Quantcast

Thursday, July 31, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 116 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Police chief signs letter calling gun control vote a 'disgrace'

By Star-Advertiser staff

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 12:10 p.m. HST, Apr 24, 2013

Police Chief Louis Kealoha took to the podium with Mayor Peter Carlisle, who reported Thursday that the city spent less than was budgeted for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in November. The surplus will offset higher electrical and fuel costs.

Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha joined other police chiefs in signing a letter condemning the failure of the U.S. Senate to pass new gun control laws.

The letter, titled “Disgrace in the U.S. Senate,” came from the Major Cities Chiefs Association and read, "We looked to the U.S. Senate for courage and leadership on gun violence, to enact reforms that are long overdue. With 94 % of the public asking for better gun laws, we expected the Senate to do what cops do - protect the public. But a minority of Senators protected themselves instead of the American people. That's a disgrace."

The letter continued, "Like all the cops who put on a uniform each day, Chiefs of Police will not give up on Washington. We will continue our struggle for laws that protect the public from gun violence." The statement represents the unanimous opinion of the association's members, who oversee police agencies in nearly 70 of the largest cities in the U.S. and Canada.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 116 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(116)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Limbo wrote:
Mahalo Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha. The entire nation needs to tell congress that the majority of the public wants sane gun laws.
on April 24,2013 | 12:11PM
OldDiver wrote:
Watch it Limbo. The fringe right is going to start calling you and our nations Police Chiefs commies.
on April 24,2013 | 02:44PM
serious wrote:
And, Harry Reid voted against it!!!! Has he turned right???
on April 24,2013 | 04:45PM
primowarrior wrote:
Reid changed his vote to "No" as a parliamentary procedure that allows him to bring the bill up again in the future.
on April 24,2013 | 05:15PM
peanutgallery wrote:
This mess failed in the Democratically controlled Senate, because Dems voted against it.. It was never supposed to become law, but the plan was for it to pass the Senate, and become an issue against Republicans in the Republican controlled house, What a joke!
on April 25,2013 | 03:44AM
pcman wrote:
IRT Kealoha on gun control. Aren't police chiefs sworn to defend the US Constitution, like military personnel, judges, and federal civil servants? He can advocate change as a private citizen, but not as a public servant. Or does he not think that he serves the public, but that the public serves him? What does he think 'defending the Constitution' mean? Do we need to reeducate our public servants?'
on April 25,2013 | 05:17AM
bender wrote:
No, they swear to uphold the laws of the city, state and nation. And I don't believe federal civil servants are required to take such an oath either.
on April 25,2013 | 06:02AM
Maili2 wrote:
Mahalo to you Limbo, we need to support the Chief in his caring leadership. He has my full support. Yes, laws should be sane and there to protect us, not to keep gun enthusiasts happy.
on April 25,2013 | 05:47AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Hawaii's firearms laws already violate the second amendment. Why would we expect any other response from the chief of policwe who can:1) ignore every citizen's request for a concealed carry permit "just because" and 2) cause law-abiding citizens to have to make three multi-hour trips with inflexible time requirements to a single understaffed, technologically backwards office with inconvenient hours in order to exercise a constitutional right?
on April 24,2013 | 12:19PM
Hanalei13 wrote:
Oh so you're a Constitutional scholar, eh? Very simply, can you tell me how many Articles the Constitution has? How many Amendments? Can you tell me anything about the Constitution besides the Second Amendment? If you can, then maybe we can consider taking you seriously!
on April 24,2013 | 12:40PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Um, seven articles and 27 amendments [one of which was repealed by a later amendment]. I can tell you many things about the constitution, but why should I bother just to make you happy? Do you have any meaningful questions? I don't claim to be aconstitutional scholar, just someone who is able to read complete sentences.
on April 24,2013 | 01:35PM
Mediocrates wrote:
touche!
on April 24,2013 | 01:52PM
OldDiver wrote:
The Supreme Court has already ruled that rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are not absolute. This is why it is illegal to own a shoulder fired rocket, or a 50 cal machine gun. Society has a right to make common sense rules for society.
