DaVinci

No, if it is gone I do not get to keep it. If it changes, I did not get to keep it.

Very good. And guns != Suicide. Yes, your own source stated only 5% tried to use a firearm to commit suicide. 75% used drugs. If you really cared about stopping suicide, you would work on stopping suicide, not taking firearms from the

Don't read much history do you? You do know that Washington was British...Right? When you take the oath of enlistment.... It states foreign OR domestic. To ignore history is ludicrous. To ignore intent is ludicrous.

And most of the people who die by firearm are the result of freedom of choice. Half are suicides ~15K. That leaves about another 15K and the majority of those are people who are engaging in criminal activity... Normally drug related. Out of 30K deaths, about half are suicides (directly freedom of choice - just like smoking). Of the 15k left, ~3K are accidents (again freedom of choice - just like smoking). That leaves 10-14K which about 90% are people who CHOOSE to be involved in criminal activity.... (Again, freedom of choice - Just like smoking). For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average! The group of legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100k. So when we really boil it down, it is a few thousand that are innocent and killed by firearms. Stopping smoking would save more lives.

And others value every amendment BUT the 2nd, and those people self-identify as liberal.

No, he wants to test people who meet certain criteria. You want to do the same with gun ownership. You support making people jump through hoops as long as it meets your desired goal.

Canada tried it and finally admitted it was a gigantic failure. CA has it and also has 60% of the gun crime in the US. And finally, you ignore the real reason for the 2nd... To protect against an unjust govt. This has been decided already. You can try to blame the NRA, but pretty much none of the criminals that are using guns are members of the NRA.

Yep. Remember you only want to count gun deaths and ignore all other methods? Full stop. In one case you want to only count culture and then in another you want to discount it and blame an object? Yes, access to firearms makes using a firearm easier. That is simple logic. But what you want to discount is that firearms are also used in self defense at a higher rate than in crime (according to CDC/Institute of Medicine and National Research Council report) And what you always fail to consider is that banning an item does not make it go away. And making citizens jump through hoops to own something is not going to slow a criminal. The 18th Amendment and the crime rate in DC, Chicago and CA should prove that. CA has gun laws that liberals spout as a model for the nation, but they also have over 60% of the gun crime for the entire Country.

Ah, you are fine with illegal drugs. Never mind that drug abuse takes more lives than guns. Heck smoking kills WAY more than guns. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking (CDC). You could save 413,000 lives by banning smoking instead of guns.... But wait, there is more. Suicides account for 48% of firearm deaths and studies have shown that suicide rates do not change based on gun restrictions. After suicides are removed from the pile (since they statistically happen anyway) we have 15,600 deaths. 443,000 smoking deaths compared to 15,600 gun deaths? Are you sure you really just want to save lives? 427,400 more people could be saved by banning smoking over guns.

All very nice. But you don't have guns in Japan and they have a higher rate of suicide. So guns != suicide. "Also, suicide attempts using firearms, which constitute just 5% of all fatal and non-fatal attempts" So according to your OWN source, firearms are only used in 5% of attempts. Drugs however are used in 75%. If you wanted to claim they assist, you might have a valid argument, but to claim they CAUSE it is a stretch at best. And that first report only tracks SUCCESS not attempts. So if you wanted to claim that firearms are effective, you would have a valid argument. But you are not tracking attempts. Firearms are effective... No one disputes that. They are also quite effective in defending a home according to the most recent study prompted by Obama: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1 “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).” The same study said to "have found consistently lower rates of injury among gun using crime victims"

Only in your mind. You claimed we would get to keep it, that did not prove to be true.

And you are wrong. It has already started to happen. It amazes me how you think you know more about me and my life than me. I'll lose it if they drop it. If they quit offering it, I am forced to drop it. Your logic... Isn't

Fair, but you can't really consider gun suicides as "Gun Violence" any more than you could claim suicides as "Pill Violence" or "Rope Violence". Plus in areas with stronger gun laws, suicide rates do not change. When Canada passed stricter gun laws GUN suicides went down, but the suicide rate did not. So using suicides as "Gun Violence" is dishonest.

