Guns

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Pandora was never “in” the box.

Good to know there’s another aficionado of Greek mythology on this thread eightfingers.
I would only add, Pandora was definitely thinking outside of the box.

[Durian Fiend]

Carry guns in Hawaii? Oh no, please none of that foolishness.
I’m all for hunters having an appropriate weapon for the hunt,
otherwise the fewer guns in society the safer and better.

[randomq]

I've had meth heads come on my property uninvited and in spite of my no trespassing signs. I usually greet them with my machete, but it's nice to know my other half can put a few holes in them if they get out of hand.

Society would be safer with fewer criminals.

['elepaio]

God Bless Punikahakaiferret,

Yeps .Next step in could be maybe last..

Machete is pretty good visual deterant ..

what your " other half " holding as back up ?

Shotgun or ?? No don't say .BC punaweb.

Have a good week ahead.
'e out

[TomK]

God Bless Punikahakaiferret

punikahakaiferret just quoted randomq's post without adding anything. Why should the post be blessed?

['elepaio]

Why shouldn't it ?

[terracore]

Are you sure you want late 1700's rifle standards applied to modern times? 

Didn’t most Americans hunt for their food back in the day?  Without a bayonet?
Since we now have Safeway & KTA, and restaurants and food trucks all over the place, maybe 1700’s rifle standards aren’t even necessary any more?

That is an excellent question.  But I think the answer is no, which is why so many colonists died of starvation.  The problem with relying on hunting as a food source (especially when there was no refrigeration) is that the edible animals get quickly wiped out and there wasn't a game management plan to maintain them.  It's one of the reasons humans have caused so many extinctions.  We are still studying / managing whale overhunting from 100 years ago.

If hunting was a long-term viable food solution, we wouldn't need livestock.  There is little hunter-gatherer documentation of hunting as a food source, and they were mostly painted on cave walls many many thousands of years ago by people who died of starvation.  No guns required, because they decimated populations without them.

The founding fathers knew this.  The amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  Our founding fathers overthrew a government that wanted to keep them from having guns and fighting back.  Look at the 3rd amendment.  It prevents the government from quartering soldiers in people's homes.  I doubt that is some kind of coincidence or has some hidden pro-hunting meaning.  The reality is that these aren't ancient texts translated and transcribed over millennia.  You can read other documents our founding fathers wrote at the time and there is no doubt what their intentions were.  The Constitution doesn't specifically allow the Supreme Court justices to read and interpret what the INTENT was.  The intents are well written (even though there was disagreement among the signers).  The Supremes are only allowed to interpret the document as written.  And for that, I understand your confusion.  It is of the shortest and least descriptive of the amendments but there aren't many ways to interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" other than exactly what it says.  The existing Hawaii laws infringe.  At least, that is what the supreme court said.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

The amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

I don’t know where you read your history, but colonists needed guns not only to hunt, but to protect what livestock and crops they had from varmints, bears, wolves, etc.  When I grew up on a farm we ate pigeons, rabbits, etc hunted with a gun.  That wasn’t even the 1700’s.  The last rural community I lived in EVERYONE, every farmer had a gun, I owned both a rifle and a shotgun.  That wasn’t in the 1800’s.  Having a gun on the farm was like having a shovel.  It’s a tool.


there aren't many ways to interpret:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

A dictionary of etymology will provide you with a history of words, with both their usage and definition over time.  It’s far more accurate than someone on an editorial network explaining what a phrase meant 300 years ago.  Networks that can't even post “poll results” that add up to 100%.  A 125% total is not uncommon for them.  But who’s counting?  Apparently not their viewers.

Regulate:
Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/well-regulated

['elepaio]

LOL ..always a deflection when ......

Q: Who interpret who then ? And those ? How were they ? Hamster wheel and amalgamate to ' beliefs ' ..

what i believe;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ORITS1XlZxc

[punikahakaiferret]

Not sure what happened the other day that I inadvertently copied and quoted a previous poster...I didn't intend to and have since deleted the erroneous post, and so sorry to all for the confusion. 

But, truly, thanks for the blessing, all the same...I need all the help I can get!