on April 24,2013 | 02:42PM
Slow wrote:
Shucks, I don't get my BAZOOKA? Back to defending my home with a measly little semiautomatic rifle.
on April 24,2013 | 04:17PM
bender wrote:
Darn, you shattered my dreams. I always wanted a RPG launcher and unlimited ammo to deal with the doves that keep stealing my dog's food.
on April 25,2013 | 06:04AM
palani wrote:
Ironically, Obama is purported to be a "Constitutional" scholar, but almost nothing he does demonstrates that he actually believes that it represents the supreme law of the land.
on April 24,2013 | 01:58PM
Slow wrote:
Cool. Where do I get my BAZOOKA? My re, white and blue Constitutionally guaranteed BAZOOKA. I wanna be a one man militia cause I am not a commie.
on April 24,2013 | 04:16PM
EricMuraoka wrote:
Chief Kealoha being just a follower, such an igorant person. But every citizen is ignored the request of concealed carry for a good reason. It is not for the average citizen. Cops laugh when you try to apply for concealed carry with your lame explanation of why you need it.
on April 24,2013 | 01:07PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
That's because there is an overwhelming groupthink here in Hawaii that the right to bear a fiream should be predicated on some sort of "need", and that nobody could possibly "need" a firearm (unless maybe you've already survived an attack?). If we applied that standard to all the other rights, then you would have to prove a need to vote or a need to speak anything that's not approved by the state.
on April 24,2013 | 01:39PM
Anonymous wrote:
You are correct. That's why I feel the second ammendment needs to be repealed. Owning a gun shouldn't be a "right." It should be a privilage and afforded to only those who are worthy in character, emotional makeup and intelligence. The idea that literally everyone should have the ability to be armed is crazy IMO.
on April 24,2013 | 02:52PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
OK. If the nation can muster the energy and focus necessary to change/modify/repeal the 2nd amendment, then that will settle the issue by the proper means. Slowly tweaking on the rights with laws and court rulings is the wrong way to go about changing the interpretation.
on April 24,2013 | 04:16PM
kahuku01 wrote:
IRTEric Muraoka: After reading your comment, total ignorance on your part and that is the reason the cops laugh at you.
on April 24,2013 | 02:25PM
EricMuraoka wrote:
no they don't laugh at me, i'm smart emough to not apply for a concealed carry permit. I own my guns and leave them at home. No need to walk around with a firearm when i get my guns hanging from my shoulders. The chief is dumb, maybe he's your uncle.
on April 24,2013 | 03:39PM
kahuku01 wrote:
I'm not related to the chief but I'm sure he's smarter than you and make up your mind, you own guns and leave them home but yet you get your gun hanging from your shoulders for what purpose? You're comical.
on April 24,2013 | 04:04PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
This is the entirety of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which of our firearms laws violate this?
on April 24,2013 | 01:34PM
palani wrote:
Read what the Founders and George Mason, the co-author of the Second Amendment, meant by their words:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
--George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

From: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html


on April 24,2013 | 02:07PM
bender wrote:
Militia's were a concept before we had an established military. We had no standing army to defend the nation, hence the militia. The "militia concept" has been replaced with our nation's Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. As such, anyone trying justify the need to carry a concealed weapon because he/she is part of the militia is a weak argument at best. Even if we were to accept the militia as a justifiable need for guns, it still doen't extend to the self proclaimed right to carry a concealed weapon. Nor does it necessarily mean we cannot regulate the firing mehcnanisms or the amount the clip might hold.
on April 25,2013 | 06:12AM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Googly, what part of "bear" are you having trouble with? The state won't really entertain the ability to have the firearms with you outside the home except in very limited conditions. Also, the state laws make it fairly difficult to acquire the firearms, which certainly affects the "keep" part.
on April 24,2013 | 04:20PM
Anonymous wrote:
i think our founding fathers intended people to carry only flint musket assault weapons.
on April 24,2013 | 03:41PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
You forgot to mention swords and the cannons that many a privateer had available.
on April 24,2013 | 04:21PM
wahine wrote:
What would happen if terrorists were loose on the streets of Honolulu and there was a lockdown on the city? How could we protect ourselves and our families if we lose our rights to bear arms? Rely on HPD?
on April 24,2013 | 12:27PM
Hanalei13 wrote:
I'll take my chances because I sure as hell don't want you running around with a gun!
on April 24,2013 | 12:37PM
copperwire9 wrote:
Thanks Hanalei. I agree.
on April 24,2013 | 02:58PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You are free to take your "chances", just let the rest of us decide for ourselves.
on April 24,2013 | 05:45PM
onevoice82 wrote:
Don't worry Hanalei13, when some crazy is pointing a gun at your child in school or if your house is being invaded by some nut who is going to shoot you and raaape your children, I hope one of your neighbors is running around with your salvation in their hands in the form of a gun because the Police are giving out speeding tickets on the Pali.
on April 25,2013 | 05:42AM
bender wrote:
Really? Do you really believe those things happen all that often and that my neighbor having a gun will be my salvation? Hanalei13 is right, we don't need a bunch of Rambo or Dirty Harry types running through the streets yelling "make my day".
on April 25,2013 | 06:15AM
hawaiikone wrote:
How many times do "those things" need to happen before you'll permit your neighbor to help?
on April 25,2013 | 08:09AM
kahuku01 wrote:
IRTwahine: Com-on use some common sense. The law enforcement (feds, state, city, National Guard) of Boston did what they were required to do...their job, and that was to protect the citizens of Boston and surrounding towns where the terrorist were hiding and causing problems and that is the reason the towns were in a lockdown. The gun law does not rescind the 2nd amendment but to require gun purchasers have a mandatory back ground check. Nothing in the proposed law says that citizens may not purchase a gun or have a right to bear arms...that was never taken away.
on April 24,2013 | 01:51PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Tell me how solid your rights are after you find that the counseling for depression you had a few years back will prevent you from buying a gun, and when you fail the background check, the state visits your home to confiscate the guns you already have. See: New York State background check laws.
on April 24,2013 | 04:23PM
bender wrote:
What the heck, if someone does have a history, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.
on April 25,2013 | 06:18AM
Anonymous wrote:
terrorist were on the streets of Boston and I didn't see on citizen take them on with their firearms
on April 24,2013 | 03:42PM
kahuku01 wrote:
Because they're intelligent people and abide by the instructions of law enforcement and let the trained law enforcement officers do their job. They didn't need Rambo's help. You've been watching too much movies.
on April 24,2013 | 04:12PM
Thegame wrote:
That's because they didn't have any.
on April 24,2013 | 10:47PM
Slow wrote:
Now that's a darn realistic scenario. Makes sense to me. More guns = less crime and fewer shootings.
on April 24,2013 | 04:21PM
localgirl2 wrote:
Amen!
on April 24,2013 | 05:45PM
Publicbraddah wrote:
I don't want to hear anything about anti-gun control or pro gun people butting heads against each other. We should instead be putting our heads together to solve gun violence in America. That's where our focus should be.
on April 24,2013 | 12:30PM
ISCREAM wrote:
Solving gun violence will come when Hollywood and game makers stop glorifying gangs and killings....next step is to put wackos into institutions...the Progressives have made it a crime to put the crazies away.
on April 24,2013 | 01:12PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
OK Publicbraddah, where would you start? Keeping violent criminals in prison longer? Making it easier to label someone as mentally deficient, so they can be involuntarily institutionalized? There are lots of potential answers, but I don't think we're willing to pay the financial or social price to pursue them.
on April 24,2013 | 01:46PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
Maybe they should focus on the real issues with violence then, instead they resort to pulling political games and try to take away RIGHTS. Guns is not the real issue. Mental issues and moral issues are the problem. Drugs, illegal and legal, plays a huge factor in this as well. But that doesn't get discussed, now does it? So, when the popular media starts reporting the REAL ISSUES, maybe some violence can be reduced.
on April 24,2013 | 06:59PM
patk wrote:
Whine whine whine. Truth is gun people only shout 'MY RIGHTS' and put up other smoke screens to deflect attention from gun ownership. The fact is that gun lovers could care less about any rights as long as they can keep their guns. If a loser gunned down their loved ones, would they care about a fair trial? If freedom of speech were in danger of being repealed, would they care? Of course not, as long as it didn't infringe upon their right to keep killing toys. Gun people just do not care about society insofar as guns are concerned, they are blinded by their own obsession with an efficient instrument of killing. No other way to look at it. Sad.
on April 25,2013 | 01:26AM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
Your argument is rediculous. Gun owners are the ones who protect all other rights. Free speech is built on the armed citizen's ability to keep the power in the hands of the people. Otherwise we would fall into the realm of the numerous halfassed democracys that occur around the world, where the people take a backseat to the elite who rule with little regard for peoples natural rights.
on April 25,2013 | 06:19AM
Anonymous wrote:
An open question for Chief Kealoha: did you read the bill to know what it said? If so, good for you. If not, shame on you for expressing an opinion on something you are ignorant about.
on April 24,2013 | 12:41PM
copperwire9 wrote:
And shame on your for making silly assumptions. So there.
on April 24,2013 | 02:59PM
McB0B wrote:
Not that I disagree but personally I think he should be advised that his duties as Police Chief do not include making public statements derogatory of any elected official regardless of his personal opinion. I'm curious about how he would react if one of his officers were to publicly and in uniform call the Mayor, Governor or President a disgrace. I suspect that officer's career would become very challenging to say the least, if he wasn't fired or suspended outright. What if he felt the other way and called Obama a disgrace? Can you imagine how fast they'd be stenciling a new name on his office door? My point is that it's totally inappropriate either way and makes him a political tool instead of someone who respects the law and those elected to make them. Read your job description, Chief, and wait until you retire before you enter politics. It would be better for everyone if you would at least try to act nonpartisan while you hold your current job.
on April 24,2013 | 12:44PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Excellent point.
on April 24,2013 | 01:47PM
Psyche wrote:
Very good point
on April 24,2013 | 03:51PM
Forever_Grateful wrote:
Excellent - I totally agree !!
on April 25,2013 | 05:45AM
bender wrote:
Maybe the chief felt it was worth risking his career to call out the weak kneed Senators.
on April 25,2013 | 06:22AM
Hawaii_Libertarian wrote:
Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha signing the letter is a disgrace. He should be fired along with all the other police chiefs that signed it for using their official offices to advance a political agenda. Of course, Kealoha signing it is no surprise as HPD doesn't care about the Second Amendment, the Constitution, or allowing innocent people the right to self-defense. If our spineless legislators and governor had any courage or integrity, they would pass legislation instead that affirms the legal right of residents to use firearms for self-defense on their own property. That would defer a lot of robberies, rapes, and other violent crimes.
on April 24,2013 | 12:45PM
kahuku01 wrote:
IRTAnnonymous,McBob,Hawaii_Libertarian: Before any of you accuse Chief Kealoha of any wrong doing, be sure to fully understand the proposed gun control bill and maybe you'll understand why the Chief called it a "disgrace" and President Obama called it "shameful." It hasn't changed the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arm) or allowing people the right to use firearms for self-defense on their property. As a matter of fact, Chief Kealoha is due an apology from you because of your vocal ignorance about the gun control bill.
on April 24,2013 | 02:16PM
pcman wrote:
IRT kahuku on Kealoha. What Chief Kealoha does not understand is that the police cannot be everywhere to protect everyone all the time. On three occaisions, I have chased potential burglars and a near car thief away because I had a gun to do so. He thinks the police are the only ones capable of safely handling weapons and disregards the fact that many of us have been in the military and have handled more weapons, more deadly weapons and more often in combat situations than all of the policemen in Honolulu combined. He also does not understand that many policemen also used their weapons illegally in the past. Policemen are not without gun problems that he assumes only civilians may encounter. I hope he would stop playing politics with other peoples' lives.
on April 25,2013 | 05:06AM
bender wrote:
Hey, most of us have chased would be burglars or car thieves away and most of us ddidn't need a gun to do it. Thieves don't like to be seen nor do they want attention drawn to them so they flee. You think they're going to stick around to beat you up before they take off.
on April 25,2013 | 06:26AM
Anonymous wrote:
Libertarians are commie pinko right wing wannabe's
on April 24,2013 | 03:43PM
kahuku01 wrote:
What bro, the truth hurts and now you come out and start calling people names. Grow up and go read a good book.
on April 24,2013 | 04:16PM
Slow wrote:
More guns = less violence. Just makes sense.
on April 24,2013 | 04:23PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
Any regular uniformed officer would be disciplined harshly if they spoke in defense of 2A publicly. Why should he be different, because his view is in line with the current administration. I agree. Fire him.
on April 24,2013 | 07:04PM
Siege wrote:
Kudos to Chief Kealoha!!!
on April 24,2013 | 01:20PM
false wrote:
Is peter still hanging around?
on April 24,2013 | 01:20PM
Siege wrote:
Gun control is not taking away anyone's right to own a gun...it's sets limits...it doesn't take away the Second Amendment...good grief people!!!
on April 24,2013 | 01:22PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
Actually, the background check amendments to the bill were all about taking guns away from certain people (or keeping them from buying one legally), and the criteria for taking them away keeps getting and broader. Ever get psychological counseling for depression? You could be on "the list" for life.
on April 24,2013 | 01:43PM
Mediocrates wrote:
rightly so.
on April 24,2013 | 01:53PM
Forever_Grateful wrote:
This is so true Dolphin743 - my cousin who lives just outside Chicago. She went to the Dr a couple weeks ago and was given a questionnaire to fill out and sign. It asked about any family member suffered from mental illness OR depression as well as her own personal history ... what medicatiions has she or family taken for mental illness OR depression and has she or anyone in her family been instutionalized. She handed it back and refused to sign. She said, "who has not suffered some sort of being depressed when a loved one or pet passes away" and so on ... you say yes to any of those and the government will NO doubt miscontrue and classify you as a mental nut case and that'll be it - you'll be on that list forever!!
on April 25,2013 | 05:54AM
bender wrote:
We already have background checks except that some states don't require them for gun shows. The same states require background checks when a brick and mortar store sells a gun. Why the disparity. Applying the background check to all gun sales makes sense. Who knows, maybe the brick and mortar gun dealers are the ones asking for widespread background checks, it would make the gun show sellers play by the same rules they have to play by.
on April 25,2013 | 06:30AM
kahuku01 wrote:
IRTSiege: I'm glad that their is an intelligent person like you on this forum. These people that flex their ignorance about the gun control bill are probably hearing bits and pieces from the GOP Senators that voted against it because they're all looking out for themselves to get the votes in 2014.
on April 24,2013 | 02:33PM
Thegame wrote:
Same as the Democratic Senators
on April 24,2013 | 10:54PM
dn99 wrote:
Because we all know that Chief Kealoha and HPD will be there when someone enters your house in the middle of the night.
on April 24,2013 | 01:30PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
And that's why you'd need an assault rifle with high-capacity magazine, right?
on April 24,2013 | 01:40PM
dn99 wrote:
Let's make Lamborghinis in America only able to do 80 at most because who needs to go faster than that.
on April 24,2013 | 01:45PM
patk wrote:
LOL the car argument again. And you just shot yourself in the foot because you showed how selfish you really are, thinking that it is a necessary right to be able to own a car that goes 200mph. Actually, no, it's just a SELFISH desire.
I actually would be all-for limiting ALL cars to a specific speed limit to save lives. Why? because I care about society more than I care about my own selfish needs for illogical things, like being able to drive faster than the speed limit. Or in the case of gun owners, caressing their silly killing toys.
on April 25,2013 | 01:36AM
Mediocrates wrote:
no, they probably need an armored tank and an F-18 Super Hornet...
on April 24,2013 | 01:54PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
Yep.
on April 24,2013 | 07:05PM
Thegame wrote:
Its not up to you to decide what someone "needs"
on April 24,2013 | 10:54PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
Does someone here know what prevents individual states from implementing some of the controls that were trying to be pushed through at the federal level? Why couldn't the states mandate background checks themselves? No large capacity magazines? As long as what the state was trying to do doesn't run counter to what a federal law states, wouldn't that be within their right?
on April 24,2013 | 01:38PM
Psyche wrote:
Hawaii already does this.
on April 24,2013 | 03:54PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
And, the stringent gun laws here in Hawaii does very little, to absolutely nothing, to impact criminal gun violence. It is a waste of tax payers money and law abiding citizens time.
on April 24,2013 | 07:08PM
bender wrote:
Replying to GooglyMoogly. Yes, states do have the right to pass their own gun laws. And it's a real hodge podge of laws, some that don't make much sense. For example, a state might require a gun dealer to run a background check on you before he sells you a gun, but if you are selling a gun at a gun show in the same state, there might not be a requirement for a background check. Now if you were a nut or a crook or were carrying a grudge against your employer, where would you go, the gun store or the gun show? The failed legislation in the Senate would have brought background checks to gun shows and that might have been a real kink in that particular part of the gun industry. Make no mistake, gun show sales are big business. You can draw your own conclusions.
on April 25,2013 | 06:55AM
Mediocrates wrote:
Good for the Chief! I'm sure there are already plenty of gun nuts already attacking him, this story and any reasonable debate. Remember the second amendment is the ONLY one that mentions something being "well-regulated" but these people ironically accuse anyone who tries to conduct any regulation as violating the constitution - an absurd claim without a doubt. Indeed, opposing strict regulations of firearms is anti-constitutional.
on April 24,2013 | 01:51PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
"well-regulated" means to effectively hit a target. "shall not be infringed" is the key operative.
on April 24,2013 | 07:10PM
bender wrote:
Yes, the gun advocates do seem to put more emphasis on the language in other parts of the amendment while down playing the well regulated part.
on April 25,2013 | 07:01AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Why does SA keep showing file photos of Carlisle? Don't they keep any cheap cameras in their desks?
on April 24,2013 | 01:57PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Get back to me when they stop exempting police, retired, and off duty police from these gun laws. Heck, if I knew the laws didn't affect me and my friends, I might be in favor of them too.
on April 24,2013 | 02:03PM
AniMatsuri wrote:
True. That's why the van cam came and went so fast. The guys that wrote the law started getting caught by them.
on April 25,2013 | 09:07AM
shshimizu wrote:
I feel that anyone that wants a gun should be able after a background check to be able to purchase one. However, with this right comes responsibilities. I also feel that if your gun is used in a violent or unlawful way then the owner is held responsible. I don't care who did the crime, the gun owner in these cases were careless. The gun owner should be charged with the same charges as the person that committed the crime. If an accident occurs with your gun, you are liable. If your child shoots another child, you are liable. Gun owners can't this right without being totally responsible. My 2 cents
on April 24,2013 | 02:13PM
Goodmedivice wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on April 24,2013 | 04:52PM
shshimizu wrote:
I checked, couldn't one person that was charged or held liable for being stupid with their firearms. Found a few lawsuits, but nothing criminal that would put them in jail.
on April 24,2013 | 07:42PM
loquaciousone wrote:
SA is a disgrace. Now days you don't even need a photographer on staff to shoot more current pictures.
on April 24,2013 | 02:15PM
tobyclairmont wrote:
Guys like this will only stop when no citizen has a gun...period. There is no middle ground, no sense of reason, just their way.
on April 24,2013 | 02:25PM
bumba wrote:
I'm in favor of THOROUGH and EXHAUSTIVE backgroud checks of anyone wishing to purchase a gun. But, I should have the right to shoot dead anyone who breaks into my house.
on April 24,2013 | 02:38PM
Anonymous wrote:
Can someone define "arms?" Can I go buy a tank? Just wondering.....
on April 24,2013 | 02:47PM
kahuku01 wrote:
I would answer your question but for you, it would take me a full page to try and define "arms" and by the time I'm done, you'll still be confused. Better yet, since you're wondering, why don't you go and buy a Chinook" helicopter.....lol
on April 24,2013 | 04:43PM
DeltaDag wrote:
I saw a movie once where only the police and military could bear arms. It was titled Schindler's List.
on April 24,2013 | 10:37PM
patk wrote:
Here's some facts to rain on your grade school parade: USA gun homicides per capita are 4000% more than in the United Kingdom, where gun ownership is illegal. This is coming from the UN and WHO, much better sources than the NRA.
You can substitute most industrialized gun owning countries for the US, and most industrialized non-gun owning countries for the UK, and the percentages remain skewed just as bad. Things get even worse for your silly argument if you factor in non-industrialized countries, and countries having civil wars.
on April 25,2013 | 01:58AM
Thegame wrote:
If you live in the southern states and can afford it and its armament dismantled......yes, you can buy a tank.
on April 24,2013 | 11:01PM
Goodmedivice wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on April 24,2013 | 03:05PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
They can't comment on that, they would be fired.... Unless they agreed with the rights trashing.
on April 24,2013 | 07:12PM
Anonymous wrote:
So their job required them to force citizens out of their homes at gunpoint during their search?
on April 24,2013 | 04:27PM
localgirl2 wrote:
I disagree with (almost all) most of your comments, but heck, for now, this is still a country that allows free speech. You know who you are that I agree with. The ability to be able to pack a concealed weapon would eliminate much crime. YES, the crooks might think twice. They'd wonder if I did indeed have a weapon.... that I might even be accomplished at using it. I doubt normal thinking people would like to take that chance. On the off chance that someone is really out to harm anyone, there would be others, right there, who could help by protecting the others long before 911 could ever get a cop out to help. For now, it's all a lockstep with others. I know you'll all think I'm crazy, it's still a free country! Hawaii as we know is the most socialist thinking state in the union.
on April 24,2013 | 05:56PM
patk wrote:
You are so smart, I'm sure in the Aurora Colorado movie (Dark Knight) theater shooting, amidst the chaos darkness and confusion you conceal and carry shooters would have had no problems taking out the perp without adding to the death toll, not to mention avoiding getting shot by the arriving cops who would have no idea what the hay is going on with everyone shooting everyone else dead. You conceal and carry people need to be in Hollywood movies, you're all such perfect shooters, having the ability to control any chaotic situation by adding MORE GUNS. Oh, the genius of it all.
on April 25,2013 | 02:06AM
Waterman2 wrote:
When the authorities can guarantee me and mine safety from anyone else having guns, legally or illegally, I will agree with Kealoha. I ask this, Mr Kealoha, will you be liable for my family's future well being if I were killed by an illegal gun because I couldn't defend my self due to your refusal of my concealed carry application ? Sooner or later this case will come up , not with me, but with someone refused the permit, I hope Mr. Kealoha is well insured for such a lawsuit.
on April 24,2013 | 06:10PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf Police poll... More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime. Police poll... More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable. Police poll... A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present Police poll... In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?” Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five.
on April 24,2013 | 06:50PM
patk wrote:
Funny, you go with people's opinions, which basically mean nothing. Me, I go with facts, something gun people can't be bothered with:
USA gun homicides (or overall death too is about the same, if you want i.e. including suicides) per capita are 4000% more than in the United Kingdom, where gun ownership is illegal. This is coming from the U.N. and WHO.
You can substitute most industrialized gun owning countries for the US, and most industrialized non-gun owning countries for the UK, and the percentages remain skewed just as bad. Things get even worse for your silly argument if you factor in non-industrialized countries, and countries having civil wars.
on April 25,2013 | 02:13AM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
The letter is also filled with inaccurate statistics. Political Puppetry at its finest.
on April 24,2013 | 06:52PM
yhls wrote:
Chief Kealoha really shows is ignorance and naivete by throwing his support behind the letter calling what U.S. Senators did a disgrace. Actually, it's a disgrace that our chief along with those other chiefs signed the letter. Let's face it, both sides can bring study after study showing the people support their stance. However, the 94 percent figure thrown out in this report is ludicrous. There are literally millions of law-abiding, taxpaying, registered voters in this country who enjoy shooting and owning firearms and who were against the bans that Senator Feinstein and her cronies were trying to shove down their throats. That's the only reason Senators on both sides decided not to support new guns laws that will only affect law-abiding citizens and have little to no effect on criminals and terrorists. Had they done so, they would have lost their seats in the next elections to Republicans. Let that be a warning nationwide. The public is polarized on this issue, but the voters who support second amendment rights are much more politically active than those against it.
on April 24,2013 | 07:19PM
Mana07 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkBB7kcg00 It's not very hard to find video clips of liberal politicians talking about more than just a background check. You really think criminals are going to start following the law once the proposed "background checks" are in place? Give me a break. The majority of these crimes are committed with illegal firearms. Stopped letting yourself be brain washed and taking everything the media tells you to heart. The more of your freedoms you give up, the less security you will have as a result.
on April 24,2013 | 09:38PM
sluggah wrote:
And remember, when seconds count, the cops are minutes away!
on April 24,2013 | 09:51PM
DeltaDag wrote:
Given some notable Hawaii domestic violence incidents, I think in a fair world women and any law abiding citizen over the age of say, 50 should be granted "shall carry" status. At the very least, the local mandatory waiting period to obtain a firearm should be waived for that gender or demographic. We do, however, inhabit a society where physical might often makes right.
on April 24,2013 | 11:00PM
patk wrote:
This is so illogical I don't even know where to start.
Aging and elderly people controlling violent situations with a gun? I'll concede that a certain percentage of them might be effective, but the rest would end up killing themselves, their grandkids or the guy driving by on the street. Thanks again, gun violence, for saving the day.
on April 25,2013 | 02:24AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Your comment is so stereotypical I'm obliged to respond. With age physical strength and speed decline, but the majority of seniors could easily become quite effective with firearms if so inclined. It isn't until cognitive reasoning begins to fail that surrendering this and other learned skills becomes appropriate. Besides, along with age frequently comes wisdom and patience, important assets when determining decisions involving either the possession or use of a firearm.
on April 25,2013 | 06:30AM
Mana07 wrote:
Holder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw Martinez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWkBB7kcg00
on April 24,2013 | 09:39PM
yrusodz wrote:
Sensible gun regulation would be great as long as it's well thought out. But Chief needs to stop showboating and get to solving the problems here. No actually we want a Police Department that does what it's paid to do. How about starting with the Keeaumoku area then working on the "Dangerous East Side".
on April 25,2013 | 03:34AM
mayihavesumor wrote:
Hawaii laws work for our small island community. Guns used in crimes here should be easy to trace but I don't have proof. Incidentally, the safety class at Koko head was a pleasant day. Nice people, nice weather. Over all wasn't that difficult to get my Glock.
on April 25,2013 | 05:37AM
Dimbulb wrote:
Hawaii has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. See if you can find anyone with a concealed carry permit. The Chief is the approval authority and he doesn't approve any. So, he has no reason to criticize the US Senate. It is obvious that the Chief doesn't support the US Constitution if he wants to take away the rights of people to own firearms.
on April 25,2013 | 06:26AM
AniMatsuri wrote:
I always find it amusing when I see signs at work places declaring it a gun free zone. Then the hand wringing in the news later when some disgruntled former employee comes back and shoots the place up. That, and the bill that failed to become law would have done 0 to stop the recent shootings that's happened.
on April 25,2013 | 09:22AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Political Radar
`Toss up’

Political Radar
Super

Political Radar
Hilton; Plaza Club

Political Radar
Direct mail

Political Radar
Direct mail

Aperture Cafe
Ramadan #latergram