Lawmakers in Hawaii propose repealing second amendment

[MindWars]

By Carey Wedler, Jon Miltimore

Legislators in Hawaii, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, moved this week to bring their concerns about the Second Amendment to the national level.

In Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) No. 42, introduced Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers assert that

in light of the numerous tragic mass shootings at schools, work places, and public events, this body believes that it is necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Lawmakers in Hawaii Propose Repealing Second Amendment
--------------------------------------------

Oh i'm sure imagine that and what happen the murder rates wouls be so covered up so they wouldn't look like idiots because everyone told you so.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Get 2/3 of the states to give up their right of self defense.

Let's repeal Hawaii statehood.

 

[Montrovant]

I actually wouldn't mind the second being re-worded for clarity, but I don't see any chance of it being repealed or changed to indicate it only means a collective right rather than an individual right.

I question whether the representatives involved in this actually intend anything to come of it, or if it's just grandstanding.

 

[caddo kid]

Get 2/3 of the states to give up their right of self defense.

Let's repeal Hawaii statehood.

Just drop a few nukes on those five, tiny POS islands .......... they won't need to worry about guns then ........

 

[2aguy]

By Carey Wedler, Jon Miltimore

Legislators in Hawaii, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, moved this week to bring their concerns about the Second Amendment to the national level.

In Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) No. 42, introduced Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers assert that

in light of the numerous tragic mass shootings at schools, work places, and public events, this body believes that it is necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Lawmakers in Hawaii Propose Repealing Second Amendment
--------------------------------------------

Oh i'm sure imagine that and what happen the murder rates wouls be so covered up so they wouldn't look like idiots because everyone told you so.

Total number of people killed in mass public shootings in 2017? 117.

People killed by cars in 2017? 38,659

So...according to Hawaii.....we need to ban cars......like, now......

 

[JGalt]

Get 2/3 of the states to give up their right of self defense.

Let's repeal Hawaii statehood.

"Hey Japan!! I have this nice little Island I'd be willing to trade for something! Whaddaya got?"

Hawaiian idiots. They haven't had a mass-shooting there since 1999, and they're all googly-eyed about the 2A?

Xerox murders - Wikipedia

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I doubt Hawaii felt that way Dec. 7th 1941

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

 

[JGalt]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Actually the lawmakers from Hawaii are peeing in the panties for nothing. What are the chances of this ever making it to the President's desk, and then how fast will he shitcan the bill?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Actually the lawmakers from Hawaii are peeing in the panties for nothing. What are the chances of this ever making it to the President's desk, and then how fast will he shitcan the bill?

Actually, this is a STATE bill, by the Hawaii STATE legislature, not the federal Congress. And, like I said, all they are asking for is clear language as to who can have weapons, and they want Congress to open up a discussion on repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

Just like conservatives are crapping themselves over the Green New Deal (which is a non binding resolution, meaning it has no authority, but is a framework to aspire to), again, they are crapping their pants over nothing. A state legislature cannot amend the Constitution, only the federal Congress can.

This isn't really anything, the state is just asking for a clear definition, and they want Congress to discuss the Second.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Actually the lawmakers from Hawaii are peeing in the panties for nothing. What are the chances of this ever making it to the President's desk, and then how fast will he shitcan the bill?

Actually, this is a STATE bill, by the Hawaii STATE legislature, not the federal Congress. And, like I said, all they are asking for is clear language as to who can have weapons, and they want Congress to open up a discussion on repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

Just like conservatives are crapping themselves over the Green New Deal (which is a non binding resolution, meaning it has no authority, but is a framework to aspire to), again, they are crapping their pants over nothing. A state legislature cannot amend the Constitution, only the federal Congress can.

This isn't really anything, the state is just asking for a clear definition, and they want Congress to discuss the Second.

Nobody is crapping their pants. It's stupid and more BS from the party of BS

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Second Amendment is very clear a7s it is written.

