First person to be convicted under Florida’s 'Red Flag’ firearms law faces up to 5 years in prison.

[Ghostman]

some asshole firing a gun because he's pissed off at someone, is exactly the reason I whole heartedly believe the general population have no business owning guns.

There has to be a bridge between the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun legislation.

What I see today, is entirely one sided. Those opposed scream about keeping their guns. Those for legislation is all for removing them. NO ONE is talking about a compromise.

When gun nuts start acknowledging there is a problem, the solutions can start to emerge.

 

[dave b]

If he was convicted, and his sentence included provisions to disallow gun ownership, then I agree. If he is now a felon, then rules are already in place. If not, then this is over-reach plain and simple.

As of Dec 6, he was still awaiting trial for attempted murder........

 

[45WinMag]

wait, what? How is that even a thing? I find that terrifying more so than any Red Flag law. Infinitely more terrifying

No. Prosecution of those who conspire to violate our civil rights is long overdue. They continue to push unconstitutional acts because they do so with impunity. They will only stop when they face real consequences. Is it better to give our rights some teeth with prison sentences now, or wait until people are driven to more extreme measures like tar and feathers or decorating lampposts? I think some of our arrogant legislators misread the level of anger that is simmering beneath what amounts to a cold civil war.

some asshole firing a gun because he's pissed off at someone, is exactly the reason I whole heartedly believe the general population have no business owning guns.

There has to be a bridge between the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun legislation.

What I see today, is entirely one sided. Those opposed scream about keeping their guns. Those for legislation is all for removing them. NO ONE is talking about a compromise.

When gun nuts start acknowledging there is a problem, the solutions can start to emerge.

Compromise? You mean like with the NFA, FFA, GCA, Hughes, Lautenberg, Brady, ten years under a Federal ban, and a bump-stock ban? A "compromise" is always a negotiation as to how much freedom I am going to lose. That isn't compromise. Especially when none of it is permissible under the Constitution, nor does any of it have any effect on crime.

 

[Scooter2112]

some asshole firing a gun because he's pissed off at someone, is exactly the reason I whole heartedly believe the general population have no business owning guns.

There has to be a bridge between the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun legislation.

What I see today, is entirely one sided. Those opposed scream about keeping their guns. Those for legislation is all for removing them. NO ONE is talking about a compromise.

When gun nuts start acknowledging there is a problem, the solutions can start to emerge.

Attempted murder has been illegal forever. Enforce the law, regardless of the implement used.

 

[THDNUT]

some asshole firing a gun because he's pissed off at someone, is exactly the reason I whole heartedly believe the general population have no business owning guns.

There has to be a bridge between the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun legislation.

What I see today, is entirely one sided. Those opposed scream about keeping their guns. Those for legislation is all for removing them. NO ONE is talking about a compromise.

When gun nuts start acknowledging there is a problem, the solutions can start to emerge.

Your line of thinking is the reason I just joined the NRA for three years, and will probably renew after that.

 

[TheX]

When gun nuts start acknowledging there is a problem, the solutions can start to emerge.

None of us are "gun nuts" so I guess we don't have an issue.

BTW, offending people rarely works in a positive way.

 

[LtDave32]

some asshole firing a gun because he's pissed off at someone, is exactly the reason I whole heartedly believe the general population have no business owning guns.

There has to be a bridge between the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun legislation.

What I see today, is entirely one sided. Those opposed scream about keeping their guns. Those for legislation is all for removing them. NO ONE is talking about a compromise.

When gun nuts start acknowledging there is a problem, the solutions can start to emerge.

First of all, those into confiscating law-abiding people's guns have been "screaming" for years. I don't blame the gun-owning community for screaming back.

Secondly, the term "compromise" means each side bringing something to the table. What on earth are the gun-confiscating community bringing to the table in terms of compromise? I really don't see anything I or other gun-owners would want from them. Pretty one-sided affair if you ask me.

Thirdly, the term "gun nut". Every time you point a stinky finger at someone, there's three more pointing back at you.

If that's the mindset from the gun--confiscating community, that we are all "gun nuts" and need to be "controlled", then that gun-confiscating community is going to fail at <ahem, cough> "compromise.

Not only do they not have anything we want from which they can bargain from, we don't take them seriously, nor do we wish to communicate with them in any manner. They are going to need to grow up and ditch the derogatory dialogue.

 

[Ghostman]

None of us are "gun nuts" so I guess we don't have an issue.

BTW, offending people rarely works in a positive way.

My apologies. I guess "Gun Nut" was derogatory and unneeded. Gun Enthusiasts?

 

[Ghostman]

First of all, those into confiscating law-abiding people's guns have been "screaming" for years. I don't blame the gun-owning community for screaming back.

Secondly, the term "compromise" means each side bringing something to the table. What on earth are the gun-confiscating community bringing to the table in terms of compromise? I really don't see anything I or other gun-owners would want from them. Pretty one-sided affair if you ask me.

Thirdly, the term "gun nut". Every time you point a stinky finger at someone, there's three more pointing back at you.

If that's the mindset from the gun--confiscating community, that we are all "gun nuts" and need to be "controlled", then that gun-confiscating community is going to fail at <ahem, cough> "compromise.

Not only do they not have anything we want from which they can bargain from, we don't take them seriously, nor do we wish to communicate with them in any manner. They are going to need to grow up and ditch the derogatory dialogue.

Good points. I apologized for the "Gun Nut" label. That doesn't go over very well on some of these forums.

Secondly, the term "compromise" means each side bringing something to the table. What on earth are the gun-confiscating community bringing to the table in terms of compromise? I really don't see anything I or other gun-owners would want from them. Pretty one-sided affair if you ask me.

