Constitutional Law, Supreme Court

“The Spirit of Aloha”: The Hawaii Supreme Court Challenges the U.S. Supreme Court Over Gun Rights

It has been 65 years since Hawaii became a state, but the Hawaiian Supreme Court appears to be having second thoughts. In an extraordinary ruling, the unanimous Supreme Court rejected the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment as inapplicable to the 50th state. Hawaii apparently is controlled not by the precedent of the Supreme Court but the “spirit of Aloha.”  While Queen Liliʻuokalani would be pleased, the justices on that “other” Supreme Court may view such claims as more secessional than spiritual.

On Wednesday,  in State v. Wilson,  Justice Todd Eddins wrote the decision dismissing the appeal of Christopher Wilson, who was arrested in December 2017 for publicly carrying a .22-caliber pistol in his “front waist band.” Wilson insisted that he carried the gun while hiking for self-protection.

Under Section 134-25 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes,  “all firearms” must be “confined to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or sojourn.” The only exceptions are for transporting guns in closed containers, hunting or target shooting, and for those with a license.

Wilson argued that “prosecuting him for possessing a firearm for self-defense purposes outside his home violated his right to bear arms” under the Second Amendment. While the trial court rejected his motion, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and Circuit Court Judge Kirstin Hamman dismissed the charges with prejudice.

Justice Eddins wrote that the Hawaii Constitution “does not afford a right to carry firearms in public places for self defense.” Eddins notes that “Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” However, “we read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.” He then adds:

“The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others.”

Justice Eddins is referencing District of Columbia v. Heller, where the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. Most recently, in 2022 in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court held that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” extends beyond the home. Those decisions rely heavily on interpreting the right in line with the historical practices and understandings leading to the ratification of the Second Amendment.

Justice Eddins mocks the holdings of the Court and insists that the Second Amendment was intended to arm militias as a protection against the federal government, adding “that’s what they were thinking about long ago. Not someone packing a musket to the wigmaker just in case.” He dismisses the U.S. Supreme Court historical understanding as “debunked.”

Instead, he relies on such unassailable sources as the series The Wire:

Bruen‘s command to find an old-days “analogue” undercuts the other branches’ responsibility—at the federal, state, and local levels—to preserve public order and solve today’s problems. And it downplays human beings’ aptitude for technological advancement.

Time-traveling to 1791 or 1868 to collar how a state regulates lethal weapons—per the Constitution’s democratic design—is a dangerous way to look at the federal constitution. The Constitution is not a “suicide pact.”

We believe it is a misplaced view to think that today’s public safety laws must look like laws passed long ago. Smoothbore, muzzle-loaded, and powder-and-ramrod muskets were not exactly useful to colonial era mass murderers. And life is a bit different now, in a nation with a lot more people, stretching to islands in the Pacific Ocean….

As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution. “The thing about the old days, they the old days.”

Yet, what is controlling is the history of Hawaii, which included limits on weapons. He notes that in 1833 King Kamehameha III (left) “promulgated a law prohibiting ‘any person or persons’ on shore from possessing a weapon, including any ‘knife, sword-cane, or any other dangerous weapon.'”

That 1833 decree reflects what Eddins calls “the Aloha Spirit.”

“In Hawaiʻi, the Aloha Spirit inspires constitutional interpretation…When this court exercises “power on behalf of the people and in fulfillment of [our] responsibilities, obligations, and service to the people” we “may contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the ‘Aloha Spirit.’” HRS § 5-7.5(b) (2009).

     The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”

Whatever the Spirit of Aloha may encompass, it does not fit within the supremacy clause under Article VI, Clause 2. Nevertheless, Democratic Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez praised the decision as “thoughtful and scholarly” and celebrated the court affirming “the constitutionality of crucial gun-safety legislation.”

The hyperbole of the decision does not mean that the Hawaii Supreme Court is prepared to defy the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, other states are pushing their own bars on gun possession in public areas without such rhetoric.

Aloha is often interpreted as meaning “in harmony with the people and land around you.” The U.S. Constitution has the same principle that was ratified after the Articles of Confederation to establish the supremacy of laws. As Justice Jackson once noted, the justices of the United States Supreme Court “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”

Here is the opinion: State-v.-Wilson-Hawaii-SC-2-7-24

157 thoughts on ““The Spirit of Aloha”: The Hawaii Supreme Court Challenges the U.S. Supreme Court Over Gun Rights”

  1. Eddins may think “public safety comes first in the Islands,” but he appears unable to recognize that there is no safety (public or private) unless individuals are capable of defending themselves and their loved ones from crime and tyranny. Our Founders, having just freed themselves from colonization, were acutely aware of this. Their present-day ancestors, having enjoyed the fruits of liberty for centuries, have lost this awareness.

