Lighten up.
What I am saying is Hawaii does not have strong 2nd Amendment views because culturally, guns were never a part of Hawaii heritage.
I lived in Hawaii, and owned guns only because my husband shot competitively. I never felt the need to own guns to protect myself. Violent crime in Hawaii is not like the violent crime in the mainland. Here, in the mainland, I have a loaded gun in a thumb safe next to my bedside.
Hawaii does not have Obamas kids running around in gangs.The tweakers are not armed.
If people do not feel the need to own a handgun, they are not going to pay 3-500 for one. That is why no one protests in Hawaii about second amendment rights, no matter how loudly you may scream about it .
Um, no thank you.
That is why no one protests in Hawaii about second amendment rights, no matter how loudly you may scream about it.
I didn't SCREAM or SHOUT about anything in my response.
My objection was to the "so there is no pressing need to own a handgun" fallacy.
If there's a single potentially violent criminal in the entire state of Hawaii (and there are many), that is certainly a pressing enough need.
After all, Thomas Magnum, P.I. needed his trusty Colt Government .45 several times during his sojourn in the state. ;-)
If (God forbid) you were suddenly assaulted by a violent attacker one night when your husband wasn't home, you might quickly reconsider what constitutes a "pressing need".
And the fact that "no one protests in Hawaii about Second Amendment rights" is doubtless a primary reason that any American who decides to own a gun in that state is now going to end up on a government watch list.
I'm not trying to be strident, but I maintain that it's important to protect Unalienable Rights even when one chooses not to exercise them, because when that doesn't happen, the State starts to treat such rights as if they are merely privileges.
Vote Trump!