Who here is afraid to live unarmed?

They would not even need a permit here. Georgia does not require a permit to carry in your car. I just never think to do even that. I'm more likely to get struck by lightning than need it where I go on a daily basis.

 

This statement of yours quite speaks something: you'd prefer being nuked than sharing your wealth with others. That's amazing, considering that you could live a more than decent life even with wealth redistribution.

 

""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."""

What part is not clear.

Save me sanctimonious dribble about being part of a militia. Every law abiding legal citizen is a part of the militia.

It's not about being afraid either. It's about being prepared, and willing to protect country, family, and property.

 

Will you defend your family and property against the great satan who wants to take it all away?

 

Troll much?

 

Except you failed to read what I wrote. I'll quote myself to help out and I'll bold the keyword for you:

Yes, I'd take that over wealth distribution.

 

Thanks, very interesting. The Doctor should challenge the law, though I believe there is much more to this story than in the posted article.


Is this the same doc as in your post? A few (3) decent posts about him/his practice but the present tally is ten against to three for over a five and one/half year period.

Rating: 1.8 out of 5 (5 is best), based on 13 reviews. Dr. Chris N. Okonkwo has a poor overall rating on RateMDs.com. frown

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/454668/Dr-Chris+N.-Okonkwo-Ocala-FL.html

 

Ooooh! How did I know that no one would read the second page that outlined the other states where the same laws are either awaiting enactment or have been enacted

 

Normal gun ownership?What is normal?

 

You are an intelligent woman? Signs of the times? Instant gratification policy? Or I simply didn't see the second page.

This doctor seems to have a lot going on with poor customer service/relations. If he is the inspiration for this law or an organization pushing to invade personal privacy, either way it is sad that people need to be protected from invasive interview tactics from someone who used to be seen as a confidante and healer. I will get to your second page and see what is reveals.

How did the reporter know the woman was yelling? Did they interview her too?

 

Well I suspect that those who have to carry a gun in public to go grocery shopping or to the movies are a good start on defining abnormal. You have to keep in mind that to unarmed people the gun owners who stock up, and those who carry and shoot where once people walked away are the ones going over the top and making America dangerous. The reality is they become the very ones they fear enough to not even be able to go out without a gun. Most killers are law abiding until they kill and when they kill it is one more thing their fellow fearing gun wackos then race down and buy more guns for. This is not even counting the massive gun runs after every gun owner mass slaying or the election of a President who isn't even taking guns from them. I think things are out of control. The Red States are killing themselves off. The children in homes of gun owners are related to that fear from outside the home as gun owners leave guns loaded and laying around when they have children thinking that just telling CHILDREN that they can't touch it without them is even logical. When you say don't touch, children immediately find interest in it. Think common sense and then you discover "normal". We once had some small amount of common sense with guns. Now it is anything goes and children are dying. I don't fear criminals as they are not nearly as dangerous where I live as the gun toting law abiding citizen waiting to shoot someone in a movie theatre, walking home from the store, or listening to loud music. Too many are just waiting for an opportunity to use their guns and they don't even realize it. They are afraid of their own shadow and have become scary as a result to the point they want no safety regulations as if the chaos they call for is protected under the Amendment...it is not.

 

Forget the second page of the article - one wonders if anything beyond the first sentence of the quote was read - or is there some kind of "excuse them anything because it is the NRA"

Second page

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...n_gag_rules_and_the_cdc_aca_and_states.2.html

 

You are the one who sounds paranoid. From what I am reading here you have more respect for criminals than you do the law abiding, and it is states/cities that have ridiculous restrictions against guns where the people are killing each other off at the highest rate. Gun-free zones are the places that the mentally unbalanced, or criminally inclined are killing the most people.

 

Correction: gun free zones are the areas zealot gun owners are expanding to. Don't you get it...there is no safe area due to the over dependency on guns as resolvers. It is not the unarmed people leaving loaded guns around the house or going over the edge in most headlines. I am not against gun ownership, I'm against dangerous and loosely wired gun owners or those who use the gun to become pushy over minor things. There is no need to fight against registration and making sure that the unbalanced have a stopper. Law abiding mentally unstable gun owners like this who complained about the waiting period could be stopped if registration required a background search including mental records:

"Those on the jury will see many disturbing images and hear hours of troubling evidence. They will see several sides to Schenecker, a former military linguist and wife of a colonel.

They will see an attentive suburban mom, cheering from the sidelines as her kids played soccer. They will also see a woman who bought a gun the weekend before the killings — and who complained in a letter that a three-day waiting period would “delay the massacre.” They will see the handcuffed inmate, escorted by officers, who walked rigidly into jail following her arrest, her face contorted and eyes empty.

Schenecker, 53, looks older and vastly different than pictures that emerged of her as a blonde, athletic mom in the years before the crime. She sat in the courtroom Monday, flanked by her public defenders, who plan an insanity defense."


