Keith Brownmiller

 Do you agree or disagree with the scenario in this thread vote

 agree 1 vote
100%
 disagree 0 votes
0%
This poll has been closed.
I am going to give you a scenario and then I am going to ask you to vote in the poll attached to this post. If you agree with the scenerio you will check agree, and disagree if you don't.

If we could implement this scenerio for say six months, I would bet we could change people's mind.

We fence off a section of the country from say New York to Maine and from the Atlantic ocean to the western boundry of New York north to Canada. We then make that area a "gun-free" zone. Then all the people that are pushing for gun-control would be relocated within the fenced area. Now since this is a "gun-free" zone, all law enforcement would be disarmed, as this is a "gun-free" zone. Criminals would, of course, have their weapons because they know it would be a "gun-free" zone. This would be just like they are trying to do all over the country.

As they "learn" that their approach to solving violent crime was wrong, we would let them out, however, they would have to sign a legally binding contract that they support the second amendment, with the understanding that if they renege on their agreement, they would be returned to the fenced compound for the rest of their lives.

You see there could be no gun violence because they are living in a "gun-free" zone.

I am making this recommendation to save lives, because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that armed citizens saves lifes. Remember the anti-gunners don't believe the numbers even when provided by the government.

Remember in the poll agree or disagree.
The Gunny
Quote 0 0
Keith Brownmiller
Besides voting in the poll, please share your thoughts.
The Gunny
Quote 0 0
uva7
Keith,

I would agree, that a gun free zone is not a viable solution. Most of these shootings if not all , happen in a area where guns are not permitted.  This idea of a gun free zone drives me nuts , as to the fact , i have a cwp. But there are far less places that i can carry than i cannot... "getting off topic maybe, but still good for a debate", I wonder if It is a anti gunner debate or a weapon type debate?.   i think the majority of people "concidering the size of the nra" support guns , we are left with a few trying to change the laws governing the type of guns and clip sizes... For some , this would be a attack on the second amendment rights...   I have stated before and will state it again, i have guns, 2 pistols, a riffle, and i have a current cwp. Hell i love guns.... but , and here is the tricky part... and i do this to most of my friends and see what type of a answer they would give, and it usually goes one of two ways..

1..   we have a constitutional right to own and bear arms,,,, does this mean ,  any gun, of any size , and any capacity , if ever created , should be for sale and be allowed to be owned by anyone ?.  how about the m230 chain gun?.....      i know very few people who would treat that gun with respect.  and i dont think hunting with it is a option [smile].

if the answer to the first question is no.... then i simply ask, 

2.where do you draw the line, and who gets to draw it?... seems to me congress , lawmakers , and victims of gun violence are trying to draw the line, and gun owners dont like it....  

 So we either need to say  if its ever made , you can own it.......   or we need to say, lets agree on who decides and where we decide the line will be...


a gun free zone doesnt work, ive paid my money, had my training, and i should be able to carry anywhere i want , in any state i want....  


i would love to have your opinion on the questions above..... 

joe
Quote 0 0
Keith Brownmiller
My opinion, humble as it might be, is this:

The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that we as a people are able to defend the Republic against enemies both foreign and domestic. That said, lets assume that you were attacked, would you use bean-bag type rounds or hollow point? The issue is to meet the force of the attacker with equal or superior force. So if our country were attacked would we not want to meet that threat with equal or superior firepower. Now f the attack were from a domestic source should we not as a people respond in kind.

I am against any kind of restriction, period. We are faced with tyrannical governments from the states on up to the federal government. Any kind of restriction is an overt action of control.

You mentioned that you have a cwp. What if the state you lived in restricted those rights, lets say because you served in the military? Would you move or submit to the control.

Why should you be able to walk in to a gun store and walk out with a handgun, or be forced to wait or limit your purchase to one handgun pdr 30 days.

Your last statement was to be able to carry in any state, I agree. As you are probably aware, California recognizes NO permit from outside of the state.