So does Obama come to mind? How about Michael Froman, nominated by Obama to be the U.S. trade representative? Does Bill Clinton come to mind? "Bill Clinton, 61, has a financial stake in three investment entities registered in the Cayman Islands by Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. LLC."

False: "The level of propaganda surrounding this thing is mind blowing. You guys claim to be so upset with how its going to affect you, and yet have absolutely no idea what it is actually going to do." From you.... So you claim I don't know what it is going to do. Then you claim: But the you claim: So you just contradicted yourself.

If you include suicides... the 3 tens. But you can't prove that suicides would go down (Look at Japan, practically zero guns but higher suicide rates). So that leaves about 11k a year. The majority of those are black on black crime. And the majority of those were from people that are not allowed to own firearms using CURRENT law. Fantasy. You may want to believe in magic, but the rest of us know reality. If your dream worked, there would be no drug problem in the US.

There is data with fewer guns.... Just look at 20 years ago compare to today. And then look at murder rates for both sections of time. And you will see your position is proven false. Ah yes.... When beaten with facts you start acting like that.

Again, I don't think you have been to Yemen. And so do I.... And I think I am more likely to survive an attack if I am armed. Having an AR also makes me happy. So you think your rights trump mine? AGAIN, how did the work with the 18th Amendment or making pot illegal? ANSWER: It didn't And more guns are in the US than ever before, and crime rates are going DOWN. Explain that if you can. More States allow concealed carry (All now that IL was required by the 7th circuit court).... and yet will more legal carry, crime has gone DOWN... Explain that if you can.

You have a false notion of market forces. And others lost coverage, other had their coverage change. That is NOT the same as 'you can keep it' What is funny is I know EXACTLY what it is going to do since it has already started. The funny thing is how YOU claim to know what it is going to do to me..... You have no idea, yet you claim to know about my insurance.

And then you can't stop a criminal from breaking the law and getting a gun illegally. 1. The Constitution is pretty clear. 2. The 18th Amendment didn't work 3. The war on drugs didn't work. So not only is your goal against the constitution, but every time your goal has been tried it has been an utter failure. And that is how I feel about you. Removing my right to own a firearm is not going to remove a gun from a criminal. Trying to outlaw them has been shown not to work.... DC has higher crime rates than any other city per capita. I take your words and show that your data is flawed and your process faulty. And you think that you can stop a criminal from breaking the law.... Again, using your logic it should be impossible to get pot but we all know that it is easy to find pot on a DZ. And yet we have data that proves you wrong.... Yet you just ignore it, along with the Constitution. Your dream requires that criminals actually follow the law.

***In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States /quote] Let me just start by saying I think the stop and frisk was crap and glad it was tossed out. I do think it should of been on 4th amendment grounds alone with nothing to do about racism. Now that being said.... Careful with stats. You want to claim that this is racist and provide stats.... BUT, I can provide stats that show that blacks are almost TWICE as likely to commit a gun crime. Black 16.9 per 100k White 9.2 per 100k So if you wanted to stop gun crime, you would support targeting blacks over whites.... They have a higher gun crime rate. Further, you should be upset at handguns and not so called "assault rifles" According to the FBI, only about 323 TOTAL deaths were from rifles of ALL types. And again, recent stats have shown that guns are used in self defense at least as often as they are used for evil.... So stats are good, but you need to be careful. Using stats it would be easy to justify targeting blacks for additional scrutiny. Again, before you try and make some BS claim about me.... I am GLAD the stop and frisk was thrown out... On 4th Amendment grounds alone. I just wish some of you that claim to support the 1st and 4th would give 1/3rd the protection to the 2nd.

False, my plan and my wife's plan has changed. Several other people who had insurance had their plans change. So your claim that it has no effect is false. The people who voted for it and the people that support them should be subject to it, not exempted from it. Same with the unions that supported it.

And we can dream of a day when people stop blaming the objects for the actions of people. And we can dream of the day when people who are afraid of an object do not show that fear by calling for the elimination of that object. When their real issue is the actions of a few people.

Nor have I.... I guess our guns must all be defective. And that is strange since I own more than one semi auto with detachable magazine and even a few machine-guns.

Move to the UK, problem solved.