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-killing-kids-article-1.1771870#ixzz30Hig2Xmd

 

So far I haven't seen one piece of legislation that is directed towards the criminals and mentally unstable/unbalanced, just the law abiding. This woman either had a history of mental illness or she didn't. If she didn't all the gun control laws in the country wouldn't have made a difference. I'm betting the evidence will show that she had a history of mental illness and was medicated if not over-medicated for whatever symptoms she was displaying. If criminals and mentally disturbed have a special category on their drivers license or picture ID, there would be absolutely no reason to go after the law abiding. But as I said the legislation being proposed isn't directed at criminals and the mentally disturbed. That says a lot about the true agenda.

 

She had a history of mental issues including an 8 or 9 month stay in a hospital. The point in her case is she was able to buy a gun. We need to close that door. Then there are the ones without known mental issues who by being empowered kill teens over loud music or a dad over killed over texting his daughter before the movie begins. Registering and connecting police records and mental health databases and following the guns can make a difference. At least trying since we know what chaos like we have is.

 

Resources would be better spent making sure that criminals and the mentally ill are labelled properly. You have codes on the drivers license and picture ID's already. Just create code that would identify a person ineligible to purchase a weapon. Like the lady you are talking about. Doctors are already required to let the DMV know about a person who has seizures, and are on medication. Why are they not identifying people who have a mental condition that makes them potentially dangerous to themselves and the general public?

Registration leads to confiscation. Haven't you been paying attention to what is going on in Connecticut?

Most of the people pushing legislation against the law abiding are attempting to do so one chip at a time until they reach their actual goal, and they freely admit it. Disarming this country isn't an option I would ever want to see. That isn't paranoia, that is a major concern as to where this country is going, or being led into.

 

Your suggestion on mental illness code is logical to me. I don't disagree with you on that and in fact any change that addresses the issues we have are welcome if they resolve some of the more blatant issues.

I don't see guns removed period. Never has been and never will be. That to me is not an option no matter what group wants it. The right to own a gun is a protected right and it is protected for good reason. I don't buy the militia argument but I do buy that across this country hunting for food and protection is more a necessity and a heritage and not just a over zealous hobby. That to me still applies.

 

That and there is a reason why we haven't been invaded by a hostile force set on dominating the country, because all the terrorists and dictator nut jobs know we are an armed nation. Just the fact we are armed makes the country a safer place.

 

I disagree with you on that. Maybe back in the cowboy days but not now. Guns are nothing against weapons of war and that is what an invasion would be. I would say guns are like bringing fingernail clippers to fight off a missile. That's why I think the militia aspect is pretty meaningless today. They are only as powerful as they pretend they are and only as long as no one fights back. There was a time when that was true though.

 

In the mean time the greatest force on Earth couldn't beat a bunch of rag tag cave dwellers in a decade.

Yes if there was a case where we were nuked into oblivion or they just wanted to totally annihilate us from above, and for some reason our own military went with them on it, civilian guns would do little. But in an armed invasion, hunting rifles and many of the hand guns in homes are exactly what soldiers would be taking to war.

If the lunatics finally rise to the surface and an all out war takes place here, you would be ill advised to not put any credit towards the ingenuity of the humans placed in a position that they must defend themselves to survive.

 

BB, I now realize that I only read what you posted. Did read the entire cited article this time. Again, thank you very interesting. I highlighted an interesting statement from the end of the article in quotes below . Why should a doctor pursue a line of questioning or desire to know what if any firearms a patient has or keeps in his/her home, when he counsels all his patient's on the safe operation and storage of firearms? WHY does he want to know who has firearms?

Sincerely I'm glad he runs a firearms safety training program within his medical practice. Amen to that. We should take his program to its logical conclusion and begin training all children in high school on operations and safe handling of firearms. We have children receiving instruction on all manners of sexuality why not the firearm trifecta too, nomenclature, safe operation/maintenance and storage. This will save lives!

 

I say the Nazis were leftists and out of the blue comes this odd screed about "my mentality" and how European nationalists have "anti-European sentiment" and I am supposedly a "Neocon."

Yeah - you are a troll.

 

Please - enough of your liberal rag articles. They prove nothing other than the left are angry at the NRA.

 

Then the Founding Fathers were abnormal. Open carry was common back then. Hunting, self-defense, fending off the Limeys, fending off Indian raids, keeping their farm animals from bandits.

You need to study US crime data --- BADLY. This isn't "to unarmed people." This is TO YOU. Nobody else. You do not represent anyone but you. You do not represent me before I was a gun owner.

This is a whole-cloth fabrication. Show us a source for this wild claim.

As soon as liberal politicians stop trying to pass legislation banning things which causes these runs. Until then, you're asking for it. Liberals TRIED to ban with Obama cheering them on, and thankfully there are still enough half-sane Democrats in the Senate that they killed their own bill while Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Pelosi, and Reed all blamed the NRA for it.

I think your fear mongering is out of control.

That explains that most murders are in liberal stronghold core cities. Tell us more.

Few people are stupid enough to do so. Why pretend otherwise?

Where do you get this nonsense from?

Good call. Who commits more murders? Criminals or a small number of highly-publicized weirdos who got their guns legally?

You fear things that don't even exist. You actually think most murders are committed by legal gun owners who lose it at the snap of a finger. You get that impression solely from the television. Turn it off. Network news is rotting your brain.