The point wasn't so much as what is the compromise, but what changes are the Pro-Gun crowd bringing to the table? What I see from the Pro-gun side of the debate is only the pushing back against ANY change, like everything is on the level. Surely there has to be some kind of suggestion from that crowd besides "ARM EVERYONE! Free reign on everything guns! Free AK-47 for every birth."

The NRA has been cornered into a 100% defensive mode. And it's very apparent.

 

[Ghostman]

Not only do they not have anything we want from which they can bargain from, we don't take them seriously, nor do we wish to communicate with them in any manner. They are going to need to grow up and ditch the derogatory dialogue.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[TheX]

My apologies. I guess "Gun Nut" was derogatory and unneeded. Gun Enthusiasts?

That's a label that fits me.

 

[Chango Malo]

Good points. I apologized for the "Gun Nut" label. That doesn't go over very well on some of these forums.



The point wasn't so much as what is the compromise, but what changes are the Pro-Gun crowd bringing to the table? What I see from the Pro-gun side of the debate is only the pushing back against ANY change, like everything is on the level. Surely there has to be some kind of suggestion from that crowd besides "ARM EVERYONE! Free reign on everything guns! Free AK-47 for every birth."

The NRA has been cornered into a 100% defensive mode. And it's very apparent.

Ok. I may or may not have an undisclosed number of firearms in my possession. I've never threatened anyone with a weapon. I've never assaulted anyone. I've never been convicted of a crime. I haven't even had a traffic ticket in 20 years. Well, aside from the parking ticket this summer...
Why should my rights be infringed upon in any way?

 

[Tim Fezziwig]

Ghostman is my pal- go easy.

 

[Ghostman]

Ok. I may or may not have an undisclosed number of firearms in my possession. I've never threatened anyone with a weapon. I've never assaulted anyone. I've never been convicted of a crime. I haven't even had a traffic ticket in 20 years. Well, aside from the parking ticket this summer...
Why should my rights be infringed upon in any way?

This is where the conversation comes full circle, and why those opposed are pushing so hard. Nothing is brought to the table with remarks like this.

First, one must recognize there is in FACT a problem with gun violence, regardless of the number of laws put on the books, or enforcement agencies created. So what is the solution? What suggestion can there be introduced that allows Gun Enthusiasts to keep their guns?

 

[LtDave32]

Good points. I apologized for the "Gun Nut" label. That doesn't go over very well on some of these forums.



The point wasn't so much as what is the compromise, but what changes are the Pro-Gun crowd bringing to the table? What I see from the Pro-gun side of the debate is only the pushing back against ANY change, like everything is on the level. Surely there has to be some kind of suggestion from that crowd besides "ARM EVERYONE! Free reign on everything guns! Free AK-47 for every birth."

The NRA has been cornered into a 100% defensive mode. And it's very apparent.

We've been bringing changes to the table for years. Sometimes, against our will. One by one, little by little. The changes, bans, laws and refinements have been going steadily since 1934, 1938, 1939, 1968, 1993, 1994, and the threats to our ability to defend ourselves from those who would harm us or ours keep coming and coming.

Meanwhile, the opposing community offers nothing. Never have they said "okay, we wouldn't mind if you kept this or kept that". Never that I've ever seen anyway.

Compromise is compromise. Each side bring something the other can use and the other can bargain from.

Whether you want to use that term here or not, we've (our community) have seen it used constantly. And always from a one-sided standpoint. The anti-gun community has never offered anything attractive to us, and their public narrative almost always involves some sort of hysteria and or emotion.

Nobody with a sensible mind wants to deal with that. I certainly won't. deal with hysterical, emotional people.

Nor will I bargain with people who have nothing whatsoever to offer in return.

Ps, "that doesn't go over very well on some of these forums"?

It's not going to go over well anywhere that gun-owning, law-abiding citizens frequent. It's only go go over well in communities that want to take away our rights to own guns. What it is, is a sign of contempt and disrespect.

Nobody likes to be called derogatory names.

-But, apology accepted.

 

[Ghostman]

Ghostman is my pal- go easy.

It's a touchy subject. Don't tie yourself to me here bud. I'm the most unpopular opinion here. This ship will sink.

 

[Ghostman]

We've been bringing changes to the table for years. Sometimes, against our will. One by one, little by little. The changes, bans, laws and refinements have been going steadily since 1934, 1938, 1939, 1968, 1993, 1994, and the threats to our ability to defend ourselves from those who would harm us or ours keep coming and coming.

Meanwhile, the opposing community offers nothing. Never have they said "okay, we wouldn't mind if you kept this or kept that". Never that I've ever seen anyway.

Compromise is compromise. Each side bring something the other can use and the other can bargain from.

Whether you want to use that term here or not, we've (our community) have seen it used constantly. And always from a one-sided standpoint. The anti-gun community has never offered anything attractive to us, and their public narrative almost always involves some sort of hysteria and or emotion.

Nobody with a sensible mind wants to deal with that. I certainly won't. deal with hysterical, emotional people.

Nor will I bargain with people who have nothing whatsoever to offer in return.

still, no suggestion as to what COULD be done. Standing idly by and blaming someone else doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[TheX]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm OK with changes to current laws. I think the penalties for firearms based offenses should be more harshly punished. I think certain people, once convicted of these crimes should lose their rights to "bear arms".

 

[45WinMag]

Apologies for the cake reference, but this pretty much sums it up.

 

[Ghostman]

..... and the threats to our ability to defend ourselves from those who would harm us or ours keep coming and coming.

I want to address this comment specifically. The 2nd Amendment is in no way intended to protect yourself from another from harm. It's an end to an argument.

edit: unless that harm is from the US government and only the US government

And to say it's there to protect your right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, is equally balanced by those who oppose guns in the populace for the very same argument. So they cancel each other out.