  2. Subject Was Trespassing On Private Trail At 11 PM

    Police were called after the owner of Flyin Hawaii Zipline in the West Maui Mountains was alerted at 11 p.m. Dec. 6, 2017, that trespassers had entered the property, according to information in court records.

    Police waited on the roadside while the owner, who was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, and an employee located three hikers who told police they were hiking to look at the moon and native plants, according to the information.

    After a hiker said others might be on the private trail, the owner went back to search and returned about 10 minutes later with Wilson, who told police he had a handgun in his front waistband that he was carrying for self-defense, according to the court information.

    https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/10/prosecution-appeals-ruling-to-dismiss-gun-charges-against-man/

  3. Unbelievable. If you actually review Hawaii’s history, they had a very vicious caste system where the elites could kill anyone who was lower than them for the “crime” of breaking their draconian kapu system. This wasn’t eliminated until the 19th century. Hawaiians also had slaves, the kauwa, equivalent to India’s untouchables, who are said to have been people from the first migration wave as well as POWs and criminals. Most Hawaiians are part of a long ago second migration wave that eliminated/enslaved the first one. In current woke parlance, current Hawaiians are colonizers and oppressors which makes their hate of white people ironic. What happens when the oppressors/colonizers are oppressed/colonized themselves? Isn’t that a righteous solution? Anyway, Hawaii, for most of its history has never been a peaceful society.

    1. Anyway, Hawaii, for most of its history has never been a peaceful society.

      There is a reason why they have volcanoes; great way to get rid of the troublemakers. Makes Mother Earth happy.
      In CONUS we have no such luck, only Soros sponsored DAs

  4. I know a few “judges” that better not step foot in my state. We will be happy to make them understand that our rights are not up for debate and fascists have a very short life span.

  5. Dealing with Hawaii I learned a lot that they are a one sided and maybe racist when it comes to high paying jobs and politics . They only believe those who are true Hawaiians deserve to be place in authority.

    1. Absolutely true on Kauai in particular. I got schooled by a Filipino-Chinese “native born” there. It is a caste system. There is a weird relationship between the native Hawaiians and the very rich Japanese too. Mr. Zuckerbucks may find the locals do not respect his property rights when he runs to the billion-$ basement he’s building.

  6. Clearly, these judges are asking to be disbarred and/or imprisoned for treason or, dare I say, INSURRECTION!

    1. YOU are asking for those things. They are the state supreme court, which make them the HIGHEST AUTHORITY on the meaning of the state constitution. Nobody, not even SCOTUS, and certainly not you, have the right to challenge their interpretation.

  7. Hawaiian lunatics. They still believe that the god Pele lives in a volcano. The federal Constitution trumps their aloha spirit argument. If they want to secede, let them. They’ll be broke in a month.

    1. I completely agree. There was never a sound, national interest, justification for annexation of a colony across the Paciific, halfway to Asia, in the first place. It was mere political favoratism to Dole and a few others (no doubt, some manner of quid pro quo was involved). Had that mistake not been made, the US might have entirely avoided involvement in WWII (think of the wholesale squandering of US lives, wealth, and value that could have been avoided). NTM that FDR would most likely have been limited to two terms. Emancipate the Hawaiians, and let them sink or swim on their own dime. Aloha, piss-ants!

      1. Grima, while I agree with your sentiments, the islands of Hawaii held (and hold) a significant strategic importance to the security of our mainland. The fact Japan had the reach to attack it, proved that point. The Hawaii government may want to resemble far away totalitarian regimes, but any secession of Hawaii would be met by an immediate annexation by hostile foreign powers (China). They may deserve to sink or swim, but that should be under the authority of our system and not Chinas.

      2. Japan would have attacked the CONUS west coast after taking over Hawaii, you nitwit.

        1. Cite convincing evidence that Japan had designs on the US West coast, or, for that matter, any significant land or population East of Hawaii. I doubt that you will find any. Japan’s near and mid term goal was hegemony in Asia. Hawaii was gradually being built up as a US military outpost that Japan viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a threat to that ambition. I am not aware of any convincing evidence that the scope of their goals extended beyond Asia.

    2. The proper response to that epithet is to transpose the first two letters…

  8. Nullification, subversion, sedition, insurrection, treason et al.

    Place the 25th Division on High Alert post haste.

    Draw and Quarter the perpetrators with extreme prejudice.

    1. Nonsense. This is a decision about the state constitution, and they have the right to interpret it however they think best. In any case, they’re clearly right about the meaning of the state constitution. The evidence they cite for how the constitutional convention understood the provision at hand is incontrovertible. The convention explicitly said what it intended.

  9. For the unenlightened, here is Hawaii’s legal definition of the Aloha Spirit:

    [§5-7.5] “Aloha Spirit”. (a) “Aloha Spirit” is the coordination of mind and heart within each person. It brings each person to the self. Each person must think and emote good feelings to others. In the contemplation and presence of the life force, “Aloha”, the following unuhi laula loa may be used:

    “Akahai”, meaning kindness to be expressed with tenderness;
    “Lokahi”, meaning unity, to be expressed with harmony;
    “Oluolu”, meaning agreeable, to be expressed with pleasantness;
    “Haahaa”, meaning humility, to be expressed with modesty;
    “Ahonui”, meaning patience, to be expressed with perseverance.

    These are traits of character that express the charm, warmth and sincerity of Hawaii’s people. It was the working philosophy of native Hawaiians and was presented as a gift to the people of Hawaii. “Aloha” is more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation. “Aloha” means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return. “Aloha” is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence. “Aloha” means to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to know the unknowable.

    (b) In exercising their power on behalf of the people and in fulfillment of their responsibilities, obligations and service to the people, the legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, executive officers of each department, the chief justice, associate justices, and judges of the appellate, circuit, and district courts may contemplate and reside with the life force and give consideration to the “Aloha Spirit”. [L 1986, c 202, §1]

    Source: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0005/HRS_0005-0007_0005.htm

      1. NOBODY has said that the US constitution doesn’t apply in Hawaii. Where are you getting such nonsense? This is a decision on the STATE constitution. That’s all.

    2. Who the hell CARES what it means. It’s not controlling in the instant case. End of story.

      1. It reads like utter twaddle, but unfortunately it seems that it IS controlling law in ALL Hawaiian cases. Judges are required to resort to this “spirit of aloha” twaddle in interpreting state law.

    3. “Aloha Spirit” sounds like the kind of doggerel that occasionally comes out of the current mayor’s office in Madison, WI where I live, God help me. During the Jan. 12 blizzard Mayor Satya didn’t know how to deploy salt and snow plows and consequently thirty serious vehicle accidents occurred on the isthmus. The mayor’s office put out a statement whining that the weather event was “unprecedented.” Unprecedented?! In Wisconsin? But don’t blame me. I voted for Paul Soglin in the last mayoral election he ran in.

      Aloha.

    4. My friend who grew up there was one of a single digit number of blond blue eyes in his school. He could tell you all about what “Haole” means. (N-word).

  10. Wow! That’s This coming from a chain of islands that could not defend itself from attack, is now telling its citizens they have no 2nd amendment right to defend themselves from attack in public. Yeah, that’s the spirit of aloha f*uck you!

    1. You’re onto something there. The Hawaii Supreme Court just gave a big middle finger to the US Supreme Court. As I recall Douglas MacArthur did that to Truman, and look how that turned out.

      1. The Hawaii Supreme Court just gave a big middle finger to the US Supreme Court.

        The brashness of it would normally be shocking, But it was the inevitable next step in the Left’s assault on our system of governance. Under the direction of the Regime, the Biden administration has through EO’s, been openly mocking the legitimacy of the separation of powers. Congress has essentially made themselves subservient to the Regime and this war is now being played out through the Judicial branch. The Regime has been on offense for years. First taking down the states, then Congress and now the Courts. The key weapon the Regime has is time. They know every offensive action will be another in a series of body blows, until it reaches SCOTUS. By then, the damage has been done. It’s like the Regime is pummeling away at our country in the octagon, Congress sits in the stands, the referee is the lower courts and SCOTUS is the bell. What the Hawaiian Supreme Court just said is, F*ck the bell.

        1. It’s very frightening. Our last line of defense is the conservative Scotus majority. For all his flaws, DJT has, with his three Scotus picks, saved the republic from complete disintegration for about a decade, 15 years tops. What happens after that is hard to fathom and why the POTUS and senatorial elections are so crucial.

          1. oldman, I don’t believe any praise about Trump’s accomplishments needs to come with a disclaimer about his flaws as a person. We all have them to one degree or another. He wasn’t my choice in the primary, but he was in the general. My choice was made hoping at the time that Congress and the Courts would keep him in check. As it turns out, I naively overlooked the Regime. Knowing what I know now, at this point in our history, Trump has the sort of character we need that will stand up to the Regime. If he succeeds, then perhaps his successor won’t need to have a similar character.

            1. In fact, he seems to be about the only person on the national scene who has the fortitude to even make a dent in the regime – and at the same time have a reasonable possibility of winning.

                1. Yes, to both Olly and Oldman.

                  We need to recognize that no politician can get to the top without a bunch of warts.

                  King David was the brother of many and the only one whom his father skipped over. He didn’t look the part like his predecessor and made many mistakes, including moral ones, but he is one of the greatest of the great.

          2. Oldman, that is why anyone not woke and comatose needs to vote against the Democrat Party, even if there is someone they like. The Democrat Party gains sustenance with every vote. 2024 requires a big win in all three branches with substantial margins, otherwise, it’s a waiting game for destruction when the next Democrat branch of government reappears.

            It is not a matter of politics. It is a matter that the Democrat Party of today hates America. That was not true years ago when I was a registered Democrat, even though I voted as an independent.

      2. No reason to believe Biden will follow in Truman’s footsteps. Biden breaks with SC daily.

        1. Anon – Biden has nothing to do with this. In the analogy, Truman = SCOTUS and Hawaii Supreme Court = MacArthur.

          SCOTUS is the commander in chief of the federal constitution, and state supreme courts are generals. Got it?

      3. More of this nonsense. WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE GETTING THIS GARBAGE? Nobody has given any fingers to SCOTUS, and nobody has claimed that the US constitution is not the supreme law of the land.

        This is a decision about the STATE constitution, and the evidence presented for it seems overwhelming. OF COURSE the 2nd amendment still applies, regardless of what the state constitution says or doesn’t say.

  11. Jonathan: What’s not to like about the “Aloha state”. I visited almost all the islands over many years. Almost bought a property there. It is truly a “paradise” for mainlanders. Mark Twain also visited the islands. He describes it better than me: “For me it’s the balmy airs are always blowing; it’s summer seas slashing in the sun; the pulsing of its surf is in my ears;…”. Twain remarked in “Roughing It in the Sandwich Islands”: “At noon I observed a bevy of nude young native women bathing in the sea, and I went and sat down on their clothes…to keep them from being stolen”. Classic Twain! But I digress.

    No doubt Justice Eddins’ decision does not comport with recent decisions by the conservative SC that the “right to bear arms” includes the right of every red-blooded NRA member to walk around with a Glock strapped to their waist. But in the “Aloha spirit” Eddins thinks public safety comes first in the Islands. The homicide rate in Hawaii has gone up in recent years. There has not been a mass shooting in Hawaii compared with others around the country. Maybe Eddins would like to keep it that way.

    And maybe Judge Eddins is on to something. He thinks the norms of the 18th century no longer apply to modern society where mass killings are a frequent occurrence. The smooth bore muskets used in prior centuries have now been replaced by Glocks and assault-style weapons. So Eddins, in the “Aloha spirit”, is challenging the SC to revisit its prior decisions. It’s probable the conservatives on the SC would strike down Eddins’ ruling. But I think Mark Twain would side with Eddins because Twain was a big supporter of lost causes.

    1. So I guess the US Constitution is completely irrelevant to this topic, in your view? Maybe because you wish the Constitution said things differently than it says? Or maybe because you wish Scotus decisions had come down differently? So that makes it irrelevant?

      1. What amazes me is the complete disregard for the Reality of the current state of affairs in our country, where armed thugs have pretty much taken over some areas. Some guy in D.C. just got killed in a carjacking, and there, it is not unusual for 13-year-olds to have multiple charges for carjacking. Most of what they now call “mass shootings” is one thug gunning down other thugs, and maybe killing a few innocent bystanders in the process. I think going around unarmed under such circumstances is stupid. And why in the world some school officials are not armed is beyond me. As a former attorney, I can assure you that some of the people with whom I came in contact, were very dangerous people, and would not hesitate to commit violent acts. I would never go out in the woods unarmed. I never even go on walks without a gun in my pocket. Or fishing. I don’t even go to the Dollar General store without being armed, because you never know when a store is going to be robbed. So why would any sane person be against honest citizens carrying a gun?

      2. When they start babbling about muskets i stop listening. Citizens owned the state of the art firearm for that time that they could afford. True then and true now. Firearm technology evolves. Constitutional text doesn’t.

    2. I suppose that since we are honoring the “Law of the Splintered Paddle” created by King Kamehameha, perhaps his approach to sovereignty should also be adopted? You know pushing your enemy off the cliffs at Nuʻuanu Pali?
      How about his treaty which ceded the Big Island to Great Britain? I guess we should honor that?
      This selective parsing of happy horse manure for your own political desires is not Law, but political maneuvering and the Justices know it.

  12. Yea, Hawaii should obey the Supreme Court with regard to guns, but Texas can snub the Supreme Court on Immigration.
    Makes sense to me.

    1. Did the Texas Supreme Court issue a decision that the US Constitution does not apply in that state?

    2. One is in violation of the 2ndA.
      The other is defending it’s borders and people from an invasion.

    3. Abbott is in compliance with the Court’s orders. If a Fed Agent wants to cut the wire, they can. And, if a Texas National Guard member wants to put it back later, they can. Read the decision. Is it “remove all the wire everywhere” or “cut through when you need access?”

    4. How so? Supreme Court said Border Patrol can cut the razor wire. Didn’t say Texas couldn’t put it there or replace what was cut.

    5. You need to read the supreme court decision on the barbed wire. It allowed the Feds to remove Barbed wire. It said nothing about Texas being unable to install it.

    6. How is Texas disregarding the SC on immigration?

      The justices stated that the border patrol (i.e., federal government) could remove the concertina wire. The SC didn’t determine that Texas couldn’t put more concertina wire out. Abbott is playing this out exactly how most of his constituents want him to do it. We’re fed up with footing the bill for a BS federal government policy (especially when the federal government policy is to NOT ENFORCE existing laws on the books).

      So, yes. Hawaii should adhere to what the SC determined in previous cases.

    8. Texas is not snubbing the supreme court on anything. The supreme court did not order Texas to allow the feds access to the park.

  13. After reading a few questionable court decisions you get used to some quackery. But this? If when reading the “Spirit of Aloha” line your eyes didn’t bug out and you didn’t snort/laugh/cough into your coffee, you’re just not enjoying life enough.
    That line is gonna live forever (and not in a good way)!!!

    1. So cut ’em loose and let them defend their own borders with the “Spirit of Aloha.” I’m sure President Xi is down with that.

    2. It sounds stupid, but it is the actual law in Hawaii, and binding on the supreme court. It has to act in this “spirit of aloha”, whatever that means.

  15. Having spent two years of my life 61-63 on that dreadful Island (O’ahu) It was a very delightful day when I shipped out to leave the military and go home. It had only been a state for a very short time and the natives absolutely despised white people and were quick to let them know that. I vowed at the time to never voluntarily set foot there again. Their politics have devolved since then into a grifting near communistic mud pit of anti White and anti anything remotely to the right of Stalin. I hope SCOTUS crushes them.

    1. I’m thinking the Norwegians would like it, to spend time there during their long, dark winters. And we could trade for a percentage of their North Sea oil in perpetuity.

  17. They should have been more low key, but democrats always have to climb in your your face. So speaking of face, now they are faced with a federal second amendment lawsuit.

  18. Dear Prof Turley,

    Aloha. First of all, I think many of the people posting on your blog – Res Ispa Loquacious – should be required to leave their six-shooters @ Darrin’s saloon until after I get through with them. For their own protection. .. quite frankly, some of these people have a penchant for shooting themselves in the foot.

    AFter the OK corral shootout, even wild west Tombstone initiated some common-sense gun control measures, lest these slap-happy gunslingers frighten the townsfolk. Tombstone was no WaiKiKi beach.

    Don’t think the old Framers of 2A were worried about ‘personal protection’ – they were worried about unchecked power in the hands of the Kings and Rulers of the earth. .. and rightly so.

    *Sensible arms control remains elusive 250 years later.

    1. “should be required to leave their six-shooters @ Darrin’s saloon until after I get through with them. For their own protection. ”

      Yet, DGSnowden, you are delighted that Hamas has all the weapons on hand to kill Israeli civilians day and night for the past 75 years. You have a disconnect when it comes to Jews.

      1. You’re losing it, S. Meyer. Completely around the bend. Even Joe Biden understands* Netanyahu’s unhinged fanatics scorched earth war in Gaza is ‘over the top’.

        Killing all those people, most of them women and children! That’s not fighting ‘Hamas’, or ‘terror’ or any of that other nonsense you spew like Saul on the Tower of Babble. It needs to stop.

        Forget negotiating with ‘Hamas’. Israel could, and should, end this massacre unilaterally .. . asap.

        *and Joe Biden is not known for his ’empathy’.

        1. “Even Joe Biden understands* Netanyahu’s unhinged fanatics scorched earth war in Gaza is ‘over the top.'”

          Dgsnowden, if you wish to tie yourself to a man whom Gates said never made a correct foreign policy decision in his life, go ahead.

          Civilian casualties are much less in Gaza than they are in any comparable war. You are ignorant of what is happening on the ground, so I expect you to know very little. Further, you think like Biden. and you know what the intelligent people of the world think of Biden.

          Do you know what a scorched earth policy is? No. Every place they are fighting, there are terrorists either above or below ground with missiles being launched from the same areas, including hospitals and schools. That tells us a lot about how you think, or should I say don’t think. You have shown yourself to be an anti-Semite, so I don’t think any further explanation is needed.

        2. “Killing all those people, most of them women and children! ”

          Dgsnowden, no one knows what the precise figure is, but you take your numbers from the terrorists. However, the deaths of women and children are due to Hamas terrorists who hide behind them and kill them when their missiles aimed at Israel blow up prematurely. Take note of why you don’t blame the terrorists for the deaths. Your prejudices are showing.

          How many of those women and children were directly killed by Hamas? If the number were 100%, it wouldn’t change your mind. Nothing can.

        3. “like Saul on the Tower of Babble.”

          Dgsnowden, you are almost 1,000 years off between the Tower of Babel and King Saul. Stop babbling.

        4. “Forget negotiating with ‘Hamas’. Israel could, and should, end this massacre unilaterally .. . asap.”

          Dgsnowden, this is the first sensible thing you have said. The war could end quicker if Israel weren’t trying to avoid killing citizens. Additionally, the cease-fire prolonged the war because arms and money were transported to Hamas to keep them supplied. World politics caused this problem in the first place because it tolerated terrorism and pushed Israel back after each war. To end the war, Hamas has to lose all hope. Therefore the war must continue until Hamas no longer exists. It is the only way to prevent another 75 years of war.

          1. Meyer – Netanyahu has lived in the dangerous neighborhood for decades and will do what he has to do, to protect himself and his family (Israel) from the murderous thugs that surround him. What will he *not* be doing? Listening to armchair critics like dgsnowden who pathetically sit in their safe little suburbs and lob criticisms at the guy in the inner city trying to survive. People like that can gf themselves.

            1. Oldman, thank you. I think previous experience taught Netanyahu a lesson, and he will finish the job, but the war is the easiest part. I think Israel will have to do to Gaza what MacArthur did to Japan.

              The Dgsnowden’s might object, but would they like Kamikazes buzzing around their house?

    2. “Don’t think the old Framers of 2A were worried about ‘personal protection’ – they were worried about unchecked power in the hands of the Kings and Rulers of the earth. .. and rightly so.”

      – dgsnowden
      ________________

      The Framers and Founders were worried about despots, tyrants, dictators, oppression, and an exclusion and dearth of natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities.
      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  19. Okay.
    In light of climate change, global warming and other green sounding like stuff, I hear by invoke The Spirit of Genghis Khan! I shall storm my horde across all first world nations, putting down the top 10% first, then academia chowder heads, then the useless eaters, and people who talk in the theater! I will bring down their quality of living to the point they look up to Aboriginal Australians as an developed society!
    I will start in Topeka KS.

      1. OldManFromKS,
        Absolutely nothing.
        I doubt there are any 10% there.
        KS strikes me as one of the more sensible states, so few if any of those academia chowder heads around.
        KS seems to be a state of workers, so no or few useless eaters.
        Now, those people who talk in the theater . . .

  20. Meanwhile, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said the quiet part out loud. He acknowledged that illegal aliens are the people the Dems “care about most.”

    Yup, he actually said that. Makes sense, though, given the Dems’ strategy of opening the southern border to get more voters through law-breaking.

Comments are closed.