A discussion about gun ownership

[m.marino]

Freediver,

 The last two documents I have seen from the CDC (got to love alumni privileges) state that those who own guns are more likely to be more mentally stable than those who don't (Obama hates that paper since he ordered it to start the guns are a mental disorder gig). If you have a good solid peer reviewed document from them other wise please share it. Please don't quote Lancet as they are publishing some pretty bad crap these days.

Michael

[freediver]

Mr m.marino: Could you share those papers, please? Otherwise, it falls into the category of wishful thinking.

[freediver]

Mr gryphon: Your first post about the guy being an idiot is just opinioneering. I think he makes some valid points. You don't. Having actually been in the Air National Guard, I can assure you that such an entity did indeed flow out of the initial militias. The National and Air National Guard are commanded and led by the governor of each state. The active duty military and the reserves are a federal force. The NG and ANG are in place so that not all the military power is concentrated in DC's hands. So yes, they are the militia.

As to the second post, I don't remember a mention of Gary Fleck. I will do some searching and see what he writes. Thanks for the tip.

[m.marino]

Freediver,

Here is one that took less than five minutes with Google. i did not even have to use my access to Medline.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

If I get so more time will post more but it is late and need to be up early tomorrow.

Michael

[freediver]

Mr m.marino: It's a great article, so thanks. I've only skimmed it; long travel day today. I'll give some necessary attention tomorrow.

Cheers.

[bigt8261]

Mr bigt: I have yet to see a peer-reviewed paper presented here or anywhere else that shows a direct correlation between more guns = less crime. I've seen articles written by gun-favorable entities, I've seen a lot of speculation and wishful thinking. But not one article by a non-biased reputable research agency, a criminologist, a sociologist, a reputable government agency, or anyone else. If you have such articles I would love to see them to educate myself.

Myself and others have provided numerous to you. I specifically have linked multiple on multiple occasions. At this point I'm going to take a page out of your book and just say go read what I've written. If you are not going to read responses, then you cannot be part of the conversation.

[part deux]

When I think more guns and more access, I think our wild wild west, Somalia and other parts of Africa, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, Siberia, and redneck stupidity. hardly the models for a successful society.

Private ownership of guns is not allowed in Afghanistan

In Somalia, only licensed gun owners12 17 11 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

In Afghanistan, carrying a gun in a public place is regulated by law13

In Pakistan, only licensed gun owners43 44 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Since Siberia isn't a country... Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Russia are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security2

All of your examples have stricter gun laws than the referenced wild wild west.

Do you even fact check any of the lies your organization puts out?

Is it lies or agenda?

[gryphon]

Mr gryphon: Your first post about the guy being an idiot is just opinioneering.

I disagree.  He's one of those who thinks 2A is a collective right, that 26 of the provisions in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but 1 is not, that it is only a collective right of the militia, is both ludicrous and dishonest and shows that he is an idiot.  SCOTUS agrees.

“Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service.” — U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." — U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, March 9, 2007

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." — Alan Dershowitz

Having actually been in the Air National Guard, I can assure you that such an entity did indeed flow out of the initial militias.

Yes, with the Dick Act of 1903.  Congress created that out of whole cloth.  We had state militias, but many militias refused to be federalized at various times, and others who were were often found to lack in training, standardization, and leader qualifications, so Congress created an "organized" militia which now included the pre-existing National Guard.  Now they could get more federal money.  Yay.

“To see that the people be continually trained up in the exercise of arms, and the militia lodged only in the people's hands.” — John Adams