 

[Montrovant]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Actually the lawmakers from Hawaii are peeing in the panties for nothing. What are the chances of this ever making it to the President's desk, and then how fast will he shitcan the bill?

Actually, this is a STATE bill, by the Hawaii STATE legislature, not the federal Congress. And, like I said, all they are asking for is clear language as to who can have weapons, and they want Congress to open up a discussion on repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

Just like conservatives are crapping themselves over the Green New Deal (which is a non binding resolution, meaning it has no authority, but is a framework to aspire to), again, they are crapping their pants over nothing. A state legislature cannot amend the Constitution, only the federal Congress can.

This isn't really anything, the state is just asking for a clear definition, and they want Congress to discuss the Second.

The wording of the bill definitely makes it sound as if the authors believe the 2nd should be a collective right. It asks for a discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is, at least by implication, to remove individual gun rights.

Of course people will overreact about it, though. That's what happens whenever someone mentions guns.

 

[westwall]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

The problem you have is the 2nd Amendment is very clearly worded. The reason why people claim it isn't is because they CHOOSE to ignore the meaning of the language of the day when it was written.

 

[westwall]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Actually the lawmakers from Hawaii are peeing in the panties for nothing. What are the chances of this ever making it to the President's desk, and then how fast will he shitcan the bill?

Actually, this is a STATE bill, by the Hawaii STATE legislature, not the federal Congress. And, like I said, all they are asking for is clear language as to who can have weapons, and they want Congress to open up a discussion on repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

Just like conservatives are crapping themselves over the Green New Deal (which is a non binding resolution, meaning it has no authority, but is a framework to aspire to), again, they are crapping their pants over nothing. A state legislature cannot amend the Constitution, only the federal Congress can.

This isn't really anything, the state is just asking for a clear definition, and they want Congress to discuss the Second.

The wording of the bill definitely makes it sound as if the authors believe the 2nd should be a collective right. It asks for a discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is, at least by implication, to remove individual gun rights.

Of course people will overreact about it, though. That's what happens whenever someone mentions guns.

Wrong, the Founders fully meant it to be an individual Right. That's why it is the Bill of Rights. The collective don't need protection from the government, they ARE the government.

 

[JGalt]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Actually the lawmakers from Hawaii are peeing in the panties for nothing. What are the chances of this ever making it to the President's desk, and then how fast will he shitcan the bill?

Actually, this is a STATE bill, by the Hawaii STATE legislature, not the federal Congress. And, like I said, all they are asking for is clear language as to who can have weapons, and they want Congress to open up a discussion on repealing or amending the Second Amendment.

Just like conservatives are crapping themselves over the Green New Deal (which is a non binding resolution, meaning it has no authority, but is a framework to aspire to), again, they are crapping their pants over nothing. A state legislature cannot amend the Constitution, only the federal Congress can.

This isn't really anything, the state is just asking for a clear definition, and they want Congress to discuss the Second.

The wording of the bill definitely makes it sound as if the authors believe the 2nd should be a collective right. It asks for a discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is, at least by implication, to remove individual gun rights.

Of course people will overreact about it, though. That's what happens whenever someone mentions guns.

Sorry. I don't like the idea of having the "collective" tell me what I can or can't do with my firearms.

 

[Montrovant]

I didn't say I advocate a reading of the 2nd which defines the right to bear arms as a collective one, I said the bill seems to lean toward that interpretation.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You know, you guys should actually read what HR167 actually says. All the "whereas" stuff is the reasons that they want to do something, the part that actually matters are when they say "be it resolved" or "be it further resolved".

From the actual bill..........................

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Governor.


They are saying that they want a clear definition as to what constitutes a right to bear arms, and they also want to look into whether or not the 2nd should be repealed or amended. Sorry, but this bill isn't going to take your guns. It wants a clear definition as to what constitutes the right to bear arms and they want a DISCUSSION about repealing or amending the 2nd. You guys are wetting the bed over nothing.

Why do they want to discuss a right that is not to be infringed upon, if they aren't thinking about infringing on that very right?