In closing, NO RESTRICTION OF ANY KIND is what I advocate. Yes, I currently live in California with tyrannical gun laws, however I am working from the inside toi make change happen, but am prepared to take the next step should it become necessary.

Hope this helps, Joe.
The Gunny
Quote 0 0
Rick Holly
Keith Brownmiller wrote:
My opinion, humble as it might be, is this: The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that we as a people are able to defend the Republic against enemies both foreign and domestic. That said, lets assume that you were attacked, would you use bean-bag type rounds or hollow point? The issue is to meet the force of the attacker with equal or superior force. So if our country were attacked would we not want to meet that threat with equal or superior firepower. Now f the attack were from a domestic source should we not as a people respond in kind. I am against any kind of restriction, period. We are faced with tyrannical governments from the states on up to the federal government. Any kind of restriction is an overt action of control. You mentioned that you have a cwp. What if the state you lived in restricted those rights, lets say because you served in the military? Would you move or submit to the control. Why should you be able to walk in to a gun store and walk out with a handgun, or be forced to wait or limit your purchase to one handgun pdr 30 days. Your last statement was to be able to carry in any state, I agree. As you are probably aware, California recognizes NO permit from outside of the state. In closing, NO RESTRICTION OF ANY KIND is what I advocate. Yes, I currently live in California with tyrannical gun laws, however I am working from the inside toi make change happen, but am prepared to take the next step should it become necessary. Hope this helps, Joe.

I totally agree with Keith. The Second Amendment is the second amendment because our Founding Fathers knew there could be restrictions written later by people in power who may not agree with the freedoms of our new country. No restrictions.
Quote 0 0
uva7
keith i do see your point.  as for cwp restrictions, yep theres alot.... basically i can walk around town , or have it in the car with me ... most stores , and buildings are off limits.... i tried to get a cwp in ca, while i lived there and it was a no way in hell...... nevada wanted me to submit to a battery of shrink tests.  Now i live in sc, we have some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country.....

I am sure the debates and battles will go on for years....   i can only hope , through some measures, weather it be arm everyone in the country, or whatever someone can come up with , that the violence in our schools and workplaces,  shopping malls and theatres comes to a end..... 

i would love to ask , what do you think has caused a rash in the shootings?...   mental illness, someone looking for a larger kill #,  is it just the thing you do to get a few minutes of fame?....    im stumped , it diddnt happen when i was growing up, what makes it the cool thing to do ????....

Quote 0 0
Keith Brownmiller
The rash of killings and the cause, let me first relay a study that was done in LA of all places. As you remember Desert Storm/Desert Shield, all that we had on TV 24/7 was reporting from the middle east and our 100 hour march toward Bagdad.

After it was over, TV went back to normal, reporting on murder, gang violence etc. The study that was done, was they combed the police blotters for the time for Desert Storm/Desert Shield and they found that gang violence actually went down when it wasn't being reported in the news.

Since most shooter scenarios end in the death of the suspect either by law enforcement or they take their own, part of me thinks they are looking for fame even though they won't live to see it. However, I think the root cause has been the shift in society that swe have been experiencing since the 70s. We have been faced with the decay of the moral fabric of our society, the explosion of video game and movie technologies and the continued brainwashing of our youth with the focus on the no loser mentality.

While we are still blessed with some youth that have been taught about group over self and patriotism, the bukk of our society wants everything given to them without working for it.

I am convinced that it boils down to the secularization of today's society, the knowledge that the minority can go to the ACLU and get them to overturn the will and the vote of the majority. Case in point, majority of the people in California voted and based a bill that defined marriage being vetween one man and one woman. The ACLU took that to court and the will of the people was overturned in the courts.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the minority is driving the ship and until the majority wake and right the ship we will continue to see our rights stripped from us, 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments for example.

I for one am for the trying of all corrupt politicians in court for abrogating their duties of office, their trampling of the Constitution and treason. Only when the majority wake up and recall, impeach the elected officials, will we see the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.


