a majority in HI since statehood (1959), but I doubt it. Sad.

    As for the Honolulu Star Advertiser readership, I see plenty of posts from people upset HI doesn't do more about crime & criminals (and what SHOULD happen to criminals) which would suggest there are a lot of "conservatives" out there, but except for me "ranting" in the forums there, I don't see that, nor ANYTHING by other posters AT LEAST demanding that HI become a shall-issue state, nor even any (except me) call for HPD Police Chief Louis "no-issue" Kealoha to do his job and ISSUE CC permits).

    So as I've said before, it seems HI will need to be FORCED to go shall-issue...hence the interest in lawsuits since THAT seems to be the only way.

    Still, if the people don't support it in general, I don't know how that would go, even though it SHOULD be a separate issue -- a point of Constitutional Law (namely, demanding HI allow FULL exercise of the 2nd Amendment where there is no such thing now) -- and not something like how the people in general "feel" about it. Meaning, if HI is unconstitutional, then THAT needs to be corrected as it's a point of law, whether the people want CC (or OC) is irrelevant...which MIGHT be a good thing in that I wonder how many signatures one could get on a petition demanding HI go shall-issue. Maybe not enough, but who knows...worth a try anyway.

    [EDIT (added): Naturally, no one would be FORCED to apply for a permit to carry so those anti-gun people still NOT wanting to carry DON'T HAVE TO (so nothing changes for them), but for others who DO want to carry -- if the state went to shall-issue -- they would then be able to get a permit. People could still CHOOSE -- to carry or not -- but presently they have no such choice. IMO, EVERY state MUST give its residents at least ONE way to carry, as that recognizes/affirms the 2nd Amendment's "to bear" part, so if a state allows neither CC or OC, then it's clearly unconstitutional, period. Half a right is NO right.]

    While they DO have some pro-gun organizations there, and the shooting ranges often are filled to capacity (and more), you don't hear much about the pro-gun groups. But you DO read about -- almost daily, and sometimes multiple incidents each day (sometimes done to tourists, sometimes to other locals) -- of beatings, knifings and shootings...but citizens have no legal way to defend themselves. Also sad.


    P.S. I just checked the Star Advertiser website "Guns at Home" poll again and the results show even more people with "no guns at home" but the ratio is pretty much identical at 2:1. Interestingly, the "plan to have one soon" percentage remains identical to the earlier one.

    See image below...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Honolulu Star Advertiser Gun Poll results (as of 11-27-12)2.png 
Views:	165 
Size:	24.8 KB 
ID:	9608  
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 11-28-2012 at 01:59 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    As for lawsuits, maybe the one you reference was the LAST one (not too long ago) that was attempted? If so, it got dismissed, IIRC, for some technicality...and afterwards, I never heard anymore about it so I thought they dropped it. But if you link to a NEW (and hopefully "corrected") lawsuit then I'll check it out forthwith.
    Argued today in the 9th Circuit, case 12-16258.

    http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=1825.280 has details and links to audio of the arguments, etc.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The "no but plan to soon" ... these are folks expecting to get out of prison soon ? yuk yuk yuk

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
    Argued today in the 9th Circuit, case 12-16258.

    http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=1825.280 has details and links to audio of the arguments, etc.

    You can listen to oral arguments here:
    Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000010109



    Is this our Ed?





    *******************

    Wow! Listened to the audio ... one great insight noted by me: in Heller the court discussed restrictions on school grounds, courts, etc.... so this implies that other areas are protected carry areas otherwise there would be no reason to discuss these "special areas" as being reasonable...

    And that a state cannot ban both OC and CC as this would violate our rights to BEAR arms ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-07-2012 at 02:31 AM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    "HONOLULU POLICE CHIEF AND STATE OF HAWAII SUED FOR SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS"

    Yes, this is EXACTLY the kind of headline I was hoping to see! From what I could gather about "how it went" in court in CA, however, maybe it's just me but it didn't sound too encouraging.

    As I've said, IMO a state MUST allow it's citizens ONE way to "bear" arms. HI only has CC on-paper, not in reality, so it fails to allow its residents to carry at all. I can not see any good reason why that would NOT be UNconstitutional.

    [ADDED (12-8-12) for clarification: If it was/is constitutional for a particular state (such as HI) to deny residents the right to carry ("bear" arms) -- as it apparently is, since the SCOTUS has done NOTHING about HI's situation (CC on paper but never issuing permits is denying the right to carry/ "bear") -- does that mean the OTHER states that DO allow its citizens to carry are actually the UNconstitutional states (just the reverse)? Yes...it's confusing, as I don't understand how we have states both allowing and denying carrying...how can both situations be constitutional at the same time. As I've said, either the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment in particular) apply to ALL Americans regardless of their state of residence, or it does not apply. OF COURSE it should apply to ALL Americans, and while I respect the concept of State's Rights, states do not have the right to deny its residents their US Constitutional rights as American citizens...or what's the point of being a Union of states is we do not have the Constitution in common and equally-applied to everyone?]

    For some decades now, it seems MOST often the courts (judges) are so mired in "the law" they can't see the simple facts (the forest for the trees). No wonder "Lady Justice" has a blindfold on: The blindfold no longer symbolizes what it was originally supposed to -- justice being impartial -- today it simply means justice is BLIND.

    Kudos (again) to Kama'aina Chris Baker for keeping up the fight...
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-08-2012 at 12:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •