Your Views for February 18

High-capacity mags

I’ve changed my mind. It is time to ban large-capacity magazines in center-fire rifles. I say this as a gun owner, shooting sports enthusiast and a strong believer in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that it means what it says: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


And yet, in the real world we live in, a maniac can spray a hundred rounds of high-velocity ammunition into a crowded school, church or concert audience as fast as he can pull the trigger and snap in new magazines. We have seen the results too many times.

High-capacity magazines have no value in hunting, target shooting or home defense. Their only possible and constitutional use would be to repel invasion or to resist domestic tyranny.

I do not discount those remote possibilities, but there are certainly plenty of civilian guns around to do the job, if required. (And patriots would surely be able to get their hands on military stocks, if needed.) As Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

I would support a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and a “buyback” confiscation program providing fair compensation for gun owners surrendering high-capacity magazines.

I continue to oppose harassment legislation designed to do nothing but nibble away at Second Amendment rights, examples of which include Hawaii’s new $42 firearms registration and database fee, the ban on suppressors and the effective ban on concealed carry permits.

These restrictions are unreasonable and serve only to make it more difficult to keep and bear arms. High-capacity magazines are an entirely different matter.

Raymond Gagner


Bad move, mayor

Shame on you, Mayor Harry Kim, for proposing to raise the general excise tax.

I thought we voted for you to get the government working again, instead of patting yourself and your high-paid managers with a huge raise in pay. And yet, when you go into any county office you still have to wait forever to be waited on while in the background a whole bunch of people working at desks won’t help you.

I hope you realize the people who put you in office will suffer under your extreme measure. Why don’t you look at who really is working and who isn’t? Just sayin’.


John Linneman


  1. metalman808 February 18, 2018 8:13 am Reply

    Harry just walks around and gives everybody high fives. He smiles and says we won baby. Who cares milk is 10 dollars a gallon. Every time Harry eats its with our money. Steak and lobster all day everyday.

  2. NevahHappen February 18, 2018 11:10 am Reply

    A “gun owner” that uses gun grabber phrases like:

    “spray a hundred rounds of high-velocity ammunition”

    I call Bullsqueeze, this is not firearms owner, just another liberal attempting to camouflage their true ID and intentions.

    1. keaaukeli February 18, 2018 5:34 pm Reply

      What else would you call it? He shot 150 rounds only killed 17. It was not what a gun owner would call effective shooting. So “spray” in this case might be appropriate.

      1. diverdave February 20, 2018 11:50 am Reply

        Every bullet he fired he had to pull the trigger. This weapon is NOT a machine gun. Still, like any gun, can be lethal.

        1. NevahHappen February 20, 2018 12:31 pm Reply

          Don’t confuse liberals like keaacoocoo, they know what PMSNBC/CNN told them.

    2. Hilo Jack February 19, 2018 8:56 am Reply

      Not to be confused with a conservative who claims guns are legal under the constitution but ignores legal abortion afforded under the same constitution used to justify a 19 year old “poor aiming” kid buying an AR15

  3. PunaPerson February 18, 2018 11:35 am Reply

    @Raymond Gagner

    You claim you are “a strong believer in the Second Amendment” and “believe that it means what it says”. Then in the immediately following sentences you outline why you DON’T believe it means what it says! Nice logic.

    The basis of your argument that you don’t really believe what the Second Amendment says is “High-capacity magazines have NO VALUE in hunting, target shooting or home defense.”

    So I suppose anyone is then free to override Constitutionally-protected rights by proclaiming what they think is “of value” or “no value”, right? Why are you the exception that gets to make that decision and evaluation?

    Maybe you need to read the Second Amendment again. You yourself in your comment quoted the latter half of the amendment, and you’ll note it did NOT read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless someone deems something to be of NO VALUE.”

    You are of course free to draw the line anywhere you like about what ought to be legal or not, but you’re not free to simultaneously claim both “yes” and “no” about a statement (amendment).

    1. Hilo Jack February 19, 2018 7:05 am Reply

      So then abortion is legal.

      Why fight something protected by the constitution?

  4. diverdave February 20, 2018 11:53 am Reply

    I contend that it is exactly social media that is fueling many of these “shooters”.
    Everyone wants to talk guns. OK. But, no one is asking the
    tough questions like: WHY do these kids attack their schools?

    I say that it is the very children that now want to march
    for gun control that are fueling the mixed up confused kids like Cruz into
    doing it by bullying, deriding, putting them down, name calling, and the like

    Kids spend a better part of their day, before, during(when
    they can), and after school, commenting like “wasn’t Jimmy dressed funny
    today?”, or “Jimmy is so stupid, he got the worst grade in the class
    on the test”, or “Jimmy has got to be the ugliest boy I have ever
    seen!, what a dork”.

    These comments on Social Media need to be addressed. I
    really think it’s time to NOT allow children under age on social medias as they
    are NOT mature enough to not make disparaging comments to and about other kids
    that are already mixed up and those kids that are hurt from these types of
    attacks. We limit freedoms all the time for minors like drinking, driving,
    banking, etc. Perhaps they should not also be allowed on the myriad of social
    media websites until they are old enough to know proper behavior.

    Goodness knows the folks that participate here have enough
    trouble not making personal attacks, and name calling. And they should know

    1. diverdave February 20, 2018 11:54 am Reply

      If this young man had run over 30 kids with a car we could have a rational decision about why he did it, right? But, because it was a gun we can’t?

      I know many political and dirty tricks elements of our society, and apparently
      even the Russians, like social media because like never before they can get
      their slanted messages out to perhaps 10s of thousands of kids with discernment
      that is not matured to know they are being swayed and influenced.

      But, it is what it is, and a discussion of limiting these forms of
      communication to youngsters, and adolescents should be considered.

      We need to get to the bottom of why,
      and then how, a young man like this was discarded by the very system that was
      supposed to be helping him. How many others are being bullied by peers, and
      being discarded by the system that should be there for him?

      Not to make excuses for him, but just wanting a meaningful discussion of the causes. NOT just the tool to which he chose to use to act with.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your email address will not be published. required fields are marked *

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. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.