The Gunny
Quote 0 0
ABH-2DavidMcnair
Keith Brownmiller wrote:
The rash of killings and the cause, let me first relay a study that was done in LA of all places. As you remember Desert Storm/Desert Shield, all that we had on TV 24/7 was reporting from the middle east and our 100 hour march toward Bagdad.

After it was over, TV went back to normal, reporting on murder, gang violence etc. The study that was done, was they combed the police blotters for the time for Desert Storm/Desert Shield and they found that gang violence actually went down when it wasn't being reported in the news.

Since most shooter scenarios end in the death of the suspect either by law enforcement or they take their own, part of me thinks they are looking for fame even though they won't live to see it. However, I think the root cause has been the shift in society that swe have been experiencing since the 70s. We have been faced with the decay of the moral fabric of our society, the explosion of video game and movie technologies and the continued brainwashing of our youth with the focus on the no loser mentality.

While we are still blessed with some youth that have been taught about group over self and patriotism, the bukk of our society wants everything given to them without working for it.

I am convinced that it boils down to the secularization of today's society, the knowledge that the minority can go to the ACLU and get them to overturn the will and the vote of the majority. Case in point, majority of the people in California voted and based a bill that defined marriage being vetween one man and one woman. The ACLU took that to court and the will of the people was overturned in the courts.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the minority is driving the ship and until the majority wake and right the ship we will continue to see our rights stripped from us, 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments for example.

I for one am for the trying of all corrupt politicians in court for abrogating their duties of office, their trampling of the Constitution and treason. Only when the majority wake up and recall, impeach the elected officials, will we see the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.


. In a short version , its our right to bear arms, our president was sworn to oath to support our consttion, and all he is doing is dictating and abusing his power, the only people he is for is his own people not all Americans, just his puppets that have there heads up his butt and are his yes men and women, the rest of us suffer, he treats us like crap and in my eyes is the biggist loser of all time, at least in my time I support the right to bear arms because its my right , all non gun owners need to jump off this wagon the president put you on, and start thinking on your own, instead of following a issue that shouldnt even be one in the first place, stop trying to change the constition and be a America, I have many guns because its my choice, if you dont like guns thats your choice and I am fine with this, so find a hobby and enjoy it and understand guns to me is a hobby and I love to target shoot and there is nothing wrong with this. Its my right so stop trying to take it away, criminals dont obey gun laws and I do, dont penalize responsible gun owners
Quote 0 0
ABH-2DavidMcnair
Keith Brownmiller wrote:
I am going to give you a scenario and then I am going to ask you to vote in the poll attached to this post. If you agree with the scenerio you will check agree, and disagree if you don't.

If we could implement this scenerio for say six months, I would bet we could change people's mind.

We fence off a section of the country from say New York to Maine and from the Atlantic ocean to the western boundry of New York north to Canada. We then make that area a "gun-free" zone. Then all the people that are pushing for gun-control would be relocated within the fenced area. Now since this is a "gun-free" zone, all law enforcement would be disarmed, as this is a "gun-free" zone. Criminals would, of course, have their weapons because they know it would be a "gun-free" zone. This would be just like they are trying to do all over the country.

As they "learn" that their approach to solving violent crime was wrong, we would let them out, however, they would have to sign a legally binding contract that they support the second amendment, with the understanding that if they renege on their agreement, they would be returned to the fenced compound for the rest of their lives.

You see there could be no gun violence because they are living in a "gun-free" zone.

I am making this recommendation to save lives, because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that armed citizens saves lifes. Remember the anti-gunners don't believe the numbers even when provided by the government.

Remember in the poll agree or disagree.
I agree, criminals would be the omly ones with guns, this is not fair, get the criminals off the streets is the answer, this is common sense but politicians just want power and cement there legacy good or bad, for the people should read for what kind of people, abuse of power they know, thats for sure
Quote 0 0
Back to USS TARAWA LHA-1 Forum