If no one is reported missing, relax.

Doug Chin needs to go. But it will never happen as the Japanese Mafia keeps them in power,,

What a people hating empty suit, Hawaii time to clean house.

An interesting side note to the works by Rummel is that these regimes who kill their people are all leftist, communist, socialist or fascist,
And no our current POTUS is not Fascist nor are conservatives,

Toon bad Chin never took the time or looks in his own house. Corruption every where you look in this state but he ignores it.

It's called distraction and demonization, used by politicians to manipulate the public. Look at how the public and media respond.. exactly as the politicians expected.

Rudolph Rummel was a professor at University of Hawaii.
Here is a brief outline of his work. It is all searchable.
Rudolph Rummel was the creator of the term democide: "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder". He has further stated: "I use the civil definition of murder, where someone can be guilty of murder if they are responsible in a reckless and wanton way for the loss of life, as in incarcerating people in camps where they may soon die of malnutrition, unattended disease, and forced labor, or deporting them into wastelands where they may die rapidly from exposure and disease."

His research concluded that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, he estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century[14] and that six times as many people have died at the hands of people working for governments than have died in battle.

He argued that there is a relation between political power and democide. Political mass murder grows increasingly common as political power becomes unconstrained. At the other end of the scale, where power is diffuse, checked, and balanced, political violence is a rarity. "The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom." He concluded: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.

Russia, China, and North Korea, would approve

Liberals would like us to be defending ourselves with strong thoughts, ie not at all

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed.

The U.S. Population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.009257% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.

• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.

• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?

It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” We now know what they’re trying to do, rule the defenseless.

H/t: jsmineset

This is an excellent piece and pertains to ALL polititians and their appointees

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you,and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman,what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, a

Depending on what video game machine you have, you can sell it/give away for parts, either to someone locally or online. Wonder what kinda machine the questioner has. Could be worth some money as scrap/parts.

His car is indeed small ... The air rifles are pretty long , I can understand when he moved the rifle to the trunk for a sec or so. Some people just overreact but it's better safe than sorry . We are not perfect and we all make mistakes .

He chose poorly

4 times as many people are stabbed to death according to the FBI as are killed by ALL rifles. So try again. Dumass chin.

Please refer to the Original post in the article. That's all, thank you.

If you can't be bothered to read the article then please don't post an opinion. That is all, thank you.

MOLON LABE, indeed!

It's all about incremental changes. Before you know it will be defending ourselves like the Europeans. No thank you!

We still live in a country where the second amendment is still exercised. Hawaii certainly isn't known for gun slingers, but to freak out because they saw someone with a gun in their trunk is a bit of an over-reaction, and can mean many non-threatening reasons.

The report is unclear about where specifically the vehicle was with in the school area. "With in the area" could mean he was in his own driveway removing it from the trunk to bring into the house.

But I get that this is a state where most people don't own guns and probably would pee in their pants if near one.

wtf is wrong with this world anymore, can't we find normal?

The guy's a dickhead. Waiting to see if his ultra-liberal resistance to national security will result in a welcomed soft target for terrorists.

I've tried to respond twice and had them both censored/deleted. No violations, followed the rules...etc.

I guess the First Amendment is dead?

MOLON LABE
🖕🏻😎🖕🏻
Apparently these douches are illiterate.
What part of shall not infringe dont they understand.
These people are why we have a 2A

What a waste of perfectly good oxygen,
Lame azz libtard scum

I've been on this island since 1941. I was first aware of drought conditions when I was about 6 or 7. I wonder why, in all of these years there hasn't been any plans to build a lot of reservoirs? I know there are some upcountry and elsewhere, but why weren't our Planners and elected officials on top of this problem and see that more reservoirs through out the island were built? Prioritize this. I've been aware of "the drought" for about 70 years. You guys really think that low-flow fixtures are the answer?

Well said!